[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
Wow just the last 3 years? How convenient for you. People have justified killing innocent people in the past with the bible. That’s a fact. Because it hasn’t happened in a while doesn’t erase that fact.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Ha I might save this for later use.
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
You’re just arguing in circles. [/quote]
No, you’re just ignoring any point I make.
lol, no. You’re attacking people that lived hundreds of years ago in order to call any Christian today that condemns the actions of Muslims as a hypocrite. You admit so yourself in this very thread.
The rub is that what Christians did or didn’t do 800 or so years ago isn’t fucking relevant to what radical Muslims are doing today. You refuse to see this, and at this point I’m convinced it is because you don’t like Christians.
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]JR249 wrote:
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
Do you think a non Christian could be elected as president in America?[/quote]
In 2016 and beyond, yes, I do personally. In previous elections, perhaps not so much.
[/quote]
Why this response when a non-Christian has already been elected in 2008 and 2012?[/quote]
An overt non-Christian. [/quote]
Even though he’s on record saying nice Christian-like things, Thomas Jefferson was known to be a deist and accused of being anti-Christian by his contemporary detractors.[/quote]
I don’t know how I forgot about him, considering I own a Jefferson bible. The number of Americans who are aware of his deism is small indeed. I doubt that 1 in 20 Americans even know what deism is.
[/quote]
Christianity was the fundamental framework through which the colonists lived their lives. It dominated every aspect of their lives and the social structures of their communities. When they went to the polls in 1800 they were voting for decentralisation and a pro-French policy against the incumbent federalists. Jefferson’s personal religious convictions were unimportant to the voters. My point was, hmm87 suggested that a non-Christian could not get elected. I was saying that yes, a non-Christian could get elected today - indeed, for the vast majority of Christians Barack Obama is not believed to be a practicing Christian. His support is as low as 17% amongst Mormons for example. Obama is widely seen as an anti-Christian President and some even believe he’s a Muslim. So yes today. And yes back Jefferson’s day.
[/quote]
A better question would just be do you think a practicing jewish/buddhist/muslim/hindu could get elected (listed in order of % of our population). There is too much grey area between an atheist and a bad practicing member of a religion.[/quote]
Jewish, maybe, Muslim, yes, if he was black democrat and wasn’t too overt with it (as non-PC as that is to say), the others, no.[/quote]
The answer depends on whether a big machine gets behind said candidate.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]JR249 wrote:
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
Do you think a non Christian could be elected as president in America?[/quote]
In 2016 and beyond, yes, I do personally. In previous elections, perhaps not so much.
[/quote]
Why this response when a non-Christian has already been elected in 2008 and 2012?[/quote]
An overt non-Christian. [/quote]
Even though he’s on record saying nice Christian-like things, Thomas Jefferson was known to be a deist and accused of being anti-Christian by his contemporary detractors.[/quote]
I don’t know how I forgot about him, considering I own a Jefferson bible. The number of Americans who are aware of his deism is small indeed. I doubt that 1 in 20 Americans even know what deism is.
[/quote]
Christianity was the fundamental framework through which the colonists lived their lives. It dominated every aspect of their lives and the social structures of their communities. When they went to the polls in 1800 they were voting for decentralisation and a pro-French policy against the incumbent federalists. Jefferson’s personal religious convictions were unimportant to the voters. My point was, hmm87 suggested that a non-Christian could not get elected. I was saying that yes, a non-Christian could get elected today - indeed, for the vast majority of Christians Barack Obama is not believed to be a practicing Christian. His support is as low as 17% amongst Mormons for example. Obama is widely seen as an anti-Christian President and some even believe he’s a Muslim. So yes today. And yes back Jefferson’s day.
[/quote]
A better question would just be do you think a practicing jewish/buddhist/muslim/hindu could get elected (listed in order of % of our population). There is too much grey area between an atheist and a bad practicing member of a religion.[/quote]
Jewish, maybe, Muslim, yes, if he was black democrat and wasn’t too overt with it (as non-PC as that is to say), the others, no.[/quote]
The answer depends on whether a big machine gets behind said candidate.
[/quote]
This also.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]JR249 wrote:
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
Do you think a non Christian could be elected as president in America?[/quote]
In 2016 and beyond, yes, I do personally. In previous elections, perhaps not so much.
[/quote]
Why this response when a non-Christian has already been elected in 2008 and 2012?[/quote]
An overt non-Christian. [/quote]
Even though he’s on record saying nice Christian-like things, Thomas Jefferson was known to be a deist and accused of being anti-Christian by his contemporary detractors.[/quote]
I don’t know how I forgot about him, considering I own a Jefferson bible. The number of Americans who are aware of his deism is small indeed. I doubt that 1 in 20 Americans even know what deism is.
[/quote]
Christianity was the fundamental framework through which the colonists lived their lives. It dominated every aspect of their lives and the social structures of their communities. When they went to the polls in 1800 they were voting for decentralisation and a pro-French policy against the incumbent federalists. Jefferson’s personal religious convictions were unimportant to the voters. My point was, hmm87 suggested that a non-Christian could not get elected. I was saying that yes, a non-Christian could get elected today - indeed, for the vast majority of Christians Barack Obama is not believed to be a practicing Christian. His support is as low as 17% amongst Mormons for example. Obama is widely seen as an anti-Christian President and some even believe he’s a Muslim. So yes today. And yes back Jefferson’s day.
[/quote]
A better question would just be do you think a practicing jewish/buddhist/muslim/hindu could get elected (listed in order of % of our population). There is too much grey area between an atheist and a bad practicing member of a religion.[/quote]
Muslim - yes
Hindu - yes
Buddhist - yes
Jewish - maybe. If s/he was widely believed to be indifferent to Israel or maybe even hostile to Israel then yes, they could be elected. If there were seen to be supportive of Israel then I think that would greatly harm them and destroy their chances.
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Mr. Obama just referred to this as workplace violence.
I will bet a great swath in Paris support this. Paris has turned into a multiculturalism shithole.
Australia, Canda, France… “Muslims Acting Badly”, coming to a theater near you. [/quote]
Well, Europeans are racist as hell. So, I expect the citizens to act out and burn down a few mosques over this. [/quote]
Good. Give them a taste of their own medicine. The “moderate” muslims are just as guilty as the crazy ones. They KNOW who the crazy ones are. But they turn a blind eye to the craziness. Next thing you know, people are getting killed.
We need to have a ZERO TOLERANCE policy towards radical RELIGION (christians blowing up abortion clinics are JUST as fucked up as muslims blowing shit up).
RELIGION is not a reason to KILL people. We need to move towards a more secular society and place significant restrictions on religion. [/quote]
There’s lots of things people get pissed off about that get people killed. None of it is ok. Let’s not get into the body count of ideologies, because noone is immune. Atheism has a pretty high body count associated with it’s own ideological predicates.
All of that is off topic.
The problem, right now, is not religion. It’s Islam. There’s far to many crazies in it for it to be a fringe movement with in the religion. Far to much murder over pettiness and far to much support for that murder for it to be considered a ‘fringe’.
Until we get real honest about the problem, we won’t even begin to solve it. They won’t solve it themselves and if they kept to themselves that wouldn’t be a problem, but they don’t they take it out on everybody else.
As long as we keep pussyfooting around trying to separate ‘radicals’ from the rest we’re not dealing with the problem.
The problem is to wide spread to be a ‘fringe’ movement. It’s at the point where if they aren’t willing to stand up and clean their own house, then we will do it for them and they won’t like the way we do it. Unless we get honest about it, we’re going to keep stacking up our own bodies.
It’s not our job to educate and understand their culture and religion, it’s their job to peacefully co-exist with the rest of the world. If they are unwilling to do that, then fuck’em. We shall do what we must. But until we wake the fuck up and be honest about what’s going on, we will continue to deceive our politically correct selves at our own peril.
I am not waiting on Islam to clean up their own mess, I am waiting on the world to wake the fuck up to the reality of the people who hold that ideology.[/quote]
What does Christianity teach about situations such as this?
[/quote]
What situation? Being offended by somebody or nut jobs who kill a bunch of people who were offended? And what does Christianity have to do with any of it in the first place?
Christianity isn’t the bulwark of world wide terrorism. Christians aren’t going to fucking kill you if you write something, draw something, sing a song about something, make a movie about something that offends our sensibilities. People offend us, snear at us, insult us, and persecute us all the time, no terrorism results from it.
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
The problem, right now, is not religion. It’s Islam. There’s far to many crazies in it for it to be a fringe movement with in the religion. Far to much murder over pettiness and far to much support for that murder for it to be considered a ‘fringe’.[/quote]
The same was true for Christianity back in the Middle Ages. Muslims allowed Christians and Jews to live in their land so long as they paid a special non-Muslim tax. Christians just murdered every Jews and Muslims that lived in their land.
The point is- They did so because Islam was the religion of the dominant power of that particular era. Muslims felt confident and secure in their power and so allowed free-thought and inventiveness free reign. Christians, on the other hand, felt besieged and that they were perpetually in danger. So they became insular with their culture and became radical in defending it.
Now the position is reversed. That’s really all there is to it.
Radical conservatism becomes more prevalent when the common people feel weak and in danger. Radical liberalism becomes more prevalent when the common people feel stronger and not in danger.[/quote]
Your history lacks, first of all. Second, what the hell does what Christians did in the middle ages have shit to do with right now?
[quote]pat wrote:
Second, what the hell does what Christians did in the middle ages have shit to do with right now?[/quote]
There is like 4 posters hung up on this and they can’t seem to explain how it is at all relevant.
I know what AC does it…
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
The problem, right now, is not religion. It’s Islam. There’s far to many crazies in it for it to be a fringe movement with in the religion. Far to much murder over pettiness and far to much support for that murder for it to be considered a ‘fringe’.[/quote]
The same was true for Christianity back in the Middle Ages. Muslims allowed Christians and Jews to live in their land so long as they paid a special non-Muslim tax. Christians just murdered every Jews and Muslims that lived in their land.
The point is- They did so because Islam was religion of the dominant power of that particular era. Muslims felt confident and secure in their power and so allowed free-thought and inventiveness free reign. Christians, on the other hand, felt besieged and that they were perpetually in danger. So they became insular with their culture and became radical in defending it.
Now the position is reversed. That’s really all there is to it.
Radical conservatism becomes more prevalent when the common people feel weak and in danger. Radical liberalism becomes more prevalent when the common people feel stronger and not in danger.[/quote]
that was a long time ago so it doesn’t count
[/quote]
Well the group of ‘people who hate religion’ had a pretty epic body count in the 20th century. If your all worked up on who did what, when; don’t forget the deicidal maniacs just a few decades back. They murdered many millions.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Second, what the hell does what Christians did in the middle ages have shit to do with right now?[/quote]
There is like 4 posters hung up on this and they can’t seem to explain how it is at all relevant.
I know what AC does it… [/quote]
It serves the purpose of allowing them to think that all religions and religious people are ultimately evil, therefore confirming their biases and allowing them to put their fingers in their ears and stop their feet while screaming “HYPOCRIT, Christians Suck”. Pretty much the only purpose.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
The problem, right now, is not religion. It’s Islam. There’s far to many crazies in it for it to be a fringe movement with in the religion. Far to much murder over pettiness and far to much support for that murder for it to be considered a ‘fringe’.[/quote]
The same was true for Christianity back in the Middle Ages. Muslims allowed Christians and Jews to live in their land so long as they paid a special non-Muslim tax. Christians just murdered every Jews and Muslims that lived in their land.
The point is- They did so because Islam was religion of the dominant power of that particular era. Muslims felt confident and secure in their power and so allowed free-thought and inventiveness free reign. Christians, on the other hand, felt besieged and that they were perpetually in danger. So they became insular with their culture and became radical in defending it.
Now the position is reversed. That’s really all there is to it.
Radical conservatism becomes more prevalent when the common people feel weak and in danger. Radical liberalism becomes more prevalent when the common people feel stronger and not in danger.[/quote]
that was a long time ago so it doesn’t count
[/quote]
Jesus Fucking Christ… Sitting here saying “but da jesus folks did some bad shit a couple hundred years ago” certainly goes a long fucking way to not only explain current radicle elements of Islam, but also does a bang up job of solving the fucking issue.
I swear to god some of you are so hung up on shitting on Judeo-Christian religions you can’t see your ass from your elbow. [/quote]
That was sheer poetry… Brought a tear to my eye and everything 
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Second, what the hell does what Christians did in the middle ages have shit to do with right now?[/quote]
There is like 4 posters hung up on this and they can’t seem to explain how it is at all relevant.
I know what AC does it… [/quote]
It serves the purpose of allowing them to think that all religions and religious people are ultimately evil, therefore confirming their biases and allowing them to put their fingers in their ears and stop their feet while screaming “HYPOCRIT, Christians Suck”. Pretty much the only purpose.
[/quote]
I think part of it is to try and impress that all religions are equal too. They aren’t. They just aren’t.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I firmly disagree.
One can easily come up with such a basic definition which corrals all Catholics and Protestants.[/quote]
From a scriptural standpoint, yes, my argument is that you and I, even as believers, have no way to know if the POTUS is a born again Christian or not. If we accept that God is real and scripture is accurate, no human has the capacity to know, definitively, whether or not another human being is redeemed.
You can throw out the “evaluate one by the fruits of his words and actions,” but then again not one among us could say that s/he hasn’t engaged in behaviors that would have given observers reason to question his or her religiosity, e.g., Paul’s infamous quote that “Christ came into the world to redeem sinners; of whom I am chief.”
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]BPCorso wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Mr. Obama just referred to this as workplace violence.
I will bet a great swath in Paris support this. Paris has turned into a multiculturalism shithole.
Australia, Canda, France… “Muslims Acting Badly”, coming to a theater near you. [/quote]
Well, Europeans are racist as hell. So, I expect the citizens to act out and burn down a few mosques over this. [/quote]
Good. Give them a taste of their own medicine. The “moderate” muslims are just as guilty as the crazy ones. They KNOW who the crazy ones are. But they turn a blind eye to the craziness. Next thing you know, people are getting killed.
We need to have a ZERO TOLERANCE policy towards radical RELIGION (christians blowing up abortion clinics are JUST as fucked up as muslims blowing shit up).
RELIGION is not a reason to KILL people. We need to move towards a more secular society and place significant restrictions on religion. [/quote]
I’ve been thinking this way recently but more specifically toward Islam (surprise). Since more than three quarters of the world is not Muslim we should all demand that parts of the Koran be changed, outlawed and of course no longer taught.
I really think the only way to stop terrorism though is if we had a real asshole of a POTUS who would politely explain to the Islam world that if there is another organized terrorist attack anywhere in the world X city would disappear from the map. The city could rotate. One month we could announce the nukes are aimed at Tehran, the next month it could be Kabul. A nice little monthly announcement like “People of Islam, this month the citizens of Istanbul are counting on you to put an end to terrorism”. Make all of Islam our unwilling allies in the fight against terror.
Sigh… one can fantasize, right?[/quote]
About mass murder? Why not?[/quote]
They’ve got NO problem whatsoever murdering us, why should we have any qualms about murdering them? And besides, in that scenario, they are WARNED what will happen. If they choose to do it anyway, that’s on them. Last time I checked, they kill us indiscriminately and without warning.
We nuked the shit out of Japan twice, and it ended WWII in the Pacific. Why all of a sudden do we have a problem doing the same thing?
Let us win your hearts and minds, or we’ll burn your damn huts down![/quote]
Committing genocide against millions of people in response to a terrorist attack is absurd and I know both you and On Edge are aware of that. The thought process is disturbing though.
[/quote]What I find disturbing is that we let these fuckers operate freely. Just because they hide in a country that is our “ally”. Fuck Pakistan - those fucker hid Bin Laden. Bomb the shit out of them. Fuck Iran, those fuckers are funding most of the terrorists around the world. Bomb the shit out of them. If these fuckers had a CONSEQUENCE for supporting terrorism and giving terrorists safe haven, then perhaps they would run out of money and places to train. If we made it so painful for the countries that allow this, we would eventually stamp that shit out. [quote]
The people of Tehran, Kabul, and Istanbul (cities referenced in OE’s post) have nothing to do with al-Qaeda in Yemen (people responsible for the Paris terrorism). Nuking a random city with a majority muslim population is not remotely close to what happened in WW2. Japan was in open war with us and directly responsible for PH, the people of Instanbul are not in open war with us nor are they responsible for the actions of al-Queda in Yemen. Further, if you think this scenario would result in the ending of terrorism you are sorely mistaken.
It’s utterly ridiculous to suggest nuking Istanbul in response to 12 people dying at the hands of an organization with absolutely no ties to that city. “They” cannot refer to a group of over 1 billion people. If we want to be tough guys, we use strategic attacks against hotbeds of terrorism. The USA has complicated relationships with the GCC countries and Pakistan and that limits us from fighting terrorism. To be clear, I am totally against these bullshit relationships and have for a long time disagreed with the USA playing nice with certain countries and not demanding more accountability b/c of the shaky alliances we have.
One billion people do not act as a homogeneous unit. Should we bomb a random ghetto in New Orleans b/c a black person in California murdered a white person? Should we blow up the Oklahoma City PD b/c a cop in NYC illegitimately murdered a civilian?[/quote]
Let’s use a similar analogy: if a member of the “G crew” from Greenmount and 33rd in Baltimore crossed a line and blew up a shop on the west side, any SANE person would probably not be walking out on the street near Greenmount and 33rd the next day because they would KNOW that the West side niggas would be turning that shit into a war zone. Notice, that DOESN’T HAPPEN very often, does it? Because there is a CONSEQUENCE. These terrorists don’t have CONSEQUENCES.
But we KNOW who funds them. We KNOW where they train. We KNOW who is in bed with them! But we do NOTHING. We smile and sell them airplanes, weapons and buy their oil. It’s fucking BULLSHIT.[/quote]
Dude, I’m not against going after people responsible for a terrorist attack. Nor am I against giving real consequences to nations and allies who allow terrorism to happen under their noses (that’s something I rant about a lot on here). What I’m against is the notion of nuking a pre-determined city in response to any future terrorist attack, which was the exact scenario in question. In addition to being anti-terrorism, I also think the world is overpopulated. But no way is it reasonable to exterminate millions of people in response to an event they had no control over.
“But we KNOW who funds them. We KNOW where they train. We KNOW who is in bed with them! But we do NOTHING. We smile and sell them airplanes, weapons and buy their oil. It’s fucking BULLSHIT.”
I am in complete agreement. Why don’t we attack al-Qaeda in Yemen directly, and forget nuking Islamabad? I imagine b/t Israeli and USA intelligence, we have a pretty good idea where al-Qaeda operates in Yemen and a general idea of where they’re getting money.
Finally, we’re fucking better than terrorists. We can’t reduce our standards of morality and civility b/c others have chosen to be barbarians. That doesn’t equate to being pussies, it just means eschewing barbaric practices.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You can just as easily have people that want murder and write (or don’t write) their secular laws to reflect that. Secularity doesn’t lead to any specific laws. You haven’t added anything to the observation of what already is and isn’t.
[/quote]
How can you just as easily have people who want murder not written in their laws? It goes against the chemical reactions in our brains that help survival. Its not true that you can “just as easily” have something when our natural laws tend to go away from it.
[quote]BPCorso wrote:
Finally, we’re fucking better than terrorists.[/quote]
I don’t know about that, simply based on this thread alone I’m hesitant to agree.
In a matter of degrees, yes. We typically don’t respond to terror attacks with more terror. We do however abandon our founding principles and strip freedom real damn quick.
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Second, what the hell does what Christians did in the middle ages have shit to do with right now?[/quote]
There is like 4 posters hung up on this and they can’t seem to explain how it is at all relevant.
I know what AC does it… [/quote]
It serves the purpose of allowing them to think that all religions and religious people are ultimately evil, therefore confirming their biases and allowing them to put their fingers in their ears and stop their feet while screaming “HYPOCRIT, Christians Suck”. Pretty much the only purpose.
[/quote]
Yeah, it gets kind of old when every single time you try to discuss terrorism, which happens to be done by muslim radicals every single fucking time, you get the ol’ “Oh yeah! Well Christians did a bunch of bad shit too… 'long time ago. So you’re just as bad as those whacked out, bitch-beating, rag wearing, bomb making, plane hi-jacking, random person killing, Jew hating, cave dwelling, car bomb driving, journalist beheading, oil swilling, 72 virgin wanting, carpet riding, torture loving, little girl raping, child flogging, honor killing, clitoris removing, body dragging, mecca facing, sharia having, cartoon fearing, rock rubbing, non-showering, prayer yodeling, wahhabi being, women hating, dress wearing, daughter raping, goat fucking, violence loving, dick sucking, America hating, piece of shit islamic terrorists you’re complaining about!”
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Let’s use a similar analogy: if a member of the “G crew” from Greenmount and 33rd in Baltimore crossed a line and blew up a shop on the west side, any SANE person would probably not be walking out on the street near Greenmount and 33rd the next day because they would KNOW that the West side niggas would be turning that shit into a war zone. Notice, that DOESN’T HAPPEN very often, does it? Because there is a CONSEQUENCE. These terrorists don’t have CONSEQUENCES.
[/quote]
Yes, but in this WIRE-esq analogy the West side boys are giving consequences to the East side boys who caused the beef. I’m all for going after the East-side boys (al-Qaeda in Yemen) who perpetrated this terrorist attack. The West side Baltimore people didn’t turn a DC 'hood into a warzone, b/c the DC people had nothing to do with it even if they share some basic 'hood culture with the East side guys.
That’s all I’ll say on the matter. I don’t want to come off as being sensitive to terrorists and people in muslim countries who wish us ill-will. I’m just against indiscriminate nuking of pre-determined cities and the logic supporting it.
[quote]BPCorso wrote:
I’m just against indiscriminate nuking of pre-determined cities and the logic supporting it.[/quote]
Fucking appeaser.