Yes, that s the case

Whew. Why was that so hard?

You’re asserting that Muslims, by their nature are the cause of our conflicts. If that’s true, then what power do we hold to resolve the conflict?

Yes, that’s the case and I provided enough evidence to support my position.

I watched friends dissolve into mindless morons for Christ because they wanted to get laid.

Haw. How did that work out?

This is not anecdotal evidence, it is statistical. And it is there for anyone to see  if they are willing to open their eyes. But we won t yank off your blindfold and pull your eyelids open for you  you have to be willing to look at reality and accept it for what it is.

Please feel free to yank away. Where is this “statistical” evidence of which you speak?

My first contat with the loving, forgiving Christian right was in high school when I watched friends dissolve into mindless morons for Christ because they wanted to get laid. Later our highschool had to endure the idiocy of fighting to keep our school mascot: The Diablos. So I don’t have any problem whatsoever painting born again Christians with the broadbrush of brain-dead fanatacism.

But you have no right to insist we all join you in covering your eyes, insisting that you have the  true perspective, without being challenged.

My apologies. Perhaps you can point me to the entry where I made this error so that I may correct it.

You said “I won t argue which religion has the most nut cases. I can offer no reliable evidence to support any position.”

That’s OK, we did that for you. Eric Rudolph vs. the throngs of those who commit terrorist acts while shouting “Allahu Akbar!” The massive outrage at Rudolph and McVeigh vs. the Wafa Idris Summer Camp for Young Future Not-So-Smart Bombs. The reactions to The Last Temptation Of Christ, Hail Mary, Piss Christ, Madonna With Cow Dung to a series of cartoons.

This is not anecdotal evidence, it is statistical. And it is there for anyone to see — if they are willing to open their eyes. But we won’t yank off your blindfold and pull your eyelids open for you — you have to be willing to look at reality and accept it for what it is.

You are free to stay blindfolded and keep yourself from looking. But you have no right to insist we all join you in covering your eyes, insisting that you have the “true” perspective, without being challenged.

Just like some cartoonists in Denmark once thought that their own rights to draw and publish what they like were superior to the rules of a faith they did not subscribe to and has no legal standing in their homeland.

Yet.

Governments have no business enforcing purely religious dictates. I feared such back in 1988, when Pat Robertson proclaimed that under his presidency, only Christians should bother applying for high government office. And the repulsion I felt at that is only a fraction of that inspired by the Islamic theocracy that so many in this world espouse.

Demands such as this that all nations “respect” Islam or else is merely a creeping form of that tyranny. And it is utterly incompatible with democracy.

J.

I said that extremist Islam is a  large part of mainstream Islam.

Yes. “The nuts are part of the mainstream.” But only when you’re talking about Muslims. If we’re talking about Christians, then the nuts are not part of the mainstream. They’re “marginalized.”

No, pay close attention to what I wrote. I said that extremist Islam is a “large part” of mainstream Islam. There’s evidence to support that. As I said, laws in Saudi Arabia and Iran allow for the physical punishment and death sentence for homosexuals. In the schools, they’re taught the following:

The day of judgment will not arrive until Muslims fight Jews, and Muslim will kill Jews until the Jew hides behind a tree or a stone. Then the tree and the stone will say, ‘Oh Muslim, oh, servant of God, this is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him.’ Except one type of a tree, which is a Jew tree. That will not say that.”

As I said, this kind of thinking is accepted throughout good portion of Islam - ie, within the mainstream. The advocation and acceptance of the murder of abortion providers is accepted only within a small fringe spectrum of Christianity. ‘God Hates Fags’ are dangerous, but so marginalized that their ’support’ is limited to their own members.

Radical violent Islam is a large part of  mainstream Islam.

Well, there it is, exactly as I said.

You’re saying that nut case Christians aren’t mainstream, but nutcase Muslims are.

I won’t argue which religion has the most nut cases. I can offer no reliable evidence to support any position.

Any religion can spawn extremists. We’ve only been talking about Christianity and Islam. Hinduism (by the book, the most tolerant and inclusive of religions) has extremists who burn trains full of people and destroys mosques. Extremist Judaism has given rise to assassins and bombers. Heck, even Buddhism, which is supposed to be all about compassion, has its violent side.

I once read a quote from a peace advocate in Northern Ireland (I forget which side): “If we were born where they were born and we were taught what they were taught, we’d believe what they believe.”

Not at all, BUT……Extremism in the form of violence on behalf of Christianity is rare. Why do you think you can cite the name Eric Rudolph? It’s because such violence is not common in the name of Christianity. Frameone talked about ‘The Last Temptation of Christ’. That movie came out almost 20 years ago. It’s the exception, not the rule. And I’m not sure exactly how the Family Research Council fits into this.

Like Jay Tea said, Islamic jihadists who are willing to blow themselves up and take innocents with them are a dime a dozen - so common that it would take us days or even weeks to name all of them. Radical violent Islam is a large part of ‘mainstream’ Islam. It’s part of official governments. Muslims are routinely taught that Jews are evil and should be killed. Even when violence is condemned, it is often excused. “We condemn this act of violence, BUT…..”

Sorry, but a comparison between those who are committing violence because of some cartoons in a newspaper and the Family Research Councill is not valid.

Frame:

The mainstream of Christianity in this country is of the wild-eyed, zombified born again variety and you know it.

Do you really mean that? If my primary source of exposure to “mainstream Christianity” was what I read in blogs, I could see how I might come to that conclusion. In real life, though, there are a whole lot of pretty decent people–both liberal and conservative–who call themselves Christian.

Jay:

When Christians of all stripes worldwide riot, burn buildings, and call for the death of people who mock Christianity or because they get in an uproar because of some freaking cartoons, then maybe your point would have some validity.

And when Muslims of all stripes riot and burn buildings, then your point will be valid as well.

On one hand, you want to divorce the actions of Christian extremists from mainstream Christianity, while at the same time citing the actions of Muslim extremists as exemplary of mainstream Muslims. I think the point of Oliver’s initial post was that wackos live on the fringes of any religion. (Are their wackos wackier than our wackos? I decline to opine. They’re wackos and they’re using religion as cover for their own intolerance. If you ask me, that’s blasphemous.)

That one’s got me scratching my head. Haw.

Good series of posts IMHO.

Dugger

I’m an evangelical Christian and contrary to Frameone’s characterization, I am not one of these wild-eyed, zombified born-agains. Yes, I am a born again Christian. I accepted Christ as my savior in 1994 and make no apologies for it. I go to church every Sunday, play drums in one of the church bands, and participate in a weekly small group.

But I also love watching sports. One of my favorite movies of all time is ‘Pulp Fiction’. I wouldn’t miss an episode of ‘24′. I like to fish, play basketball with my son and do other assorted goofy things guys my age (35) like to do. I can listen to a Christian band like ‘Kutless’ one minute and then switch over to ‘Led Zeppelin’ or ‘Godsmack’ the next. The list can go on.

But Frameone and apparently Oliver believe that I’m a person that isn’t any different from some fanatic that blows himself and dozens up of people up on a bus in Tel Aviv.

And tell me Quaker, what do you think of Frameone s comparison of Muslims burning down buildings with Christian s supporting the nomination of Samuel Alito and John Roberts to be on the Supreme Court? Is that a fair comparison?

Maybe I didn’t look carefully enough. Scrolling back up, I don’t see that comparison, by frameone or anyone else.

In any case, I get your point. On one hand, we have Islamic fundamentalists rioting and burning buildings. For comparison, we can look at Christian fundamentalists who in general, advocate strident, but law-abiding objections. However, as I scroll back up the thread, I also see some comparisons to so-called Christian fundamentalists who have resorted to violence.

You ask for my reaction?

Violence can never be committed in the authentic spirit of the divine. If anyone does violence “in the name of God,” that person replaces a genuine god with the false god of self-righteousness.

That goes for Eric Rudolph, for those who gun down abortion doctors, for the people rioting over cartoons, and anyone else who thinks his God gives him the authority to kill.

I’m also disgusted with the European newspapers that seem to have gone out of their way to stoke the passions on all sides. “Oh, did that piss you off? Let me do it again, then!” isn’t exactly responsible journalism.

If the papers were reporting actual news about what was said or done by Islamic leaders, and that reporting led to riots, I’d say the papers would be in the right. In this case, however, the papers have taken an insult and repeated it, while smugly asserting their right to do so. That’s irresponsible.

Why do you take such delight in using mental retardation as a stick to attack your adversaries? Are there other birth defects you find similarly amusing?

Answer what? You made a statement and simply put it in the form of a question.

And I don’t take ‘delight’ in using mental retardation as a stick to attack my adversaries. Reacting like I did was me just using a printed way of expressing my utter disbelief at how a smart person like Oliver can actually believe for a moment that the Family Research Council is no different from these extremist Muslims.

Ok? So, I apologize for using a disability to illustrate my point.

But that doesn’t change my disbelief.

Take for example the recent cover of Rolling Stone with Kanye West portrayed as Jesus during his crucifixion. That absurdity coupled with West’s admission of being addicted to porn probably did not go over well with many Christians. But do we see hoards of Christians burning down the offices of Rolling Stone? Are they out setting fire to stores that carry the magazine?

And tell me Quaker, what do you think of Frameone’s comparison of Muslims burning down buildings with Christian’s supporting the nomination of Samuel Alito and John Roberts to be on the Supreme Court? Is that a fair comparison?