Justinian
Well-Known Member
Shut your goddamn face you stupid silly alien atheist.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Schools equate Christianity to Terrorism
- Thread starter Multigraph
- Start date
Shut your goddamn face you stupid silly alien atheist.
Werbung:
vyo476
Well-Known Member
Gee gosh golly I'm gonna miss you Justinian. Nothing but the sharpest, most intellectual stuff came out of your corner.
Napoleon
Well-Known Member
There are still plenty of Christian terrorist groups at work in the world, primarily in India and Africa, and the acts of Al Qaeda are quite humane in comparison to what they do. The Lord's Resistance Army, for example, routinely kidnaps children in broad daylight. The girls are taken as sex slaves while the boys are forced into militant training camps. If you happen to be the unlucky village they've targeted for forced conversion....beware. Refusal results in your babies being bashed against trees, your elders stabbed and hacked to death with spears and machetes, and the lucky ones end up with a bullet in their head. Islamic terrorism doesn't get a pass but good luck finding any media outlet, government institution, or political organization willing talk about what Christian terrorists are doing these days.
Do you have some facts and references to back up that astoundingly unbelievable assertion, or are you just blowing smoke?
Napoleon
Well-Known Member
Here are links about two well known Christian terrorist groups:
Lord's Resistance Army
National Liberation Front Of Tripura
Here is a link about the specific incident I was referring to:
"Forty-eight people were hacked to death near the town of Kitgum in the far north of Uganda (on Thursday). Local newspaper reports say elderly people were killed with machetes and spears, and babies were flung against trees."
Lord's Resistance Army: This is Christianity?
National Liberation Front Of Tripura? I've never heard of them, and the link didn't work.
Napoleon
Well-Known Member
His goal is to turn Uganda into a Christofacist state and, yes, he practices a sect of Christianity.
Just remove the additional http//
First of all, before I even get into debunking some of the most absurd breaches of logic propagated in this thread (what are you guys, Marxists? Christ!), shame on the lot of you for derailing the topic.
Whatever the past sins of Christianity, the fact remains that the major terrorist threat today comes from Muslims, and it makes no sense to hold safety drills that do not recognize this fact. If they don't want to offend Muslims, why mention a particular brand of person at all? Why not simply say "terrorists are attacking the school (or whatever), so here's our evacuation route"?
I've seen such nonsense so many times it's just mind-boggling. The defenses of it are even more so.
He killed less than 200 people. Not to mention his actions were motivated by politics, not religion. And that when he was punished for his crimes there was not a large fifth column in America *****ing about it.
Ugh. I still remember during my year-or-so-long flirtation with the Libertarians, when I was a Free State Project member, there was a big group of people cheering about some fellow who had murdered a couple of people (including one or two police officers) over a land dispute. It was one of the big reasons I turned my back on them.
I don't get why some people glorify revolution. Obviously they've never lived through one.
Hitler was born Catholic. That's about where his affiliation with them ended. (This is rather like saying we should have attacked Saudi Arabia after 9/11 because most of the hijackers were ethnically Saudi, which I've always thought was a ridiculous argument).
He adhered to a highly revisionist pseudo-mythological treatment of the religion he called Positive Christianity. He regarded Jesus as an anti-Jewish Aryan crusader. I doubt he even believed this himself; I think it was more an attempt to mold the ideals of the Nazi regime to the overwhelmingly Christian people of Germany. We already know from his private table talk that Hitler ridiculed the Germans' religiously-motivated sexual conservatism because it interfered with his racial stud farms.
And again, whatever his religion was, his actions were motivated by other things -- i.e., his total insanity.
So? Look, there are three salient points here:
(1) As far as Christendom is concerned, such things don't happen today on anywhere near the scale they used to. (This is not true of Islam, where racially- and sexually-motivated assaults and murders are not only common but legally permitted).
(2) Christians may have been responsible for those things, but Christians were equally responsible for ending them. (Again, this is untrue of Islam, where the "moderate voice" we hear touted so often in the media is pretty much silent even here, and practically non-existent in the Muslim world).
(Yes, I know you were only responding to that guy, who was obviously wrong about Christian sins in the 20th century. But it's worth debunking these arguments now before someone comes along who will actually use this as a defense of Islamic atrocities).
(A) The Inquisition probably would never have happened if Moorish Muslims had not previously invaded and conquered parts of Spain.
(B) Christianity was responsible for the dark ages? That's new. The fall of Rome, due in part to the influx of eastern barbarians, was. Case in point: the Roman Empire was Christian long before the dark ages began. The Byzantines were Christian long after. And the Islamic sacking of Constantinople did plunge the region into a Dark Age. (And ironically sped along the western Renaissance, as Greek intellectuals had to flee westward to avoid the ravages of the barbaric Muslim invaders).
(Not to mention, the vast majority of Muslims worldwide are still living in a dark age!)
And (C) Islamic crazies have been killing women since their religion was founded. And unlike Christians, they still largely kill women today.
You know, as I recall, when the Muslim fundies in Scandinavia rioted and destroyed cars over a damn cartoon, or when they butchered a few dozen people over Salman Rushdie's book, or when they left broad swaths of Paris in flaming ruins for no particular reason, liberals lectured everyone on how we need to be more sensitive.
Now that Christians are the target, all that goes out the window, they just need to grow a thicker skin, huh?
Precisely; so why be bothered to name a particular group at all?
I won't claim to be like the other fellows who think Christianity's hands are clean.
But on the other hand, how do you equate a few backwoods extremist groups, operating far from the Christian heartland and with their obvious condemnation, to a widespread religious movement subsidized by explicitly Islamic governments, with actual political power in virtually every place where its adherents exist in appreciable numbers?
Whatever the past sins of Christianity, the fact remains that the major terrorist threat today comes from Muslims, and it makes no sense to hold safety drills that do not recognize this fact. If they don't want to offend Muslims, why mention a particular brand of person at all? Why not simply say "terrorists are attacking the school (or whatever), so here's our evacuation route"?
I've seen such nonsense so many times it's just mind-boggling. The defenses of it are even more so.
He killed less than 200 people. Not to mention his actions were motivated by politics, not religion. And that when he was punished for his crimes there was not a large fifth column in America *****ing about it.
Ugh. I still remember during my year-or-so-long flirtation with the Libertarians, when I was a Free State Project member, there was a big group of people cheering about some fellow who had murdered a couple of people (including one or two police officers) over a land dispute. It was one of the big reasons I turned my back on them.
I don't get why some people glorify revolution. Obviously they've never lived through one.
Hitler was born Catholic. That's about where his affiliation with them ended. (This is rather like saying we should have attacked Saudi Arabia after 9/11 because most of the hijackers were ethnically Saudi, which I've always thought was a ridiculous argument).
He adhered to a highly revisionist pseudo-mythological treatment of the religion he called Positive Christianity. He regarded Jesus as an anti-Jewish Aryan crusader. I doubt he even believed this himself; I think it was more an attempt to mold the ideals of the Nazi regime to the overwhelmingly Christian people of Germany. We already know from his private table talk that Hitler ridiculed the Germans' religiously-motivated sexual conservatism because it interfered with his racial stud farms.
And again, whatever his religion was, his actions were motivated by other things -- i.e., his total insanity.
So? Look, there are three salient points here:
(1) As far as Christendom is concerned, such things don't happen today on anywhere near the scale they used to. (This is not true of Islam, where racially- and sexually-motivated assaults and murders are not only common but legally permitted).
(2) Christians may have been responsible for those things, but Christians were equally responsible for ending them. (Again, this is untrue of Islam, where the "moderate voice" we hear touted so often in the media is pretty much silent even here, and practically non-existent in the Muslim world).
(Yes, I know you were only responding to that guy, who was obviously wrong about Christian sins in the 20th century. But it's worth debunking these arguments now before someone comes along who will actually use this as a defense of Islamic atrocities).
(A) The Inquisition probably would never have happened if Moorish Muslims had not previously invaded and conquered parts of Spain.
(B) Christianity was responsible for the dark ages? That's new. The fall of Rome, due in part to the influx of eastern barbarians, was. Case in point: the Roman Empire was Christian long before the dark ages began. The Byzantines were Christian long after. And the Islamic sacking of Constantinople did plunge the region into a Dark Age. (And ironically sped along the western Renaissance, as Greek intellectuals had to flee westward to avoid the ravages of the barbaric Muslim invaders).
(Not to mention, the vast majority of Muslims worldwide are still living in a dark age!)
And (C) Islamic crazies have been killing women since their religion was founded. And unlike Christians, they still largely kill women today.
You know, as I recall, when the Muslim fundies in Scandinavia rioted and destroyed cars over a damn cartoon, or when they butchered a few dozen people over Salman Rushdie's book, or when they left broad swaths of Paris in flaming ruins for no particular reason, liberals lectured everyone on how we need to be more sensitive.
Now that Christians are the target, all that goes out the window, they just need to grow a thicker skin, huh?
Precisely; so why be bothered to name a particular group at all?
I won't claim to be like the other fellows who think Christianity's hands are clean.
But on the other hand, how do you equate a few backwoods extremist groups, operating far from the Christian heartland and with their obvious condemnation, to a widespread religious movement subsidized by explicitly Islamic governments, with actual political power in virtually every place where its adherents exist in appreciable numbers?
Napoleon
Well-Known Member
I find that hard to believe considering the fact that the Inquisition was not focused exclusively against what were considered to be pagan religions. It was an affront against all science, literature, and art which did not reflect the mandated beliefs of the Pope. It would have occurred even if Muslims had not invaded France and Spain.
The Dark Ages were, indeed, primarily caused by the Christian Church. It is a period in history in which many of the cultural, scientific, and technological advances made in the preceding centuries were lost due, primarily, to the policies of the Christian Church which deemed them heretical, mandated their destruction, and demanded the persecution of those who tried to resurrect them.
The riots in Europe, and especially France, were the result of socio-economic strain and had nothing to do with religion. We've seen the same thing occur in the United States many times over.
The Christofacists do have their supporters in the so called "Christian heartland". Pat Robertson comes to mind. The traditional Christian Church didn't end it's own barbarity because it wanted to; it ended it because it HAD to due to it's tremendous loss of power, influence, and resources. Christofacism isn't anywhere near extinct.
vyo476,
Here's a snippet from an interview from Time magazine:
"TIME: Are you religious?
MCVEIGH: I was raised Catholic. I was confirmed Catholic (received the sacrament of confirmation). Through my military years, I sort of lost touch with the religion. I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs.
TIME: Do you believe in God?
MCVEIGH: I do believe in a God, yes. But that's as far as I want to discuss. If I get too detailed on some things that are personal like that, it gives people an easier way alienate themselves from me and that's all they are looking for now."
The entire interview is here: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,109478,00.html. I assume that this site does not handle HTML so I provided the URL instead of a link.
Here's a snippet from an interview from Time magazine:
"TIME: Are you religious?
MCVEIGH: I was raised Catholic. I was confirmed Catholic (received the sacrament of confirmation). Through my military years, I sort of lost touch with the religion. I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs.
TIME: Do you believe in God?
MCVEIGH: I do believe in a God, yes. But that's as far as I want to discuss. If I get too detailed on some things that are personal like that, it gives people an easier way alienate themselves from me and that's all they are looking for now."
The entire interview is here: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,109478,00.html. I assume that this site does not handle HTML so I provided the URL instead of a link.
SW85,
Unfortunately, Hitler was a Catholic. From everything I've read, he never renounced his faith and was in fact a member in good standing. He, like many despots, seemed to not have liked the fact that the Church wielded power in addition to himself and so fought certain Priests but that certainly does not mean that he did not accept Catholic theology because he did.
His anti-Semitism was purely Christian in origin. In fact anti-Semitism wouldn't exist if not for Paul's polemics and for the fact that the synoptic gospel writers got so many things wrong with regards to Jesus' speeches against the Pharisees and others who accommodated Roman rule. After all, it wasn't the Jews who killed Jesus, it was the Romans. They killed him for sedition against Rome with the help of the Pharisees and the Herodians who held the High Priesthood.
Hitler may not have practised Catholicism by faithfully going to church but he was a Catholic and a Christian. I understand that many Christians don't like this but that doesn't change the facts. Many Christian sects seem to not accept others who consider themselves Christian simply because the others' tenets deviate from their own. For example, many Christians don't accept that Mormans or Jehova's Witnesses are Christians. The problem is that religions are merely belief systems.
Unfortunately, Hitler was a Catholic. From everything I've read, he never renounced his faith and was in fact a member in good standing. He, like many despots, seemed to not have liked the fact that the Church wielded power in addition to himself and so fought certain Priests but that certainly does not mean that he did not accept Catholic theology because he did.
His anti-Semitism was purely Christian in origin. In fact anti-Semitism wouldn't exist if not for Paul's polemics and for the fact that the synoptic gospel writers got so many things wrong with regards to Jesus' speeches against the Pharisees and others who accommodated Roman rule. After all, it wasn't the Jews who killed Jesus, it was the Romans. They killed him for sedition against Rome with the help of the Pharisees and the Herodians who held the High Priesthood.
Hitler may not have practised Catholicism by faithfully going to church but he was a Catholic and a Christian. I understand that many Christians don't like this but that doesn't change the facts. Many Christian sects seem to not accept others who consider themselves Christian simply because the others' tenets deviate from their own. For example, many Christians don't accept that Mormans or Jehova's Witnesses are Christians. The problem is that religions are merely belief systems.
Are we talking about the same Inquisition? As far as I can tell, its scope was limited almost entirely by religious considerations, even insofar as the prohibition of books was concerned.
The justification was almost entirely to drive Muslims (and the Jews who supposedly backed them) from Spain in the aftermath of its reconquest. Only later did it branch out to include "heretical" Christians -- Protestants, mystics, bigamists, etc. -- and their works.
And of course it's worth noting that the pope of the time was pressured into sanctioning the Spanish Inquisition by Ferdinand, strongly criticized its excesses, and at one point issued a papal bull to stop it.
The Catholic Church merely prolonged the Dark Ages -- it did not cause them. Again, witness the fact that Christianity preceded the Dark Ages by some time, and that it existed in other places where there was no dark age (i.e., the eastern Roman empire). The splintering of the western empire into a mess of feuding barbarian petty-kingdoms was wrought the Dark Ages. I did not think this was even debatable.
And why do you call it the Christian Church? It was not the only established church in existence at the time -- the Orthodox church was nearly as old at the time, and vastly different. The fact that you lump the two together suggests to me that you don't even really understand the nature of the institutions you're criticizing, which certainly explains why your criticisms amount to very little more than the recycling of trite one-liners that don't stand up to historical scrutiny, mixed in with a sizable dose of raging hypocrisy that you won't criticize the equally flagrant atrocities of Islam both then and now.
That may be true of the riots in France (which I did not mention), but the riots in Scandinavia were over a cartoon and the worldwide riots (and accompanying bloodshed) in the early 90's were over Rushdie's book. Numerous people involved its translation and publication were murdered. You cannot seriously believe otherwise.
And no, so far as I know, no one in some time has been butchered in the United States over the publication of a disliked book or an unfavorable cartoon.
OK, wait, now you're saying Pat Robertson is worst then the nominal Christians who actually kidnap/butcher kids in Africa? Lord, you people are weird.
Pat Robertson is a harmless, relatively comical, bloviating old man. So far as I know he has never exhorted his followers to violence. If he did it is unlikely that any would have listened -- and it is a certainy that he would've been promptly arrested and tried for his crimes. He wielded no real political power in his life time and his sermons was never, at any point, sanctioned or funded by the government. In my book, this makes him substantially less of a threat to the well-being of a society than any of the wretchedly extremist imams of the west or their even worse counterparts in the Middle East.
I am simply floored by the fact that you people call fascistic the inane forces of modern western Christendom while begging that we offer more understanding to the people who are now, and have always, swam in the blood of their enemies -- pagans and faithful alike.
Then read more. His personal writings, the table talk that has come down over the decades, his publicly-advertised exhortations, and the claims of people who knew him from his days in school to the last hours of his life, all argue against what you say is fact.
I cannot argue with you people if you're not even going to make an effort to be well-read on serious subjects like this.
Napoleon
Well-Known Member
I'm referring to the Roman Inquisitions.
The earliest Inquisitions were not specifically directed at Muslims. They were directed at art, literature, science, and Judaism which the Roman Emperors and Christian Church deemed heretical.
The first Inquisitions specifically directed against heretical Christians were the Episcopal and Papal Inquisitions from 1184-1230s.
Debatable.
Because it was the only one which conformed to all of the decisions made by the Ecumenical Councils.
I'm not saying he's worse; I'm saying that, as a supporter of their actions, he is on par with them.
Who just happens to have financially and politically supported such dictators as Charles Taylor and Mobutu Seko and has publicly advocated the detonation of a nuke at the State Department.
Is it? He's escaped prosecution before as a result of his campaign contributions to Virginia Attorney General Mark Earley.
Werbung:
r0beph
Well-Known Member
See this is what gets me, without quoting and making note of each individual point. In reference to the Christian Terrorist Orginizations noted here, it's a great example of an often overlooked facet of the whole islamic terrorist debate.
You will have many come forward and proclaim that the islamic religion promotes terrorism, due to a VERY VERY SMALL and EXTREMELY minor ratio of the muslim population. Now were I to say all christians were terrorists due to the actions of the aforementioned christian terrorist groups, would you debate this with a hot point? I'm sure you would. All religions have some pretty screwed up sects and many rife with violence. In no case does this make any of the religions in their entirety violent, terroristic, dangerous, or otherwise. What is a danger however is the underhanded permeation of the sects, that while keeping their hands clean, support the darker groups under the religions banner. Pat robinson is a great example here. His words and his beliefs are heavily followed by many people, he supports, while remaining removed, christian terrorism. I do fear...I do I do
You will have many come forward and proclaim that the islamic religion promotes terrorism, due to a VERY VERY SMALL and EXTREMELY minor ratio of the muslim population. Now were I to say all christians were terrorists due to the actions of the aforementioned christian terrorist groups, would you debate this with a hot point? I'm sure you would. All religions have some pretty screwed up sects and many rife with violence. In no case does this make any of the religions in their entirety violent, terroristic, dangerous, or otherwise. What is a danger however is the underhanded permeation of the sects, that while keeping their hands clean, support the darker groups under the religions banner. Pat robinson is a great example here. His words and his beliefs are heavily followed by many people, he supports, while remaining removed, christian terrorism. I do fear...I do I do
