- This topic has 6 voices and 61 replies.
-
Posts
-
I am watching news about the shootings in Fort Hood yesterday and have to say that I am disgusted both by the shootings and the way the news is characterizing it.The excuses for the gunman are already starting, he was harassed, he had secondary PTSD from talking to combat vets, he was fighting his upcoming deployment and frustrated. The news is doing everyhting to paint this as anything but possibly religiously or ideologically motivated. Do people in America really believe that the average Muslim is some cuddly tolerant individual that discounts everything intolerant regarding infidels in the Koran? ??? ??? When are we in the west going to really confront the idea that Islam itself is the problem? It is an intolerant religion whose adherents feel that they are duty bound to impose their religion on the world. the decline of the west continues with this event and the way the media is portraying it.
When are we in the west going to really confront the idea that Islam itself is the problem?
Because it's not. Radical Islam is the problem, just like radical of any religion.I do agree that only FOX so far has identified the shooter as a Muslim, and I do think this is likely a terrorist plot as this is one of the things al Qaeda said it was going to do, infiltrate military institutions.Did anyone catch Obama's address about this? Apparently it took him 2 minutes into a speech before he said anything. Prior to mentioning it, he was saying hi to certain members of the audience and received applause for some statements. This president disgusts me.
After watching the news, I bet this guy radicalized himself. Unfortunately, the Killeen PD or whoever shot him need marksmanship training because they shot him four times and he survived.I disagree, Islam is the problem. Witness the riots when the Muhammed cartoons were published, that is not the reaction you get from the Chriatian man on the street. Granted only a minority of Muslims commit these acts but they are supported by the vast majority of Muslims. No other modern religion makes the claims that Islam does. And dont even start with Old Testament atrocities, the New Testament is operative for Christians and it does not snaction killing those who dont believe or refuse to convert. The Koran does.
Don't expect any religion or religious people to be rational. By definition religion is irrational. Someone said, years ago, that religion was the opium of the people ("the opiate of the masses"). 😛
scout, read some of Increase Mathers' and Thomas Sheperd's preaching. They used Christianity to justify killing the “heathen” Indians? It took Roger Williams' preaching to point out that they were acting less Christ-like than the Indians were. What about some of the actions of the church during the Middle Ages? Neither of these examples are OT.There are radicals and radical interpretations in every religion. Religion or a specific religion is not the problem.
but they are supported by the vast majority of Muslims
Prove this
Don't expect any religion or religious people to be rational. By definition religion is irrational. Someone said, years ago, that religion was the opium of the people ("the opiate of the masses"). 😛
Karl Marx. I seem to remember that was a gereralization... as long as the people had religion it would be difficult to get them to be sufficiently angry to revolt. While that can be irrational, not exactly the type that leads to murder and terrorism.
Look at the time of Reformation, especially in France where wars of religion occurred for more than 30 years ! Even before, between Rome and Constantinople, you had that schism dividing Christians !I don't even talk about the polemic regarding the relationship between Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust has long been controversial, with some scholars arguing that he kept silent during the Holocaust, while others have argued that he saved thousands if not tens or hundreds of thousands of Jews.Why Turkey, Egypt, Algeria and other Muslim countries are struggling against their clerics trying to promote a religious policy ruling every aspects of the society? That's the reason for the decline of the Muslim world and the current danger awaiting these countries.
Good points, all. Marx was commenting on religion being able to keep the folks focused on their own salvation and docile to get there. Your point is about gov'ts or leaders that can, have, do and will continue to use religion not as an opiate (to sooth the great unwashed) but as meth to hyp them up.
I dont know that the Hood shootings were inspired by radical islam but suspect that they were and will not be surprised to find out that they were.Ski,You cannot defend present actions of Muslims by citing historical atrocities by Christians. I will freely admit that Christians have done bad things in the past but I don?t recall any Christians committing pogroms on religious grounds in recent history. The Muslims do it though.
but they are supported by the vast majority of Muslims
Prove this
Ok, here are some examples of popular Muslim support for Terrorist activities: Some young U.S. Muslims approve suicide hits , London Muslims ?Celebrate? 9/11 , Lockerbie bomber gets Hero?s welcome, This is an interesting timeline of the Mohammed cartoon controversy , and lastly Iran sponsored a contest for the most insulting cartoon of Christianity in 2006 after the Danish cartoon deal. There are plenty of instances where Muslims have demonstrated popular support for terrorism or violently protested what they consider insults to Islam, but for the life of me I cannot remember a single mass violent demonstration by Christians in response to Muslim attacks or cartoons. I would agree that terrorist attacks are committed by a minority but they receive support and encouragement from the Muslim man on the street. A similar phenomenon does not happen in the Christian west. If Christians were to perpetrate terrorist attacks on the Muslim world him and his group would be condemned and hunted down by Christians as well as Muslims, history shows that the converse is not true.
I dont know that the Hood shootings were inspired by radical islam but suspect that they were and will not be surprised to find out that they were.
Nor would I.
You cannot defend present actions of Muslims by citing historical atrocities by Christians.
I'm not defending anybody. You say not to use OT examples, so I used more recent onesSo when is the allowable cutoff time? 1920s? 1950s? 2000? The LRA. Now there's a more recent group.
but I don?t recall any Christians committing pogroms on religious grounds in recent history. The Muslims do it though.
Are you kidding? What about the (mainly) Religious Right's support of Israel and condemnation of the Palestinians. Are you going to tell me this isn't based on religious beliefs? What about the (mainly) Right's rhetoric of the GWOT = the Crusades? What about the (mainly) Right's condemnation of the second largest religion in the world? And when have the Muslims committed pogroms against Christianity or Judaism?As to the rest, don't some view the killing of abortion doctors as relilgiously motivated? Don't some view the general Christian opposition to abortion as being "supportive" of these killings? It's somewhat the same with Muslim "support" of Islamic terrorism, IMO. Hatred of the West is what motivates terrorists. The Muslims who would not commit these acts BUT STILL HATE THE WEST are not supporting the terrorists anymore than a Christian who opposes abortions is supporting a murderer of an abortion doctor
The Muslims who would not commit these acts BUT STILL HATE THE WEST are not supporting the terrorists anymore than a Christian who opposes abortions is supporting a murderer of an abortion doctor
I oppose abortion and I think you are making a huge mischaracterization. Muslims actively celebrated when the WTC was attacked, I cant think of anybody outside of some fringe groups like that church in Topeka Kansas that rejoices when an abortionist is killed, I certainly do not. There is a world of difference between principled disagreement over abortion and actively cheering the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians.I am not going to go into US support for Israel again, we have agreed to disagree on that one. I think you are wrong there and have told you why.
You cannot defend present actions of Muslims by citing historical atrocities by Christians.
I'm not defending anybody. You say not to use OT examples, so I used more recent onesSo when is the allowable cutoff time? 1920s? 1950s? 2000? The LRA. Now there's a more recent group.
Hadn't heard of the LRA before. I guess they would fit the description except for their focus on the OT. Notcie how popular they are in the Christian world though? I bet the LRA gets milllions in donations from oppressed Christians longing for freedom from the totalitarianism of the Sudnaese too huh? From the fast research I did the LRA seems just as flaky as Hamas, Hezbollah, or Al-Quaeda. Or are you going to claim moral equivalence between a group hardly anyone in the west has heard of with AQ who everyone in the Muslim world has heard of? I do however, conced the point that there is at least one contemporary Christian group committing atrocities on the basis of religion, albeit without a worldwide reach and only a regional focus. There has also not been a groundswell of even moral support for the LRA in the wider Christian world.
Muslims actively celebrated when the WTC was attacked
Are you referring to that one video of the Palestinians (BIG surprise they hate America) that the US news stations kept showing over and over? Of course stuff like that makes the headlines because it was sensationalist, us vs. them propaganda which is common practice when preparing a nation for war. One should wonder how many statements from local US mosque leaders as well as Egyptian, Jordanian, Turkish, etc. leaders condemning the attacks didn't make the news (or was buried in a small paragraph below the fold on page 15 of section B of your local newspaper) because it wasn't as newsworthy or sensationalist as a bunch of crazy Palestinians cheering.Back on topic: no comments on Obama taking over two minutes in a speech before he makes mention of this tragedy? And this guy is the Commander-in-Chief?!? 😮
Muslims actively celebrated when the WTC was attacked
Are you referring to that one video of the Palestinians (BIG surprise they hate America) that the US news stations kept showing over and over? Of course stuff like that makes the headlines because it was sensationalist, us vs. them propaganda which is common practice when preparing a nation for war. One should wonder how many statements from local US mosque leaders as well as Egyptian, Jordanian, Turkish, etc. leaders condemning the attacks didn't make the news (or was buried in a small paragraph below the fold on page 15 of section B of your local newspaper) because it wasn't as newsworthy or sensationalist as a bunch of crazy Palestinians cheering.Back on topic: no comments on Obama taking over two minutes in a speech before he makes mention of this tragedy? And this guy is the Commander-in-Chief?!? 😮
You have taken media cynicism to new heights with this one. I thought I was the cynic around here. 😉My main point is that Westerners get just about as worked up trying not to offend Muslims as Muslims do about percieved insults. As to Muslims being happy about Terrorist attacksa on the west. I met two people in a year in Iraq that said 9/11 was not justified. The vast majority of Iraqis I met thought it was cool, and these were the ones working with us. I never met a live insurgent that did not wish more had died, but that is to be expected. What struck me in both Iraq and Kuwait was the level of latent hostility to the west in general but America in particular. They talked like the US only got what we had coming to us. They also blasted the US for support for Israel.As to Obama giving a "shout out" before mentioning the shooting, I was not surprised. I am surprised that people thinks he actually cares. I would guess that if he thought he could get away with a statement delivered by his press secrectary he would have done that. I am convinced he only likes the aversage American to the extent that he can bribe us out of our vote with government largesse. More bread and circuses please!
