muslims PART 2

[-elfearz-]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Now why I asked the question about Muslims is this: I think there are many cultural Muslims around, like there are many cultural Christians around. In countries where being a second-class citizen, or even the death penalty, is the consequence of NOT being a Muslim, I imagine there are many so-called Muslims that aren't REALLY Muslims. IOW, they live in a Muslim country and follow the general laws and even the outward ceremonies, but if pressed, show that they don't hold their scriptures to be the absolute truth - maybe it's just kind of tradition or "spiritual" or something similar. That's why I like to talk about the particular tenets of a belief - because one can't always judge a belief by some of the people that say they hold it. I think you need to judge a belief on its own merits, and also by the people that carry out the tenets of the belief.

I think this is a very good point, and that clarification on this was/is definitely needed!
I have some trouble drawing that boundary though - I definitely think that there are a lot of people who identify with Christianity, Islam or any other religion because they were "born into it" - thus subscribing to the religion for them is more of a cultural thing than an active choice to follow that particular faith over any other faith (or no faith).

But what if a person has turned their mind to the question of what their religion stands for, and has made a conscious choice to practice most, but not all of the tenets that it has had historically? Which category of followers do they fall into? Or what if a whole lot of people rank some tenets higher than others, and practice the religion in light of this? Sure an argument can be made that they are not really practicing the religion (in fundamentalist terms), or that they are practicing a different religion...but if they identify themselves with the original religion is there any point in giving them a different label? (except for the purposes of argument of course - if this thread is only concerned with certain Muslims, then there is certainly a point

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I agree. I think Islam is a violent religion by nature, but I think that Western views of Islam are distorted when they say all Muslims are like that. An outlook that condemns all Arabs and all Muslims is a very negative one. It alienates Muslims who truly want peace.

See...I think that an argument that Islam is a violent religion by nature would also alienate Muslims who truly want peace, though I know this is not your intention

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by -elfearz-

See...I think that an argument that Islam is a violent religion by nature would also alienate Muslims who truly want peace, though I know this is not your intention

I've been thinking about that, honestly. I think that if broadly accepted, my views probably would turn off many peaceful Muslims, people we need as allies.

I know that I could not change my views because of this and remain honest with myself, of course. The only way I could change my views is by being convinced by reason and evidence that I'm wrong.

There is also the option of keeping my mouth closed, but I'm not sure that's a good idea either. If more people were aware of the nature of this threat (assuming I'm right), we might be better prepared to deal with it as it grows. I'm still very much in consideration on this matter, at present. I'm not sure what the right course is right now, and am working to sort that out. It'll probably take a while, for me.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

No, it's not - I just met him on Sunday! He's not fat at all!

(don't ask him about me ... )

Psst...it was Saturday!

[Rían]

Oh, that's right!

[Lief Erikson]

The trial of Moussaoui is certainly riveting.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

The reason why I asked "what makes a person a Muslim" is this - I wanted to be sure we have our terms straight, or talking is useless.

I think in general, a person is a true Muslim (or a Christian or a Buddhist) when they are old enough to make a rational decision (based on thought and analysis), and HAVE made that decision, that the tenets of the belief are true, and they make a serious attempt to follow them on a daily basis.

I know that there's a disconnect when "Christians" are talked about (that's why the (IMO) ridiculous "Hitler was a Christian" comments come up), and I imagine there's a disconnect with Muslims, too. Many people would consider themselves "Christian" if they occasionally wander into a church and think some of the 10 commandments are ok and believe that a god probably exists and their parents called themselves "Christian". But generally when I use the term, I'm talking about a different group - roughly, those that have made a conscious decision, when they are able to do so rationally (i.e., not at the age of 1 or 2), to obey and honor God, based on a belief arrived at in a rational manner that the Bible is true.

Now why I asked the question about Muslims is this: I think there are many cultural Muslims around, like there are many cultural Christians around. In countries where being a second-class citizen, or even the death penalty, is the consequence of NOT being a Muslim, I imagine there are many so-called Muslims that aren't REALLY Muslims. IOW, they live in a Muslim country and follow the general laws and even the outward ceremonies, but if pressed, show that they don't hold their scriptures to be the absolute truth - maybe it's just kind of tradition or "spiritual" or something similar. That's why I like to talk about the particular tenets of a belief - because one can't always judge a belief by some of the people that say they hold it. I think you need to judge a belief on its own merits, and also by the people that carry out the tenets of the belief.

"What makes a person a muslim" is the same as "what makes a person a christian". Their own belief that they are one. I think what you are missing is the relative nature of interpretation.

If you want to say that nazis or klan members are not christian because they do not interpret the bible as you have, that is fine. But it is the same book that you hold to be true that they draw their beliefs from. And I'm not talking about "casual believers". I'm talking about people who shape their lives to a large extent around the words in the bible. They just interpret those words in a radically different way that other people do.

The same can be said of islam, a faith which, at it's core, is basically an intepretation and elaboration on christianity, just as christianity is an intepretation and elaboration on judeism. There is no "correct interpretation", only "individual interpretations".

As I mentioned earlier, what perpetuates the conflict is not seeing this big picture and instead taking a stance that basically says, "the peaceful christians are the true christians and the violent ones are just deluded, while the peaceful muslims are the deluded ones and it is the violent ones who hold the true faith." (Or the opposite stance, for that matter.)

This sounds fine in principle:

I think you need to judge a belief on its own merits, and also by the people that carry out the tenets of the belief.

The problem is, when you really look at history, you find that all belief systems are judged differently by different people and carried out differently by different people. And, more importantly, that the relative level of violence among any belief system has a lot more to do with factors other than the "particular tenets" of the belief system itself.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

If you want to say that nazis or klan members are not christian because they do not interpret the bible as you have, that is fine. But it is the same book that you hold to be true that they draw their beliefs from. And I'm not talking about "casual believers". I'm talking about people who shape their lives to a large extent around the words in the bible. They just interpret those words in a radically different way that other people do.

You have not responded to any of the arguments and points I've raised concerning the Nazi party.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The same can be said of islam, a faith which, at it's core, is basically an intepretation and elaboration on christianity, just as christianity is an intepretation and elaboration on judeism. There is no "correct interpretation", only "individual interpretations".

Don't you think Jesus had any opinions? If he had no opinions, then there is indeed no "correct interpretation." But if he did, then there is a "correct interpretation," and individual interpretations may or may not correspond to that. And many important points from the scripture are pretty obvious as to what they mean.

Christianity and Islam are similar in many respects. However, they differ as to how one receives salvation, and that is the most important doctrinal issue.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

As I mentioned earlier, what perpetuates the conflict is not seeing this big picture and instead taking a stance that basically says, "the peaceful christians are the true christians and the violent ones are just deluded, while the peaceful muslims are the deluded ones and it is the violent ones who hold the true faith." (Or the opposite stance, for that matter.)

Note again that I have never forwarded that argument in my debate with you about the religions. The only time I made this claim was to support my belief that spreading real Christianity among Muslims would be spreading peace rather than violence (except violence against us, of course).

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The problem is, when you really look at history, you find that all belief systems are judged differently by different people and carried out differently by different people. And, more importantly, that the relative level of violence among any belief system has a lot more to do with factors other than the "particular tenets" of the belief system itself.

You make a mistake of oversight, IMHO. For those who truly believe, religion is a critically important factor in how they behave. You can see this very clearly in the Crusades, which were almost entirely religiously motivated (from the common man's perspective, at any rate). I see also you haven't read much about the European Religious Wars. Fanatics were burning one another at the stake and butchering one another in mass because of their zeal for religion. It was believed to be a life and death struggle concerning heaven and hellfire. Much of it didn't have any reason for it aside from religion. You were either for the anti-Christ or God!

You can also see this very clearly in Mohammed's followers' invasions of the Sassanid and Byzantine Empires. Religion has a BIG influence on how people think and how they behave. You can see it also in how current Muslim radicals think. You can see religion or the lack there-of having a major impact on how EVERYONE lives their lives. If they are fervent religious believers, they act in ways that correspond with their religions. If they aren't fervent religious believers, they act in ways that correspond with their lack of religion. Religion has an enormous impact upon how people think and also upon politics. Many wars have started because of religion, and have also much cruelty has been done because of anti-religious sentiment (see China's policies. And there's no evidence this Buddhist meeting is a major policy change). Non-religious people in the Communist Party also have perpetrated horrors to mankind. If they were all Buddhists, perhaps they wouldn't have!

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

You have not responded to any of the arguments and points I've raised concerning the Nazi party.

I didn't want to stray too far off-topic. I was just pointing out that devout christians can be just as violent as devout muslims.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Don't you think Jesus had any opinions? If he had no opinions, then there is indeed no "correct interpretation." But if he did, then there is a "correct interpretation," and individual interpretations may or may not correspond to that. And many important points from the scripture are pretty obvious as to what they mean.

They may be obvious from your point of view, but the plethora of christian offshoots that exist in our world show that they are not in fact "obvious". This is why you can have christians fighting to free slaves and other christians lynching them. And this is just the extremes. At every level of "belief" there are small and large variations. The same is true of muslims.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

You make a mistake of oversight, IMHO. For those who truly believe, religion is a critically important factor in how they behave. You can see this very clearly in the Crusades, which were almost entirely religiously motivated (from the common man's perspective, at any rate). I see also you haven't read much about the European Religious Wars. Fanatics were burning one another at the stake and butchering one another in mass because of their zeal for religion. It was believed to be a life and death struggle concerning heaven and hellfire. Much of it didn't have any reason for it aside from religion. You were either for the anti-Christ or God!

Actually, the crusades began as more of a power-struggle than anything else. It was not so much about the beliefs themselves as it was about control. The "Roman" side having developed a monarchical structure under the papacy, while the Byzantine model was much more decentralized where each local church authority was more or less independent. Urban's main goal was regaining the power and control they had lost during the dark ages and strengthening the papacy.

Religion was certainly used as a motivator, but that hits at the core of what I have been trying to explain. Belief systems themselves do not cause violence, but they can be used to inspire it by influencial officals. This is why they are best kept separate from government, and why the intermixing of the two inevitably leads to trouble. It does not matter what the scriptures themselves say. As I've mentioned, any book of text can be re-interpreted to fit the needs of the situation, as christians have done and muslims as well.

Look deeply enough into any religious conflict and you will find someone at the source who has a lot to gain, be it wealth or power.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I didn't want to stray too far off-topic. I was just pointing out that devout christians can be just as violent as devout muslims.

I'm just pointing out that the Nazis aren't a good example of that.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

They may be obvious from your point of view, but the plethora of christian offshoots that exist in our world show that they are not in fact "obvious". This is why you can have christians fighting to free slaves and other christians lynching them.

I disagree. In my opinion, many of the scripture meanings are just obvious to anyone who isn't strongly biased or purposely misreading for their own ends. Christians could fight over slavery because it isn't something that's so clearly discussed in the scripture. There are parts of the Bible in the New and Old Testament that talk about it, but it's one of those issues where a case could be made either way. There isn't any passage in the scripture that outright says, "slavery is evil," though there is a passage that says kidnapping people to take them as slaves is a sin that will bring damnation. This isn't an issue the Bible is quite so clear on, which is why there is more potential for conflict.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Actually, the crusades began as more of a power-struggle than anything else. It was not so much about the beliefs themselves as it was about control. The "Roman" side having developed a monarchical structure under the papacy, while the Byzantine model was much more decentralized where each local church authority was more or less independent. Urban's main goal was regaining the power and control they had lost during the dark ages and strengthening the papacy.

That's why I said religion was the reason many of the common men went to war. I know politics were the issues at the upper levels, in this case, but for the vast majority of the soldiers, it was a religious war.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Religion was certainly used as a motivator, but that hits at the core of what I have been trying to explain. Belief systems themselves do not cause violence, but they can be used to inspire it by influencial officals.

Certainly one way religion can be used is by influential officials. Religions can cause violence all on their own, however. In Carthage in the ancient past, people burned their babies because they believed this is what their gods required for them to be protected. This wasn't a doctrine that came from influential officials trying to manipulate them.

The Aztecs bloodily offered human sacrifices to their deities, not because this was politically useful, but because they religiously felt it was right.

Protestants during the Religious Wars believed the Pope was the Anti-Christ and Catholics must be butchered because of religion. Politics were involved in some of these conflicts, but religion was the major driving force between much of the bloodshed.

Modern Muslim extremists blow themselves to shreds with a lot of other people because they believe that's the quick road to paradise, and they're taking out a part of the Great Satan.

Religion is a key root of conflict. It's not all power and wealth. People live their lives according to what they believe is true. If they believe there is no God, people feel free to live their lives in different ways than do many people who believe there is a God. Religion determines how people act. If I believe the Pope is the doctrinally infallible Mouth of God, I believe what he says about Islamic persecutions of Christians without question and go to the Middle East to fight in the Crusades. If I believe that America is the Great Satan, I go and fight it! Belief or unbelief, and views, are what determine the way people behave.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

It does not matter what the scriptures themselves say.

I disagree. It does matter what the scripture says.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

As I've mentioned, any book of text can be re-interpreted to fit the needs of the situation, as christians have done and muslims as well.

Oh, I agree with that all right.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Look deeply enough into any religious conflict and you will find someone at the source who has a lot to gain, be it wealth or power.

This is not true. Mohammed took on all the tribes of Saudi Arabia and won. His early followers took on the Sassanid and Byzantine Empires together, the superpowers of that era, and they won. They had everything to lose, and the victories they won were highly improbable.

Modern extremist Islam is no different. They are taking on the superpower of the world and the mighty Western nations. This is a tough line to take, and there is a large price Osama Bin Laden and other extremists pay. Osama Bin Laden was independently enormously wealthy before his attack on the United States, but now he is drained of much of his finances, has lost his base in Afghanistan, and is forced to be endlessly on the run. Not a fun life to live, and there is little benefit.

People in the European Christian Religious Wars were no different either. They fought wars for no reason other than religion! Louis 14th revoked the Edict of Nantes that provided peace for the Calvinists in his country solely for religious reasons. This alienated from him a significant portion of his country, a part of his country that would constantly tear at the fabric of France afterward.

King Philip attacked England with his Spanish Armada for religious reasons. The Puritans fought the Catholics because they believed the Pope was the Anti-Christ.

The Muslim ridda wars were certainly religious conflicts as well as political. Many of the wars of history have been entirely about religion. You are really, really underestimating the amount of force religion is in people's lives. I think the reason you are doing this is that you are looking from a modern perspective. People in the past viewed their wars as a clash between heaven and hell, the forces of God and Satan. Even many political leaders thought this way, and the common man certainly did.

Hitler slaughtered millions of Jews because he believed all Jews were evil. This was not really a religious belief, so far as I can tell, but it was a powerful belief nonetheless. People act on their beliefs.

President Ahmadinejad of Iran is a threat to the West because of his religious views. Note too that he has filled his government with clerics, religious zealots. Religion determines his outlook in part, as it does President Bush's views.

A common modern Western worldview is commonly less religious- our lack of moral structure in society is one of the reasons Serenoli discarded our Western way of living as anarchy. She's coming from a different perspective.

In the past, people's outlook was: "My actions on Earth determine my eternal fate. I am either going to burn in hellfire for eternity or I am going to eternally live in paradisial bliss, depending on what I do. I must follow the Lord!" Some Christian women killed their babies at birth because they believed God would attend to them certainly that way, and they wouldn't have to risk sinn ing and ending up in hellfire. Religion was terrifying and incredibly inspiring. It inspired devotion and love light years beyond that of the most hormone driven teenager, and it also inspired hatred and wrath. Even many political leaders were extremely religious.

Mohammed was originally persecuted because he preached to the tribes that their ancestors who had not worshipped the true God were in hell, and that their skin was being burned off and then replaced, and burned off and replaced, and burned off and replaced, for ever and ever. He said this in a culture that worshipped their ancestors, literally. Naturally, they persecuted Mohammed. This was not because of wealth or power, but because of belief. Mohammed could easily have eased his teachings and made them less charged. He would have made himself acceptable to a much larger number in this way too. Instead, he stuck to what he believed and he fought based on his religious perspective, with much smaller numbers than they might have had.

Mohammed took an uncompromising religious hard line that brought much moral advancement. Muslim views did not appeal to the tribes of Saudi Arabia. As soon as Mohammed died, all of those tribes he had forced into submission revolted again, and Abu Bakr had to reconquer them all in the Ridda (Apostasy) Wars.

Brownjenkins, I feel you are failing to grasp a key reason behind historical perspectives, because those perspectives are so foreign to your own.

[Spock]

..just a thought...and I'll probably regret stopping here.........if we look at today's reality instead of comparing historical wrongs by religion, it may facilitate discussion.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Spock

..just a thought...and I'll probably regret stopping here.........if we look at today's reality instead of comparing historical wrongs by religion, it may facilitate discussion.

I'm interested in discussing the contemporary situation as well. I think to a massive extent, history determines the present, so for me discussion of the history is essential. But I'm also deeply interested in the contemporary situation. Today's reality is one important reason why I'm so interested in the history of Islam, and will continue researching it.

Have you been keeping up on the trial of Moussaoui, Spock? Just spooky, that is. For me, it's the most riveting modern trial I've ever followed. Here's a link about it: Moussaoui Trial

Other key modern issues would include aid for the Palestinian Authority. Russia has now promised to supply the Palestinian Authority with finances. One of the nasty aspects of cutting off aid to the PA is that while it isolates them from the West, it increases the unity of extremist Muslim groups. Russia also seems to be favoring these groups, probably because Muslim extremism confronting Russia's rivals would weaken us, while Russia gets a chance to strengthen. Competitive advantage. I just hope China doesn't get involved, backing the PA as well. Or other countries. It's very worrisome how this situation with Israel serves to unify Muslim extremists and serve as a catalyst for the spread of their ideology.

Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad continues his anti-US and anti-Israel rhetoric, saying Israel was "a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm" and promising that "Palestine will be liberated soon." The Supreme Leader Ayatollah also continues his rhetoric in what BBC News calls a "scathing attack" on the West. Hamas PM Ismail Hamiya claims the US leads an "unholy alliance," and said there would be (BBC News) "no surrender to the demands of Israel or the West."


These are some of the major modern Middle East stories.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

"What makes a person a muslim" is the same as "what makes a person a christian". Their own belief that they are one. I think what you are missing is the relative nature of interpretation.

If you want to say that nazis or klan members are not christian because they do not interpret the bible as you have, that is fine. But it is the same book that you hold to be true that they draw their beliefs from. And I'm not talking about "casual believers". I'm talking about people who shape their lives to a large extent around the words in the bible. They just interpret those words in a radically different way that other people do.

The same can be said of islam, a faith which, at it's core, is basically an intepretation and elaboration on christianity, just as christianity is an intepretation and elaboration on judeism. There is no "correct interpretation", only "individual interpretations".

As I mentioned earlier, what perpetuates the conflict is not seeing this big picture and instead taking a stance that basically says, "the peaceful christians are the true christians and the violent ones are just deluded, while the peaceful muslims are the deluded ones and it is the violent ones who hold the true faith." (Or the opposite stance, for that matter.)

This sounds fine in principle:



The problem is, when you really look at history, you find that all belief systems are judged differently by different people and carried out differently by different people. And, more importantly, that the relative level of violence among any belief system has a lot more to do with factors other than the "particular tenets" of the belief system itself.

I do so love you brownjenkins, sir!!

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Brownjenkins, I feel you are failing to grasp a key reason behind historical perspectives, because those perspectives are so foreign to your own.

Not really. I'm just pointing out that you need to look at all factors, instead of just the purely scriptural ones. Because how religions were originally formulated and what religions, or interpretations of scriptures, people tend to adopt is intertwined with real world events. Most people don't just read a book and become violent fanatics. More often they mature in an oppressive situtation and they use religion as a justification for the goal they arrived at by much less philosophical means.

Religion doesn't kill people. People kill people.

But I think you realize this more or less, whether you admit it to yourself or not.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

In my opinion, many of the scripture meanings are just obvious to anyone who isn't strongly biased or purposely misreading for their own ends.

And I would argue that every human being on this planet is both "strongly biased" and ultimately motivated "for their own ends". So, the key to peace is finding middle ground, as opposed to sticking to the high ground.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

...... I think to a massive extent, history determines the present, so for me discussion of the history is essential.

I agree, just that some continue to throw up past horrors as a balance to the continued horrors done in the name of Islam, today.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

......
Have you been keeping up on the trial of Moussaoui, Spock?

Yes I have and IMO more coverage should be had of his statements and beliefs. It might be enough to wake some out of their denial about the intentions of radical Muslims.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

......
Other key modern issues would include aid for the Palestinian Authority.

Leif-did you see today that MASKED Palestinian gunman stormed THEIR OWN governments building, now ruled by Hamas, to protest the fact that they haven't been paid!! This is ludicrous at best and terrifying at worst.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

...... Russia has now promised to supply the Palestinian Authority with finances.

I believe that is to soften resistance in Chechnea (sp?) where the Russians have been under attack and losing for some time.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

......
Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad continues his anti-US and anti-Israel rhetoric, .....

This situation will have to be dealt with..whether by the US, Israel, both or a very small coalition. Rockets that can hit US forces and Israel, are an immediate security threat and cannot be ignored, especially in light of these continued threats.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

.

Religion doesn't kill people. People kill people.

True, however, some religions give validation for people to kill people .

[Oz!]

Originally Posted by Spock

True, however, some religions give validation for people to kill people .

very true, look at GW Bush.... probably the most media covered man on the planet and he has no qualms about publically claiming that he believes he is doing "Gods Will" ...... and as far as i'm aware not a single recognised christian religion has debunked that fact that he is.... so he has their backing

Not that i'm complaining, i love the fact that the christians are finally being seen for what they really are..... can't beat honesty

[Spock]

I won't try to explain GWB's beliefs nor the statement you attribute to him.

I will say-don't paint Christians with a dirty brush.

no, I will not explain that.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Not really. I'm just pointing out that you need to look at all factors, instead of just the purely scriptural ones. Because how religions were originally formulated and what religions, or interpretations of scriptures, people tend to adopt is intertwined with real world events. Most people don't just read a book and become violent fanatics. More often they mature in an oppressive situtation and they use religion as a justification for the goal they arrived at by much less philosophical means.

Religion doesn't kill people. People kill people.

I'm not saying there aren't any factors contributing to Muslim violence other than the religion. I am saying it's apparent from the origins and history of the religion that the teachings themselves are one of the factors leading to violence, and IMV, a very significant factor.

See all the examples I posted above of incidents where people kill others based on religion and religion alone. I think it's obvious from the cost they have paid that religion is a primary reason for the modern Muslim terrorists' actions.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

And I would argue that every human being on this planet is both "strongly biased" and ultimately motivated "for their own ends".

Plainly you've never gone looking to find truth . I'm defining truth here as the state of reality.

Originally Posted by Spock

I agree, just that some continue to throw up past horrors as a balance to the continued horrors done in the name of Islam, today.

They're arguing that it's just human nature to be violent, and that's why there is violence in religions. While I think there is a LOT of truth in this, it is a mistake too to say religions can't because of their doctrines spur people to either peace or violence. The historical record shows lots of examples of violence committed for religious reasons alone. I wrote down some of these occasions in post #51. I think it is necessary to look at history as well as the contemporary to debunk the claim that Islam has only been violent because of the context and not the doctrines.

Originally Posted by Oz!

Not that i'm complaining, i love the fact that the christians are finally being seen for what they really are..... can't beat honesty

Thank-you for your slurs against all Christians. They are greatly appreciated.

Originally Posted by Spock

True, however, some religions give validation for people to kill people .

Good point. And some religions tell people to kill people.

Originally Posted by Spock

Yes I have and IMO more coverage should be had of his statements and beliefs. It might be enough to wake some out of their denial about the intentions of radical Muslims.

Well, it's being covered on CNN and BBC. I was watching some of the video footage of conversations with people who had just come out of the court room. One was a juror and the other was a reporter, and both people told about the experience. From looking at them, I could see they looked very unnerved. Reading those comments from Moussaoui was very strange and a little scary to me as well.

Originally Posted by Spock

Leif-did you see today that MASKED Palestinian gunman stormed THEIR OWN governments building, now ruled by Hamas, to protest the fact that they haven't been paid!! This is ludicrous at best and terrifying at worst.

Yeah, I read about that. This funding situation looks to me very much like a lose-lose situation for the West. If we fund them, we'd be supporting a group that we've classified as a terrorist organization, and that would invalidate our whole message. If we don't fund them, we'll be cutting ties in the Muslim world and forcing Muslim radical groups to unify. Plus Russia is now supporting them. It's all very bad for our image in the Middle East, but it would be no matter what we do.

Originally Posted by Spock

I believe that is to soften resistance in Chechnea (sp?) where the Russians have been under attack and losing for some time.

Could you explain this situation to me? I don't know anything at all about the fighting in Chechnea, though I keep hearing that it's going on.

Originally Posted by Spock

This situation will have to be dealt with..whether by the US, Israel, both or a very small coalition. Rockets that can hit US forces and Israel, are an immediate security threat and cannot be ignored, especially in light of these continued threats.

The US can't afford to invade Iran, though. I really don't think we have enough money. I hope we can rally China and Russia into the sanctions effort, though. If Iran finds itself isolated from the international community, perhaps they would think again. Though I doubt it. They seem to me more likely to do what they want, no matter what. And I expect they'll build nuclear weapons and sell them to Islamic terrorist organizations for use against Israel and the West. I just hope North Korea doesn't do the same with its nuclear bombs . Having nations like this with nuclear power is very scary. George W. Bush was right to call them "the axis of evil".

That was a freaky missile test the Iranians recently accomplished, wasn't it? They test fired the most advanced underwater missile of modern times. Another form of power that's worrisome to see in Iranian hands, considering their threats and the Islamic extremism that dominates their government.

[Oz!]

Originally Posted by Spock

I won't try to explain GWB's beliefs nor the statement you attribute to him.

I will say-don't paint Christians with a dirty brush.

no, I will not explain that.

You don't need to explain it, nor am i painting christians with anything..... we can assume tho' that the mass of the christian population (in particular, the organised relgious leaders and their churches here in the west) do, in fact, believe that GW Bush is in fact doing God's work.... no?

They must do, or they'd publically refute his words and tell him not to use Gods name in vain (or for his own agenda), it's hardly as if the modern church doesn't have a voice which brings huge media attention.

It is odd tho', for a coupla decades there after WW2 the church tried, once again, to bring people back to their churches by preaching peace and love.....and now their most popularised member is doing it again with war and terror..... i guess nothing really changes for long, as long as it fills the pulpits eh

[Oz!]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Thank-you for your slurs against all Christians. They are greatly appreciated.

It's not a slur lief, it's a good-to-honest observation about the public face of western christianity and how it presents itself to the world at large today

Tell me.... do you, as a christian, think GW Bush is carrying out God's will?