Fundamentalism

[LaBelleCordiere]

No, no, no, infidel. You have it all wrong. It's a book of peace. Please, take our word.

silly me.

[jessicasimpson]

here is my take, christianity is about 600 years older than islam. 600 years ago, christians were going through things like the crusades, the spanish inq. ect. the basics being to kill all that was not christian. Islam just needs a reform, and that takes a lot of time. a whole lot of time. Just ask Goodie Proctor

[Fencing Jesus]

I am a prophet of Islam.

True Story.

[mrbiggs]

http://hauns.com/~DCQu4E5g/koran2.html

Having recently started to learn about the Muslim religion from someone who is actually Muslim, I can assure you that that website is full of crap.

Also, may I point out that there are a plethora of similar quotes in the Bible. And that they have been acted on. *ahem* Spanish Inquisition *ahem* crusades *ahem*

[mrbiggs]

I think we can all agree that fundamentalism in almost any form is just extremism and isn't a good thing. However, upon doing quite a bit of research into Islam, I am SHOCKED by what I have found. First things first, keep in mind that it is an ENTIRELY different culture. However, while the Bible has been "updated" if you will by the New Testament; the Qur'an has NOT. Mohammed preached that it is okay to lie, cheat and steal as long as it is from an infidel. This isn't "cherry picking" it is a common vein throughout the book. Anyone who is not of the faith of Islam has 3 choices...1. become as a "slave" by submitting to dhimmitude under Islamic law, 2. convert, or 3. die. This is why I am not comfortable with so called Islamic Fundamentalism at this time.

You are completely wrong. Just 100% completely wrong. Sorry! Islam was created to stop tribal warring in the first place. It would make no sense for Islam to become simply another warring tribe. Furthermore, many of these verses of the Koran were created under certain circumstances which, if you research them, make sense. For example, the clauses that allow Muslims to fight wars against non-Muslims and take multiple wives, for example, were from the war between Mohammed's followers in Medina and the Meccans. Had Islam not been changed to allow for some warfare, it would not be a religion anymore. Also, the war left most of the men dead, therefore, men were allowed to take multiple wives.

These laws may seem barbaric or out of date, but many or most have a rational explanation.

Also, how come an update 600 years before Islam was created is considered more current?

Also, how come your research trumps people who actually are a part of that religion?

P.S. it is this ignorance that causes their anger at us. I'm not saying you're at fault for the terrorists, I'm saying that dismissal of their religion only helps their cause.

[Inquartata]

600 years ago, christians were going through things like the crusades, the spanish inq. ect.

Hey, leave me out of this! I'm not Spanish, and no Christians have gone through me! Not that I recall, anyway...

[Slim]

You are completely wrong. Just 100% completely wrong. Sorry! Islam was created to stop tribal warring in the first place. It would make no sense for Islam to become simply another warring tribe. Furthermore, many of these verses of the Koran were created under certain circumstances which, if you research them, make sense. For example, the clauses that allow Muslims to fight wars against non-Muslims and take multiple wives, for example, were from the war between Mohammed's followers in Medina and the Meccans. Had Islam not been changed to allow for some warfare, it would not be a religion anymore. Also, the war left most of the men dead, therefore, men were allowed to take multiple wives.

These laws may seem barbaric or out of date, but many or most have a rational explanation.

Also, how come an update 600 years before Islam was created is considered more current?

Also, how come your research trumps people who actually are a part of that religion?

P.S. it is this ignorance that causes their anger at us. I'm not saying you're at fault for the terrorists, I'm saying that dismissal of their religion only helps their cause.

Wow, now you're almost as much of an expert as pigeon is.

I wont argue that the website I posted is a bit extreme. But, so the are some of the apologist ones. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Ask your friend to explain Sharia law, and why women subjected to it are basically treated as property with no rights, and can be legally beaten by their husbands. Why are the people and nations who practice this barbaric form of Islam not taken to task by the more secular Islamic groups or by the human rights activist groups?

[mrbiggs]

Wow, now you're almost as much of an expert as pigeon is.

I wont argue that the website I posted is a bit extreme. But, so the are some of the apologist ones. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Ask your friend to explain Sharia law, and why women subjected to it are basically treated as property with no rights, and can be legally beaten by their husbands. Why are the people and nations who practice this barbaric form of Islam not taken to task by the more secular Islamic groups or by the human rights activist groups?

I'm not an expert on the Koran, and I wouldn't have said anything, but the things being said on this thread were blatantly wrong.

I agree with your second paragraph.

For your third paragraph, 1400 years ago, women were treated as property. Had Mohammed come onto the scene and said "hey, women can have jobs!" or some such he would have been laughed at. The Koran actually did teach, though, that women and men were created equally by God, with the one modification that they have different roles to play on Earth.

Plus, the Koran actually gave women more rights. They were allowed to own property, for example. I agree that many nations interpret the Koran too strictly, not allowing women enough rights, and that it is a barbaric form of Islam. But I think that it's just another example of fundamentalism.

And as an extra women's rights in Islam tidbit, Mohammed's first wife was a rich businesswoman.

[LaBelleCordiere]

You are completely wrong. Just 100% completely wrong. Sorry! Islam was created to stop tribal warring in the first place. It would make no sense for Islam to become simply another warring tribe. Furthermore, many of these verses of the Koran were created under certain circumstances which, if you research them, make sense. For example, the clauses that allow Muslims to fight wars against non-Muslims and take multiple wives, for example, were from the war between Mohammed's followers in Medina and the Meccans. Had Islam not been changed to allow for some warfare, it would not be a religion anymore. Also, the war left most of the men dead, therefore, men were allowed to take multiple wives.

These laws may seem barbaric or out of date, but many or most have a rational explanation.

Also, how come an update 600 years before Islam was created is considered more current?

Also, how come your research trumps people who actually are a part of that religion?

P.S. it is this ignorance that causes their anger at us. I'm not saying you're at fault for the terrorists, I'm saying that dismissal of their religion only helps their cause.

What makes you think I'm Christian? While I have no excuse for the Inquisition...which was more politics than religion...I do know that the crusades were a direct response to a muslim INVASION...it wasn't started by christians, both sides were guilty of extreme atrocities...but the New Testament did alter or mitigate more violent and extreme portions of the Old Testament while Islam doesn't have that...I'd like to point out that I said extremism in ANY form is wrong, bad, shouldn't happen, evil...what have you...however, Christianity isn't going around preaching "Convert or DIE" at this point...whereas Islam is trying to reinstitute the Caliphate and Sharia. The point I keep finding in my readings is that a person of Islam is allowed to lie, cheat and steal to and from infidels to the point of entering peace treaties only to buy time to build up strength and then attack. I am not saying that the person of Islam who lives down the street from me is not a good person, or a peaceful person...I am saying that those who wish to harm the Western world are taking the Qur'an at face value...and it IS a very violent book without the benefit of the emergence of a love-filled Christ figure.

[Slim]

I'm not an expert on the Koran, and I wouldn't have said anything, but the things being said on this thread were blatantly wrong.

I agree with your second paragraph.

For your third paragraph, 1400 years ago, women were treated as property. Had Mohammed come onto the scene and said "hey, women can have jobs!" or some such he would have been laughed at. The Koran actually did teach, though, that women and men were created equally by God, with the one modification that they have different roles to play on Earth.

Plus, the Koran actually gave women more rights. They were allowed to own property, for example. I agree that many nations interpret the Koran too strictly, not allowing women enough rights, and that it is a barbaric form of Islam. But I think that it's just another example of fundamentalism.

And as an extra women's rights in Islam tidbit, Mohammed's first wife was a rich businesswoman.

1400 years ago? How about today? Sharia law is still practiced today, in many different degrees, everywhere. Including here in the US. It usually is up to the imam of the mosque to be the enforcer of these laws. I have a Pakistani collegue who refuses to let his wife drive or answer the phone because "its not permitted". This is a man who thought the taliban were basically good people, but just not very smart.

It's an arcane, male dominated culture, which controls by fear and intimidation, and is afraid of the more radical sects of its own culture. They will not speak to non muslims about other muslims. It is forbidden. The Imams interpret the koran for the people belonging to the mosque as they choose. They set the tone, they basically set the rules for its members.

I think your friend will choose to leave this information out of your lessons because as an infidel, you just wont understand.

If you want to learn more, an interesting read is "What Went Wrong" by Bernard Lewis. It attempts to explain some of the fundamental differences between Islam and the west. Very interesting. Here is a link to an article that talks about many of the issue the book covers:

http://www.ntpi.org/html/exorcisingterror.html

[mrbiggs]

1400 years ago? How about today? Sharia law is still practiced today, in many different degrees, everywhere. Including here in the US. It usually is up to the imam of the mosque to be the enforcer of these laws. I have a Pakistani collegue who refuses to let his wife drive or answer the phone because "its not permitted". This is a man who thought the taliban were basically good people, but just not very smart.

It's an arcane, male dominated culture, which controls by fear and intimidation, and is afraid of the more radical sects of its own culture. They will not speak to non muslims about other muslims. It is forbidden. The Imams interpret the koran for the people belonging to the mosque as they choose. They set the tone, they basically set the rules for its members.

I think your friend will choose to leave this information out of your lessons because as an infidel, you just wont understand.

If you want to learn more, an interesting read is "What Went Wrong" by Bernard Lewis. It attempts to explain some of the fundamental differences between Islam and the west. Very interesting.

I realize that it's still practiced today, but my point is that the laws were made in the context of 600 AD. I agree with you that people following them today are wrong.

I'd like to have enough information to be able to refute your and LaBelleCordiere's comments based on the Koran, but I simply don't have the knowledge (or time to research it.) And for that I am sorry.

[pigeonmeister]

P.S. it is this ignorance that causes their anger at us. I'm not saying you're at fault for the terrorists, I'm saying that dismissal of their religion only helps their cause.

I am completely amazed that people on this forum are not aware of what this thread says about 21st America, and its irational fear of Islam- a fear rationalised by probably typing 'Islam sucks' into google and finding quotes to fit that warped hypothosis. I really think that being anti-religion is one thing, but trying to argue that one religion is more peacefull than the other- given the history of both is probably the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Saying things like the Quran says it is ok to lie and cheat or that the basic attitude of a Muslim is 'convert or die'. I am a total loss, but I think that this basic Islamiphobia has consequences, and we have seen them in photos of Abu-Ghraib, allegations in Cuba, and the recent atrocities in Afghanistan (a link to which I provided, but was soundly ignored). None of you here are qualified to say what the central tenets of Islam are, let alone try and explain to me (in a tone of total superiority) concepts of Sharia, female rights, or state that the Koran is a 'violent book without the benefit of the emergence of a love-filled Christ figure'. Have you read it, or even had it explained by any source apart from self-serving websites?

What are you trying to achieve? Is it for Muslims worldwide to hold their hands up and say: 'Yes, your right I do practise a cruel, twisted and medieval religion that teaches me to hate infidels, it is quite clear to me that not only does the bible have a better ending, it also has a much more positive message. Please forgive me, I'll try and be more like you in the future.'

The sanctimonious tone of LaBelleCordiere is particularly grating. The Crusades were a 'direct response to a muslim INVASION...it wasn't started by christians'. I'm just going to leave you to think about how stupid that sounds, I suggest you do some research into the Crusades- which were more to do about, money, trade routes, papal ambition, conflicting religious claims on Jerusalem (a claim that is not exclusive to Christianity), and European princess trying to curry favour with the pope and shore up their domestic situation with military glory. The atrcoties by both sides were staggering, but the Christians were probably worse.

Christian government can be as descriminatory as Islamic. You might think that your centuries ahead in terms of civilisation. OK women can't vote in many Muslim countries, but it was only 50 years ago that Black people couldn't vote in the 'bible belt' of America. It was only 80 years ago that women were allowed to vote in Britain (and that took a war). The Saudi might
chop of your head for adultery, America executes mentaly retarded teenages. Its different yes, but both practises are deemed 'uncivilised' by many people and both practises are based on legal-religious interpretation.

I think that unless you start treating your 6 million fellow American Muslims with a bit of respect (the same respect afforded to Judaism for example) you will have a big problem. Indeed I wonder if a thread critising the theological basis of the Torah would have been greeted with such enthusiasm? Instead the Muslims have to put up with people publicly deriding their religion, badmouthing their Prophet, ridiculing the Qur'an -- and mounting uninformed crusades to smear their Islamic Law, the Shariah. This has ceased to be a critique of Islamic FUNDEMENTALISM, instead it has become a critique of the Koran- which is obviously the sacred text of ALL Muslims.

"Like Jewish law and Christian canon law, Islamic law is interpreted differently by different people in different times and places. In the hands of moderates, religious law can be moderate and even liberal. In the hands of post-Enlightenment readers of philosophy, religious law becomes associated mainly with ritual, theology, or history and no longer regulates society or the state.

In the hands of fundamentalists, however, it is legally binding on all people of the faith and even on all people who come under their control. Islamic law to American Muslims in Dearborn, Boston, or Houston is very different than Islamic law to religious Muslims in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Gaza Strip, western China, Nigeria[1], Indonesia or Pakistan. All follow Islamic law, yet their view of the law varies as much as individual Muslims vary."

THIS DISTINCTION IS BEING OBSCRURED IN THIS DEBATE.

Sharia- Wikepedia

[Slim]

I am completely amazed that people on this forum are not aware of what this thread says about 21st America, and its irational fear of Islam- a fear rationalised by probably typing 'Islam sucks' into google and finding quotes to fit that warped hypothosis. I really think that being anti-religion is one thing, but trying to argue that one religion is more peacefull than the other- given the history of both is probably the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Saying things like the Quran says it is ok to lie and cheat or that the basic attitude of a Muslim is 'convert or die'. I am a total loss, but I think that this basic Islamiphobia has consequences, and we have seen them in photos of Abu-Ghraib, allegations in Cuba, and the recent atrocities in Afghanistan (a link to which I provided, but was soundly ignored). None of you here are qualified to say what the central tenets of Islam are, let alone try and explain to me (in a tone of total superiority) concepts of Sharia, female rights, or state that the Koran is a 'violent book without the benefit of the emergence of a love-filled Christ figure'. Have you read it, or even had it explained by any source apart from self-serving websites?

What are you trying to achieve? Is it for Muslims worldwide to hold their hands up and say: 'Yes, your right I do practise a cruel, twisted and medieval religion that teaches me to hate infidels, it is quite clear to me that not only does the bible have a better ending, it also has a much more positive message. Please forgive me, I'll try and be more like you in the future.'

The sanctimonious tone of LaBelleCordiere is particularly grating. The Crusades were a 'direct response to a muslim INVASION...it wasn't started by christians'. I'm just going to leave you to think about how stupid that sounds, I suggest you do some research into the Crusades- which were more to do about, money, trade routes, papal ambition, conflicting religious claims on Jerusalem (a claim that is not exclusive to Christianity), and European princess trying to curry favour with the pope and shore up their domestic situation with military glory. The atrcoties by both sides were staggering, but the Christians were probably worse.

Christian government can be as descriminatory as Islamic. You might think that your centuries ahead in terms of civilisation. OK women can't vote in many Muslim countries, but it was only 50 years ago that Black people couldn't vote in the 'bible belt' of America. It was only 80 years ago that women were allowed to vote in Britain (and that took a war). The Saudi might
chop of your head for adultery, America executes mentaly retarded teenages. Its different yes, but both practises are deemed 'uncivilised' by many people and both practises are based on legal-religious interpretation.

I think that unless you start treating your 6 million fellow American Muslims with a bit of respect (the same respect afforded to Judaism for example) you will have a big problem. Indeed I wonder if a thread critising the theological basis of the Torah would have been greeted with such enthusiasm? Instead the Muslims have to put up with people publicly deriding their religion, badmouthing their Prophet, ridiculing the Qur'an -- and mounting uninformed crusades to smear their Islamic Law, the Shariah. This has ceased to be a critique of Islamic FUNDEMENTALISM, instead it has become a critique of the Koran- which is obviously the sacred text of ALL Muslims.

"Like Jewish law and Christian canon law, Islamic law is interpreted differently by different people in different times and places. In the hands of moderates, religious law can be moderate and even liberal. In the hands of post-Enlightenment readers of philosophy, religious law becomes associated mainly with ritual, theology, or history and no longer regulates society or the state.

In the hands of fundamentalists, however, it is legally binding on all people of the faith and even on all people who come under their control. Islamic law to American Muslims in Dearborn, Boston, or Houston is very different than Islamic law to religious Muslims in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Gaza Strip, western China, Nigeria[1], Indonesia or Pakistan. All follow Islamic law, yet their view of the law varies as much as individual Muslims vary."

THIS DISTINCTION IS BEING OBSCRURED IN THIS DEBATE.

Sharia- Wikepedia

The Oracle speaks. You address one area of Sharia law, Voting, then apologise for it. How about the rest? I guess we just dont understand.

An interesting site sponsored by a muslim group:

http://www.ntpi.org/html/islamophobia.html
http://www.ntpi.org/html/whatispi.html

[pigeonmeister]

The Oracle speaks. You address one area of Sharia law, Voting, then apologise for it. How about the rest? I guess we just dont understand.

An interesting site sponsored by a muslim group:

http://www.ntpi.org/html/islamophobia.html
http://www.ntpi.org/html/whatispi.html

I'm almost ready to give up on you Slim, I think you display shamefully ignorant views on Islam that are down right dangerous.

I addressed one 'area' of Sharia law by saying there ISN'T one monolithic 'area' of Sharia. Instead: "Like Jewish law and Christian canon law, Islamic law is interpreted differently by different people in different times and places". Therefore I can criticise one interpretation and not another. Is that hard for you to understand?

"I guess we just dont understand."

That is the fist time you have made sense.

(From your source) "Many apologists for Political Islam claim that to criticize any aspect of Islamic practice is to be guilty of racism and Islamophobia"

It is unbelievable that you are trying to latch this perfectly legitimate statement, to your vicious Islamiphobia. I say again you (and LBC) were not making a distinction between political Islam, fundementalist Islam and Islam. You were publicly deriding the sacred text of ALL Muslims. Don't try and back-track by saying you were actually standing up for some kind of 'enlightended' Islam. You try and present some of your posts to the groups you have cited and see if they appreciate your vast knowledge of their religion.

Again, what are you trying to achieve?

[Slim]

I'm almost ready to give up on you Slim, I think you display shamefully ignorant views on Islam that are down right dangerous.

I addressed one 'area' of Sharia law by saying there ISN'T one monolithic 'area' of Sharia. Instead: "Like Jewish law and Christian canon law, Islamic law is interpreted differently by different people in different times and places". Therefore I can criticise one interpretation and not another. Is that hard for you to understand?

"I guess we just dont understand."

That is the fist time you have made sense.

(From your source) "Many apologists for Political Islam claim that to criticize any aspect of Islamic practice is to be guilty of racism and Islamophobia"

It is unbelievable that you are trying to latch this perfectly legitimate statement, to your vicious Islamiphobia. I say again you (and LBC) were not making a distinction between political Islam, fundementalist Islam and Islam. You were publicly deriding the sacred text of ALL Muslims. Don't try and back-track by saying you were actually standing up for some kind of 'enlightended' Islam. You try and present some of your posts to the groups you have cited and see if they appreciate your vast knowledge of their religion.

Again, what are you trying to achieve?

This thread is about fundamentalism, correct? There have been some who argue that Christian fundamentalism is more dangerous than Islamic fundamentalism, or that they are equally dangerous. I contend that they are not, and on the extreme side, Islamic fundamentalism is much more dangerous and brutal than Christian fundamentalism. Islamic fudamentalism makes no distinction between church and state. The church is the state, and enforces extreme and barbaric laws. Entire countries are ruled by these brutal laws. In its extreme form, its a culture of male domination, human bondage and intolerance. To even compare Christian fundamentalism with Islamic fundamentalism in their extreme forms is absurd, just in numbers of practitioners alone.

Take a look at what happend on this thread. dcdale, a Christian "fundie" by his own words, adds some very thoughtful and interesting perspective to this discussion. I dont see him hacking and slashing at what he might consider the misunderstanding of Christian fundamentalism exhibited here. Then you chime in with your enlightened rhetoric, dont like what I have to say, then turn to a violent scene from a movie to express your frustration. Way to defend the religion of peace.

[esskreemr]

This thread is about fundamentalism, correct?

No, technically, this thread is about which flavor of nutjobism is most threatening to the particpants in the poll. Christian is a popular choice, because the majority of us will never be at risk of having shrapnel pierce our brains from an exploding jihadist but are DIRECTLY affected by the Christian fundamentalists attemtp to transform a mostly secular government into a theocracy.

There have been some who argue that Christian fundamentalism is more dangerous than Islamic fundamentalism, or that they are equally dangerous. I contend that they are not, and on the extreme side, Islamic fundamentalism is much more dangerous and brutal than Christian fundamentalism.

That's your opinion, you're welcome to it. I think that the families of the tens of thousands of Iraqi women and children, you know, the "collateral damage", would have a different opinion.

Islamic fudamentalism makes no distinction between church and state.

A goal frequently espoused by many Christian fundamentalists. Several who actively pursue overthrowing the Constitution of the United States of America.

The church is the state, and enforces extreme and barbaric laws.

You mean like 20 years to life in prison for smoking weed? How about life internment without a court hearing for being an enemy combatant? The death penalty?

We don't have to argue this point. I don't agree with Sharia law. Cutting off a hand or foot for stealing a piece of fruit IS brutal. The seperate systems and punishments for men and women leave women holding the short end of the stick.

Entire countries are ruled by these brutal laws.

Yes. Not only that but they have been attempting to push their medieval justice system on countries that are not Muslim.

In its extreme form, its a culture of male domination, human bondage and intolerance.

Hold on, are you talking about the Muslims or the Christians now? I you want I can provide evidence of what many Christians think of 'male domination' and 'intolerance'. When was the last time we had a female President or even Vice President? How about Pakistan? Indonesia? Turkey?

To even compare Christian fundamentalism with Islamic fundamentalism in their extreme forms is absurd, just in numbers of practitioners alone.

Yes, assuming that you don't count bombs and missiles against people with explosives strapped to their bodies, the Islamics have a definite lead. Factor those in and who gets the largest body count?

Way to defend the religion of peace.

Islam was founded as a way to unify Arabics. It's had varying success. Christianity started as a cult founded on the basics of Hebrew teachings. Both religions have been transformed through the ages and used as justifications for genocide, repression, and other brutal acts. In response to " What would Jesus bomb?" My answer, based on what I know of Jesus's teaching, would be nothing. Our 'devout' Christian leader apparently has a different view of Jesus's teachings.

[LaBelleCordiere]

The sanctimonious tone of LaBelleCordiere is particularly grating. The Crusades were a 'direct response to a muslim INVASION...it wasn't started by christians'. I'm just going to leave you to think about how stupid that sounds, I suggest you do some research into the Crusades- which were more to do about, money, trade routes, papal ambition, conflicting religious claims on Jerusalem (a claim that is not exclusive to Christianity), and European princess trying to curry favour with the pope and shore up their domestic situation with military glory. The atrcoties by both sides were staggering, but the Christians were probably worse.

Sanctimonious? hmmm the definition of Sanctimonious is "Feigning piety or righteousness". I don't think pointing out facts is being sanctimonious. By the way, I HAVE done research into the crusades. The muslims made it as far as Tours before being turned back. Yes it was political, yes it was fueled by Europeans and the Papacy as well as other concerns, but the main crux of the matter was invasion. The Muslim armies were on the march to spread Islam and wipe out Christianity as well as pretty much any other form of worship...and before you say that Muslims were just like Rome in assimilating the religions, they were not in one very basic way: Dhimmitude. Muslims believed you could retain your religion as long as you subjected yourself to extremely strict laws and fees. Most people converted to Islam just to escape the discrimination. Yes, Christianity has done the same thing...but Christians aren't doing it NOW by using violence. I suppose what I am getting at is that Christianity has, for the most part...moved on from 7th century violence.

Just curious, have you ever heard the phrase "counter-attack"? The Muslims conquered the Holy Land from the Byzantine Empire, conquered Christian North Africa, conquered Christian Spain and invaded France, finally being stopped at The Battle of Tours in 732 by Charles Martel (Charles the Hammer), the father of Charlemagne.

After all that it was evil for the Christian forces to return the favor, counter-attack, and attempt to retake what had been Christian territory? But that isn't the issue....the issue is RIGHT NOW, Islamic fundamentalists are using the Qur'an to further their agenda of making this an Islamic WORLD...which means I am more afraid of them than of Christian fundamentalists who don't go around blowing people up and cutting off their heads.


As for making a distinction of Political Islam, Fundamental Islam, and Islam...I don't claim to be an expert, I've said at least once, if not more that I don't apply this to all Muslims and I haven't said all of our Muslim neighbors are violent whackos out to kill everybody...in fact, I believe I've said just the opposite. However, the FUNDAMENTAL ISLAMICISTS (that clear enough for you) are using undiluted Qur'an passages and beliefs to further their desire for the Caliphate and Sharia through out the world...and they are using violent means to do it. I haven't said Christians aren't guilty of the same things at other points in history, but I have said that the Christian body of law (the bible, old and new) HAS input some mitigating passages to the originally very violent document...add in the Reformation, and the varying modern interpretations and you get a religion that is mostly quite peaceful. I am sure there are people of Islam who are the same way with their originally very violent document...but we were specifically asked which we feared more and then requested to back up WHY. I haven't seen any document related to the Qur'an that resembles the New Testament...but I don't claim to be an expert. What I do see is EXTREMIST Muslims using the Qur'an to justify violence...if I saw EXTREMIST Christians doing the same thing, I'd take issue with it. However, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, there is not a large body of Christian Fundamentalists running around killing people. Therefore I fear Islamic Fundamentalists more. Please do not accuse people of not doing their research just because they do not agree with you. I have read widely from many viewpoints in my meanderings through the library and the web...and I am always learning new things and shifting what it means to me based on the information.

[Slim]

No, technically, this thread is about which flavor of nutjobism is most threatening to the particpants in the poll. Christian is a popular choice, because the majority of us will never be at risk of having shrapnel pierce our brains from an exploding jihadist but are DIRECTLY affected by the Christian fundamentalists attemtp to transform a mostly secular government into a theocracy.



That's your opinion, you're welcome to it. I think that the families of the tens of thousands of Iraqi women and children, you know, the "collateral damage", would have a different opinion.



A goal frequently espoused by many Christian fundamentalists. Several who actively pursue overthrowing the Constitution of the United States of America.



You mean like 20 years to life in prison for smoking weed? How about life internment without a court hearing for being an enemy combatant? The death penalty?

We don't have to argue this point. I don't agree with Sharia law. Cutting off a hand or foot for stealing a piece of fruit IS brutal. The seperate systems and punishments for men and women leave women holding the short end of the stick.



Yes. Not only that but they have been attempting to push their medieval justice system on countries that are not Muslim.



Hold on, are you talking about the Muslims or the Christians now? I you want I can provide evidence of what many Christians think of 'male domination' and 'intolerance'. When was the last time we had a female President or even Vice President? How about Pakistan? Indonesia? Turkey?



Yes, assuming that you don't count bombs and missiles against people with explosives strapped to their bodies, the Islamics have a definite lead. Factor those in and who gets the largest body count?



Islam was founded as a way to unify Arabics. It's had varying success. Christianity started as a cult founded on the basics of Hebrew teachings. Both religions have been transformed through the ages and used as justifications for genocide, repression, and other brutal acts. In response to " What would Jesus bomb?" My answer, based on what I know of Jesus's teaching, would be nothing. Our 'devout' Christian leader apparently has a different view of Jesus's teachings.

Thank you for allowing me to have an opinion.

You clearly have some deep rooted problem with Christians. Even your Avatar indicates this... "United States of Jesus"? Whatever that means.

Your arguments are the always the same for almost every thread in this political area, and boil down to the following:

1. You hate Christians
2. You hate George Bush
3. You hate Republicans
4. You think George Bush and his administration are a bunch of radical Christian Fundamentalists striving to overthrow the constitution.
5. You believe any military actions which result in muslims dying is a crudade, or if you will, the equivilant of a Christian Jihad
6. You think anyone who does not agree with your beliefs should have their rights to free speech revoked.
7. All the problems in the world are attributable to some combination of the above.

Thanks. We've got where you're coming from loud and clear.

[YankeeRebel]

Your arguments are the always the same for almost every thread in this political area, and boil down to the following:

1. You hate Christians
2. You hate George Bush
3. You hate Republicans
4. You think George Bush and his administration are a bunch of radical Christian Fundamentalists striving to overthrow the constitution.
5. You believe any military actions which result in muslims dying is a crudade, or if you will, the equivilant of a Christian Jihad
6. You think anyone who does not agree with your beliefs should have their rights to free speech revoked.
7. All the problems in the world are attributable to some combination of the above.

Thanks. We've got where you're coming from loud and clear.

I wish I was this good at creating a strawman . . .

[esskreemr]

Thank you for allowing me to have an opinion.

Hey, no problem. I'll allow it this time. Please submit your opinions to me by email for proper authorization in the future though. That way I can weed out the baseless lies and ridiculous accusations that you automatically level at anyone who doesn't prop up your view.

You clearly have some deep rooted problem with Christians. Even your Avatar indicates this... "United States of Jesus"? Whatever that means.

No, I have a problem with religions in general. For the most part the foundations of most religions are fine. I go to church regularly (3+ times a month) attend church functions, etc. I DO have a problem with sactimonious twits pushing their vindicative, violent, intolerant, and close-minded 'beliefs' on other people.

I have no problem with children being raised in the church. I know many christians who are great people. They are caring, devoted individuals who are true assets to this world.

I also know quite a few close-minded 'Bible-beaters' that merely use 'religion' as a chance to pursue their own personal/political agenda. The latter are typically the loudest.

Then there are the sheep of the church. The 'flock'. The weak-minded who use 'Religion' as a substitution for logical thought and reasoning.

Your arguments are the always the same for almost every thread in this political area, and boil down to the following:

Yeah, right. Maybe it's just the posts you're reading.

1. You hate Christians

Untrue. I hate Christian posers. There's a HUGE difference.

2. You hate George Bush

No. I hate his style of leadership and most of the decisions he has made. As for hating the man, I would have to sit down and have a talk with him before that would happen.

3. You hate Republicans

Not entirely true. I dislike some Republican. Some of my best friends are Republicans. I dislike career politicians in general. Wanna indict a few Dems? Feel free, they'll be more to replace them, there always are.

I do dislike the Republican Agenda. Well, I would except that they haven't really fulfilled most of their "Contract With America" or whatever it was called.

4. You think George Bush and his administration are a bunch of radical Christian Fundamentalists striving to overthrow the constitution.

Ummm... partly. They are a group of quasi-Christians who are striving to significantly water the Constitution and its protections down. They are actively seeking to unite church and government and are also consolidating power for the Executive branch. I don't remember the Dems doing that, I could be wrong.

5. You believe any military actions which result in muslims dying is a crudade, or if you will, the equivilant of a Christian Jihad

Really? I thought (like the majority of the rest of the world) that Afghanistan was a justified action. I still do. We'd be justified in striking Saudi Arabia (you remember the country that 15 of the 9/11 terrorist came from, home country of Osama bin Whatshisname), but they send us oil so we won't do that. We need oil for our hemis so we cozy up with terrorists as long as it's convenient for us.

I did not agree with the Iraqi War, I still don't and never will.

6. You think anyone who does not agree with your beliefs should have their rights to free speech revoked.

Completely and utterly wrong. Stop putting words in my mouth. You can barely speak for yourself.

7. All the problems in the world are attributable to some combination of the above.

and yours:
1. You hate people who you think are Christian-haters AND you hate Muslims.
2. You love George Bush no matter what.
4. You hate non Republicans.
5. You fail to see that George Bush and his administration are Christian Identists striving to weaken the Constitution and the Seperation of Powers while breaking the wall between a secular government and a theocracy
6. You think that anyone who doesn't agree with your 'I just got it off of Rush Limbaugh's website so it must be true' is incapable of thinking for themselves.
7. All the problems of the world can be fixed using tactical nuclear strikes.

Thanks. We've got where you're coming from loud and clear.

Maybe I should speak louder, apparently you're not hearing everything.