Muslims threaten violence (1 Viewer)

[IsThatSo!]

Seems that some Muslims are threatening to use violence because the Pope said that in the past some Muslims used violence as part of their religion, so now the Muslims want the Pope to apologize or they are going to kill some Christians for suggesting the Muslims are violent.

 

[Navy Seal Patriot]

We have Christians of the extreme right also declaring war on blacks, jews, muslims, etc. In fact here is a list of 60 white right wing terror plots since the OKC bombing. Let's be concerned about this also and lobby the DHD to list these extremists on the Terrorist list also.

 

[Diogenes]

Seems that some Muslims are threatening to use violence because the Pope said that in the past some Muslims used violence as part of their religion, so now the Muslims want the Pope to apologize or they are going to kill some Christians for suggesting the Muslims are violent.

The irony is exquisite: "You said my religion is violent, so now I'm going to kill you!"

That's hardly an attitude to inspire respect. It seems to me that these folks will either learn to co-exist, or they will cease to exist.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

We have Christians of the extreme right also declaring war on blacks, jews, muslims, etc. In fact here is a list of 60 white right wing terror plots since the OKC bombing. Let's be concerned about this also and lobby the DHD to list these extremists on the Terrorist list also.

Don't we have internal policies to deal with them. Are they actively killing and targeting people on a global scale? Are they not domestic criminal, why bunch them with international terrorists

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Seems that some Muslims are threatening to use violence because the Pope said that in the past some Muslims used violence as part of their religion, so now the Muslims want the Pope to apologize or they are going to kill some Christians for suggesting the Muslims are violent.

Is this surprising. It seems to be the norm for there policy on dealing with anyone non muslim.

 

[Captain America]

The irony is exquisite: "You said my religion is violent, so now I'm going to kill you!"

That's hardly an attitude to inspire respect. It seems to me that these folks will either learn to co-exist, or they will cease to exist.

Reminds me of the time I called that girl a two-bit whore. She hit me over the head with a bag of quarters. :rofl

 

[Diogenes]

Reminds me of the time I called that girl a two-bit whore. She hit me over the head with a bag of quarters. :rofl

Good analogy! :rofl

 

[aps]

The irony is exquisite: "You said my religion is violent, so now I'm going to kill you!"

That's hardly an attitude to inspire respect. It seems to me that these folks will either learn to co-exist, or they will cease to exist.

I really hope it's the latter. I am sick of their attitudes and violence. They are crazy.

 

[Captain America]

I really hope it's the latter. I am sick of their attitudes and violence. They are crazy.

Now we're talkin'!

 

[Diogenes]

I really hope it's the latter. I am sick of their attitudes and violence. They are crazy.

Not all Muslims. I have some Kurdish friends who fled Iraq some 30 years ago, and the Islam they practice isn't recognizable as the same Islam preached by the maniacs who are trying to kill us.

That said, I agree that the fanatics must be killed as quickly as possible. And we need not concern ourselves with being nice and "humane" to them while we interrogate them about where their friends are hiding.

 

[cherokee]

Reminds me of the time I called that girl a two-bit whore. She hit me over the head with a bag of quarters. :rofl

you bitch I just took a sip of pepsi as I read that...:rofl

 

[Diogenes]

Has it occurred to anyone other than James Taranto that what we are seeing now in the Muslim world is just a mirror image of our own western liberals in their reaction to Christianity?

A piece in today's Los Angeles Times by Sam Harris got us to thinking. Harris, who describes himself as liberal (and who describes his own views in ways that make clear he is one), is the author of a 2004 book called "The End of Faith," which, he writes, is "highly critical of religion. . . . I argued that the world's major religions are genuinely incompatible, inevitably cause conflict and now prevent the emergence of a viable, global civilization."

But this critic of religion takes fellow liberals to task for failing to take radical Islam seriously:

My correspondence with liberals has convinced me that liberalism has grown dangerously out of touch with the realities of our world--specifically with what devout Muslims actually believe about the West, about paradise and about the ultimate ascendance of their faith.

On questions of national security, I am now as wary of my fellow liberals as I am of the religious demagogues on the Christian right.

This may seem like frank acquiescence to the charge that "liberals are soft on terrorism." It is, and they are.

A cult of death is forming in the Muslim world--for reasons that are perfectly explicable in terms of the Islamic doctrines of martyrdom and jihad. The truth is that we are not fighting a "war on terror." We are fighting a pestilential theology and a longing for paradise.

This is not to say that we are at war with all Muslims. But we are absolutely at war with those who believe that death in defense of the faith is the highest possible good, that cartoonists should be killed for caricaturing the prophet and that any Muslim who loses his faith should be butchered for apostasy. . . .

And yet, despite abundant evidence to the contrary, liberals continue to imagine that Muslim terrorism springs from economic despair, lack of education and American militarism.

As we read this, we nodded, thinking of our Aug. 28 item in which we faulted the New York Times for describing Fox Newsmen Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig as "unharmed" after their release from captivity, even though their kidnappers had forced them at gunpoint to "convert" to Islam. Only someone who doesn't take religion seriously, we argued, could view a forced conversion as harmless.

But then we realized it's more complicated than that. It's actually not true, or not always true, that liberals don't take religion seriously. When the issue is, say, a student-led prayer at a high school football game, they take it very seriously. They're even willing to make a federal case out of it. Here is Justice John Paul Stevens in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000):

For many [students] . . . the choice between whether to attend these games or to risk facing a personally offensive religious ritual is in no practical sense an easy one. The Constitution, moreover, demands that the school may not force this difficult choice upon these students for "it is a tenet of the First Amendment that the State cannot require one of its citizens to forfeit his or her rights and benefits as the price of resisting conformance to state-sponsored religious practice."

Even if we regard every high school student's decision to attend a home football game as purely voluntary, we are nevertheless persuaded that the delivery of a pregame prayer has the improper effect of coercing those present to participate in an act of religious worship. For "the government may no more use social pressure to enforce orthodoxy than it may use more direct means."

-- snip --

To be sure, the history of Christianity has its violent periods. But apart from a few Eric Rudolph types, Christianity in America today is almost totally domesticated. As we argued in The Wall Street Journal last year, the fearsome religious right threatens the secular left with nothing worse than the adoption, through democratic means, of policies with which the latter disagree. By contrast, the goals and methods of radical Islamists are genuinely terrifying.

Why is the liberal left more frightened of George W. Bush than of Osama bin Laden? It is a classic reaction formation, a neurotic response that a feminine Freud who dubs herself "Answer Girl" defines concisely as "behavior or emotion that is the polar opposite of the way someone is or should be feeling, because the authentic emotion is too frightening to deal with."

Now tell me again, how the liberals' devotion to their secular beliefs and their dedication to forcing those beliefs on the rest of us is qualitatively different from the Muslim reaction to the Pope's statements?

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Has it occurred to anyone other than James Taranto that what we are seeing now in the Muslim world is just a mirror image of our own western liberals in their reaction to Christianity?
Now tell me again, how the liberals' devotion to their secular beliefs and their dedication to forcing those beliefs on the rest of us is qualitatively different from the Muslim reaction to the Pope's statements?

I was unaware of the large christian driven killing spree going on throughout the world. Let me google that up and see when it started.

 

[MSgt]

Has it occurred to anyone other than James Taranto that what we are seeing now in the Muslim world is just a mirror image of our own western liberals in their reaction to Christianity?

It's occurred to me. Actually, it has occurred to many social experts on both sides of the spectrum for over a decade and can be found in books, essays, and case studies. The problem is that extremists from both sides are more than willing to dismiss the wisdom of the other for the sake of partisan slavery.

The End of Faith is a good book.

 

[Captain America]

When I first read this thread title, "Muslims threaten violence" I was like, well,....duh? That's what Muslims do these day. At least the ones we hear about.

 

[Kelzie]

It's occurred to me. Actually, it has occurred to many social experts on both sides of the spectrum for over a decade and can be found in books, essays, and case studies. The problem is that extremists from both sides are more than willing to dismiss the wisdom of the other for the sake of partisan slavery.

The End of Faith is a good book.

Um, whoa! Let's take another gander at the craziness you are agreeing to:

what we are seeing now in the Muslim world is just a mirror image of our own western liberals in their reaction to Christianity

Basically, Islamic fundamentalism is the same as liberal fundamentalism. Now let's make a small list of comparisons, shall we?

Liberals want to let gays marry. Islamic fundies want to kill all gays.

Liberals want women to have the right to choose and equal standing in society. Islamic fundies want women as slaves.

Liberals want religion out of government. Islamic fundies want religion as government.


Now, I might not be an expert as to the purpose of a "mirror," but I fail to see any sort of reflection in the goals of liberals and Islamic fundies.

 

[MSgt]

Um, whoa! Let's take another gander at the craziness you are agreeing to:



Basically, Islamic fundamentalism is the same as liberal fundamentalism. Now let's make a small list of comparisons, shall we?

Liberals want to let gays marry. Islamic fundies want to kill all gays.

Liberals want women to have the right to choose and equal standing in society. Islamic fundies want women as slaves.

Liberals want religion out of government. Islamic fundies want religion as government.


Now, I might not be an expert as to the purpose of a "mirror," but I fail to see any sort of reflection in the goals of liberals and Islamic fundies.

I agreed with the article and didn't look into it that deeply. I related Diogenes's use of "mirror" as showing the similarities with Radical Islamist's intolerations of other religions and our liberal voice who find comfort in dismissing the "Bogie Man" as they declare the exxagerated bulldozer of Christianity.

Radical Islamists = Frowns on Christianity and reflects on "Christians" as the enemy.

Radical Left = Frowns on Christianity and reflects on "Christians" as the enemy.

Both have imagined a great deal of their "enemy" and seek to "defend" their lifestyles. Actually, with this recognized, there should be no wonder why so many on the right see the left as "siding with terrorists" from time to time.

Taranto makes a valid point.

 

[Kelzie]

I agreed with the article and didn't look into it that deeply. I related Diogenes's use of "mirror" as showing the similarities with Radical Islamist's intolerations of other religions and our liberal voice who find comfort in dismissing the "Bogie Man" as they declare the exxagerated bulldozer of Christianity.

You say you did not look that much into it, but you once again draw a comparison between liberals and Islam fundamentalists. You don't have to look at it that deeply to say liberals and Islamic fundies are the same, which is what you are doing. And in the words of a person I am rather fond of, "you are wrong."

Radical Islamists = Frowns on Christianity and reflects on "Christians" as the enemy.

Should read "Frowns on all religion, including their own if it is not practiced to their preference, and reflects on the "West" as the enemy."

Radical Left = Frowns on Christianity and reflects on "Christians" as the enemy.

Should read "Frowns on religion in government and reflects on the current christian movement to put religion IN government as the enemy."


Now, I'm aware that you're a smart boy and I shouldn't have to explain the difference between the two to you, but seeing as you do have some warped vision of liberals, I won't take my chances. Liberals (yes, even the radical ones) do not hate Christians. What they do hate is christianity in government, a not too unrealistic hatred for a government that is supposed to be secular. This hatred for theocracy does not mean they want to kill Christians, like radical Islamist's hatred for Christianity means. In fact, it puts liberals squarely opposed to almost every view of radical Islam.

Both have imagined a great deal of their "enemy" and seek to "defend" their lifestyles. Actually, with this recognized, there should be no wonder why so many on the right see the left as "siding with terrorists" from time to time.

Taranto makes a valid point.

Ha ha. Name me a single ideology that doesn't a) have an enemy and b) seek to defend their lifestyle. Might as well start looking for the radical Islamists in all of us.

As to your second point about that left siding with the terrorists. That has nothing to do with our view points being similar. What it does have to do with is liberals being traitors to their professed beliefs in their zeal to stick it to the conservatives of this country by joining forces with the Islamic fundamentalist voice. If your going to bash liberals, do it correctly instead of mischaracterizing our beliefs.

 

[MSgt]

You say you did not look that much into it, but you once again draw a comparison between liberals and Islam fundamentalists. You don't have to look at it that deeply to say liberals and Islamic fundies are the same, which is what you are doing. And in the words of a person I am rather fond of, "you are wrong."

I merely agreed with Sam Harris (one of your fellow Liberals). You missed the whole point of the article.

Should read "Frowns on all religion, including their own if it is not practiced to their preference, and reflects on the "West" as the enemy."



Should read "Frowns on religion in government and reflects on the current christian movement to put religion IN government as the enemy."


Now, I'm aware that you're a smart boy and I shouldn't have to explain the difference between the two to you, but seeing as you do have some warped vision of liberals, I won't take my chances. Liberals (yes, even the radical ones) do not hate Christians. What they do hate is christianity in government, a not too unrealistic hatred for a government that is supposed to be secular. This hatred for theocracy does not mean they want to kill Christians, like radical Islamist's hatred for Christianity means. In fact, it puts liberals squarely opposed to almost every view of radical Islam.



Ha ha. Name me a single ideology that doesn't a) have an enemy and b) seek to defend their lifestyle. Might as well start looking for the radical Islamists in all of us.

As to your second point about that left siding with the terrorists. That has nothing to do with our view points being similar. What it does have to do with is liberals being traitors to their professed beliefs in their zeal to stick it to the conservatives of this country by joining forces with the Islamic fundamentalist voice. If your going to bash liberals, do it correctly instead of mischaracterizing our beliefs.

OK. I'll go ahead and pass that onto Harris. You missed the whole point of the article.


If Conservatives can recognize and acknowledge that "Conservatism" is the root problem with stagnated civilizations and concreted religions.....

....then why can't Liberals recognize and acknowledge that "liberalism" can be a root problem with critical and defenseless civilizations and the persecution of religions?

Surely, you can see the similarities with a fanatical religious group that looks to persecute another religion (or a non believer in their own) and America's Liberal left who seeks to make religion completely dissapear from their midst. Both have envisioned a fantasy where their lives are threatened by Christianity. So many on the left are more concerned about a kid praying in school then they are about facing the Middle East.

 

[Kelzie]

I merely agreed with Sam Harris (one of your fellow Liberals). You missed the whole point of the article.

OK. I'll go ahead and pass that onto Harris. You missed the whole point of the article.

I missed nothing sarcasmo. Here's how the flow of the conversation went:

what we are seeing now in the Muslim world is just a mirror image of our own western liberals in their reaction to Christianity

Even C2C recognized the absurdity of what was said:

I was unaware of the large christian driven killing spree going on throughout the world. Let me google that up and see when it started.

But you, in your haste to hate on the liberals, did not fully grasp what you were agreeing to:

It's occurred to me.

After I pointed out to you exactly what you were agreeing to, you attempted to change your stance by saying you agreed with the article. Fine. But then you attempt to point out the similarities between Islam and liberalism. That's not what the article was about. I addressed your statements about the supposed similarities between Islam and liberalism, which you conveniently ignored by stating again that you were just agreeing with the article. Either counter my points or withdraw your...erroneous statement.

If Conservatives can recognize and acknowledge that "Conservatism" is the root problem with stagnated civilizations and concreted religions.....

....then why can't Liberals recognize and acknowledge that "liberalism" can be a root problem with critical and defenseless civilizations and the persecution of religions?

The persecution of religion? Please tell me you do not believe that tripe. Name me a single instance of a liberal driven religious persecution. You can't, it's all perpetrated by conservatives.

Surely, you can see the similarities with a fanatical religious group that looks to persecute another religion (or a non believer in their own) and America's Liberal left who seeks to make religion completely dissapear from their midst. Both have envisioned a fantasy where their lives are threatened by Christianity. So many on the left are more concerned about a kid praying in school then they are about facing the Middle East.

Uh no, I see no similarity. Like I have already said, liberals have no problems with Christians. They can practice all they want, build churches, organize charities, raise their kids Christian, blah, blah, blah. What liberals do have a problem with is when the Christians attempt to force their religion into the government (see the recent Defense of Marriage Act). Is it life threatening? No. Are their priorities a little messed up? Maybe. But that STILL doesn't make them comparable to radical Islam.

 

[Captain America]

Um, whoa! Let's take another gander at the craziness you are agreeing to:



Basically, Islamic fundamentalism is the same as liberal fundamentalism. Now let's make a small list of comparisons, shall we?

Liberals want to let gays marry. Islamic fundies want to kill all gays.

Liberals want women to have the right to choose and equal standing in society. Islamic fundies want women as slaves.

Liberals want religion out of government. Islamic fundies want religion as government.


Now, I might not be an expert as to the purpose of a "mirror," but I fail to see any sort of reflection in the goals of liberals and Islamic fundies.

Thanks Kelzie. When I read that stuff about liberal fundy's being like Islamic fundy's, I thought it was so proposterous that it didn't even deserve contemplation or response. Glad somebody took the time to though.

 

[MSgt]

What's up with the abrasions?

After I pointed out to you exactly what you were agreeing to, you attempted to change your stance by saying you agreed with the article.

Like I said, I agree with the article. There was no attempt to change anything except for to correct the manner in which I replied to him. I didn't pay too much attention to what the poster typed.

But then you attempt to point out the similarities between Islam and liberalism. That's not what the article was about. I addressed your statements about the supposed similarities between Islam and liberalism, which you conveniently ignored by stating again that you were just agreeing with the article. Either counter my points or withdraw your...erroneous statement.

The article was about how the Liberal voice against Christianity is similar to Radical Islam in a certain form. The only difference is that one uses a gun and the other use legislature to silence another religion. What do you think the article was about?

The persecution of religion? Please tell me you do not believe that tripe. Name me a single instance of a liberal driven religious persecution. You can't, it's all perpetrated by conservatives.

Extreme Conservatives = Religion in schools and government.
Conservatives = Free religion anywhere you want.
Liberal = Religion in schools and government are to be seperate. (My stance)
Extreme Liberal = Free religion.....only out of the publics eye where it can't be seen.

The mandating of where, when, and how someone worships is a form of "persecution." One could even argue that it is from liberal creativity that men might define his religion in his new way which gives way towards a restrictive conservative stricture. (Bin Ladden's Islam is not the Islam he grew up with, therefore he changed it into what it has evolved into today.)

Uh no, I see no similarity. Like I have already said, liberals have no problems with Christians. They can practice all they want, build churches, organize charities, raise their kids Christian, blah, blah, blah. What liberals do have a problem with is when the Christians attempt to force their religion into the government (see the recent Defense of Marriage Act). Is it life threatening? No. Are their priorities a little messed up? Maybe. But that STILL doesn't make them comparable to radical Islam.

This has nothing to do with the article or what I typed. This is not about domestic governance. This is about perspectives and views. You see no similarity because you do not want there to be one. If a Conservative can see the destructive nature of his extremes then why can't a Liberal? Radical Islam is merely hyped up with steroids and levels above the anti-religious left in America.

Maybe you should write a letter to Sam Harris and ask him why he would write such meany things about his own. Perhaps he has stepped back and recognized something uncomfortable? Most conservatives don't like to acknowledge that Bin Ladden is the very definition of the extreme Conservative. But truth is truth.

 

[Captain America]

I suppose preventing someone from yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre is another form of persecution as well. But I say go for it. :mrgreen:

 

[cherokee]

Well I for one believe that they (Muslims) just need to get in touch with their Feminine side

Hell if I could get in touch with mine I’d never leave the house…:mrgreen:

 

[Kelzie]

What's up with the abrasions?

What abrasions love?

Like I said, I agree with the article. There was no attempt to change anything except for to correct the manner in which I replied to him. I didn't pay too much attention to what the poster typed.

Stop dodging. Do you or do you not believe that liberalism is mirrored by radical Islam? Cause you say you do, then you don't because it's not in the article. Take a stance.

The article was about how the Liberal voice against Christianity is similar to Radical Islam in a certain form. The only difference is that one uses a gun and the other use legislature to silence another religion. What do you think the article was about?

The article was about how liberals are out of touch because they are threatened by Christianity, but not radical Islam. And I have already said that to some degree that belief is correct. Not once though did that article discuss the similarities between Islam and liberalism, even if you tried really hard to see it. Proof from the article itself:

As we argued in The Wall Street Journal last year, the fearsome religious right threatens the secular left with nothing worse than the adoption, through democratic means, of policies with which the latter disagree. By contrast, the goals and methods of radical Islamists are genuinely terrifying.

Now, unless you can find a quote from this article that supports your belief that it is about "how the Liberal voice against Christianity is similar to Radical Islam in a certain form," but more specifically, how "one uses a gun and the other use legislature to silence another religion," I think the more important question is what did you think the article was about?

Extreme Conservatives = Religion in schools and government.
Conservatives = Free religion anywhere you want.
Liberal = Religion in schools and government are to be seperate. (My stance)
Extreme Liberal = Free religion.....only out of the publics eye where it can't be seen.

You can't make up your own definitions and then use them to support your position. Even extreme liberals don't mind if you practice your religion publically. Just as long as the government doesn't practice a religion, which by definition, extends to public institutions maintained by the government, ie schools.

The mandating of where, when, and how someone worships is a form of "persecution."

True. Find me one liberal that is trying to tell people "where, when and how" to worship. Just one.

One could even argue that it is from liberal creativity that men might define his religion in his new way which gives way towards a restrictive conservative stricture. (Bin Ladden's Islam is not the Islam he grew up with, therefore he changed it into what it has evolved into today.)

That is a ridiculous stretch and you know it. By definition, one cannot use liberalism (the ideology) to become more conservative (the ideology). However, one can use a liberal interpretation of one's belief to become more conservative. As in "not literal or strict," one of the many definitions of "liberal." But it has nothing to do with the liberal ideology.

This has nothing to do with the article or what I typed. You see no similarity because you do not want there to be one. If a Conservative can see the destructive nature of his extremes then why can't a Liberal? Radical Islam is merely hyped up with steroids and levels above the anti-religious left in America.

Ignoring the fact that messed up priorities have everything to do with the article, there are still no similarities. Radical liberalism and radical Islam are diametrically opposed. You can't keep saying they have similarities without offering proof.

Maybe you should write a letter to Sam Harris and ask him why he would write such meany things about his own. Perhaps he has stepped back and recognized something uncomfortable? Most conservatives don't like to acknowledge that Bin Ladden is the very definition of the extreme Conservative. But truth is truth.

"Meany things"? Are we going to pretend now that I haven't said many of the same things that Harris has said about liberals? You know I have, stop being patronizing. In fact, this article mentions many of the things I have said about today's liberals, my favorite being:

My correspondence with liberals has convinced me that liberalism has grown dangerously out of touch with the realities of our world--specifically with what devout Muslims actually believe about the West, about paradise and about the ultimate ascendance of their faith.

Of course, I also believe that liberals are aligning themselves with radical Islams out of spite for the right in the US. But not once does Harris EVER compare the liberal ideology to the radical Islam ideology. In fact, he is quite explicit that they are opposite, which is what makes the alliance even more hypocritical. I find this interesting though:

"Most conservatives don't like to acknowledge that Bin Ladden is the very definition of the extreme Conservative."

Now, Bin Ladden (extreme Islam) is the definition of extreme Conservatism. And here I though you were saying extreme Islam is mirrored by liberalism. Which is it?