Let's discuss why Codell's signature is offensive...

Way, way, way more. There are very few examples in history where you can clearly look at two sides of a conflict and ascribe clear roles of right and wrong to each...but the Crusades is one of them.

That being said, most 'wars in the name of religion' merely used religion as a pretext, except at the lower class level. There were always zealots and true believers, of course, but usually there were many more in search of land, booty, glory, and power.

 

MacBeth,

Regardless of the trap that TJ fell into that you set for him, I will not change my position.

For the record, I am not offended by the Amercian example that you gave, nor am I offended by the example using Catholics, and I am American AND Catholic.

I find it amazing that I have posted anywhere between 10-20 times a day (sometimes more ) for the last 2 months and not one word has been said to me (Sane, I know you said otherwise, but I never saw it) about my signature up until yesterday. My conclusion: If my sig hasn't offended anyone for the past 2 months (up until a select few jumped on the bandwagon that was started), and since during that time it was not offensive enough for anyone to say anything about it, then it really is not that offensive IMO.

I will conclude my postion by adding a few things. 1) If anyone finds my sig that offensive, then I would encourage them to put me on their ignore list. 2) If Clutch, as the administrator of this board, concludes impartially that my signature is offensive, then I will remove it.

PS - If anyone suggested that you remove your signature because it was offensive to them as a conservative, would you? After all, some say "politics is religion and religion is politics".

If someone interprets something differently from its intended meeting, I do not feel someone should have to change a signature. If that was the case, half the signatures on this BBS would have to be changed.

 

I don't have numbers, but I believe it. The Muslims never came to the new world, and enslaved, attacked, the native inhabitants. Nor did Muslims have the inquisition. In problems with the Slavs etc. You again had Christians murdering Muslims. I know I didn't provide concrete numbers, but that's just my hunch.

 

Oh, MM, easily. There were, depending upon your interpretation, anywhere from 7 to 11 Crusades. The least significant, in terms of deaths as a result, was that which occured in southern France against the Cathars, where over 15, 000 were killed, and that's a conservative estimate.

Almost any single Crusade killed more people than all the terrorist actions combined, and there were many of them. Add to that the amazing destruction of the Thirty Years War, here Germany lost approx. half it's population, and it ain't even close.

 

Fair enough. Your sig had rankled me a bit, in the past, but I admit that I would have never said anything about it, because I both respect you and think you mean no harm, and because it wasn't THAT big of a deal to me.

My main point wasn't that it offended me, but that, if reversed, it would offend many of those who were currently saying 'no big deal' about it due merely to it being about those they have no sympathy for. You are clearly not among that group...just as clearly some in here are, and that kind of hypocrisy is one of my triggers.

Re: my sig. My sig is a quote about liberalism and conservatism...from a noted conservative. I honestly do not see the parallel.

 

I guess I'd have to look case by case to see if I thought it was one where the overriding theme of the war was "kill in the name of Christ." How awful that it can become so perverted.

 

The Crusades began when Pope Urban II, God Bless Him, announced that the Holy Land was in the hands of infidels, and that as such the land of Christ was being polluted. He then made a Papal decree: All those who go to the Holy Land, and kill infidels in the name of God and the Church would automatically be absolved of their sins, and assured a place in Heaven. It doesn't get much more literal than that.

re: perversion...I agree...all the 'major' religions, be they Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc. are, at their chore, about peace, understanding, and love.

That they have been used to justify the exact opposite for so long is one of the saddest commentaries on the human race.

 

Give me a Fvcking break!

 

What's the matter with judging people? We all make judgements every day. You have to make some judgements. Suicide bombings and child sodemy seem like pretty stable ground for starts. Even is you hold that people are incapable of working in absolutes, you got to work with situational percents. If we're incapable of anything, we're incapable of avoiding judgement.

 

I got it, I got it...

All Catholics want to have children. (basic human need)

It's just that a select few want to have sex with them.

 

I don't think that the judgment of the bombers is the source of objection, but the link being established as being Muslim. Clearly not all bombers are Muslim, but the sig can be interpreted as inmplying that...try this one out:

All Germans like baking...it's just that some Germans like throwing Jews into the oven instead of dough.

Can you see how offensive that kind of comment would be to Germans? Now did some Germans kill Jews in ovens? Clealry...is that worthy of judgment? Obviously...but the comment, as it stands, makes the common link the fact that they were German, not the fact that they were immoral bast*rds...see what I mean?

 

yeah...it took a reformation to make a change. it takes an educated population capable of reading scripture and interpreting it on their own. at least that was the case in Christianity.

 

can be interpreted?? why dont you take it in the spirit it is offered?

how can you say "clearly not all the bombers are Muslim"? they are! how is that a point of contention? we are talking about suicide bombers here right? the same suicide bombers that are sent into Israel with explosives strapped to their chests to do damage to Israeli targets?

I have not heard one, not a single news report that tells us that Bob Smith blewup a sidewalk cafe in Tel Aviv or anywhere else.

The names of the suicide bombers have all been Arabic...

the original statement from Heretic that is in use as codell's sig can be interpreted to mean that just because some Muslims blowup people that doesnt mean that all Muslims do..

try looking at it that way for a minute....

jeeze....this is why I hate PC..

 

I am not saying there is a parallel. However, I am saying that if Madmax, Trader Jorge, John Heath, Treeman or any other Conservative on here asked you to remove it because they interpreted it as being offensive to them as a conservative (I think if you insinuated someone was embittered (or a Cubs fan for that matter ), they might interpret that as an insult), would you feel compelled to remove it (regardless of whether you feel it is offensive or not)?

Also, the person who quoted it should not be a factor (not sure if you were saying should be; if you weren't then disregard this paragraph). If a muslim on this board was the one who had quoted my signature (I am assuming that Heretic is not muslim) would that make my sig ok?

 

I'm an American and a Catholic, and I really hated to see what Macbeth and Batman wrote. I don't know if "offended" was what I felt....perhaps ashamed and angered would be a better description.

BUT...there ARE indiscriminate American mass murderering terrorists, and there are pedophile Catholic priests. It's a fact, and it shouldn't be swept under the carpet. As much as I hate to see it, and as much as it probably "offends" people, it's probably best that we're reminded of this so we can attempt to prevent more of it in the future.

I think Codell should keep his signature, but I imagine if the rest of you join him and incorporate signatures like the statements that Macbeth and Batman used, someone will eventually step in and start censoring this kind of stuff.

 

Pole - your sig offends me

 

ummm..not really. See Thirty Years War, one of the bloodiest in history, and about that very issue; the Reformation. Or Henry VIII's 'treatment' of the Catholics in post-Reformation England. There are many other examples. Besides, Islam, for example, has always been open to persoanl interpretation, and Imans have never had intepreting the Qu'ran as pasrt of their function as priests did...they are merely prayed leaders. Yet still we know that personale interpretation of Islam has been used as means to justify their actions.

Many Nazis claimed personal interpretation of the Bible as justification for theirs, etc. It would be nice if what you said was true, as if i ever believe in judeo-Christian practices it will certainly be about a personal relationship rather than through an intermediary, but any religious text is open to exploitation, whether it is doctrinal or personal.

 

Before I respond, I have one question: are you seriously reducing this to the semantic question of whether a bomber commits suicide while comitting mass murder? There are exceptions to this position, but I am just curious if that is actually what you are basing you argument on.

 

Again, I don't think the offense is taken on behalf of those guilty of these actions, but on the group in question with which they are being lumped.

All white people like trees...it's just that some white people like to see black men hanging from those trees.

Did it actually happen? Yes Were there white people who took part in lynchings? A tragically large number....But I don't think that it's the equivalent to sweeping it under the carpet to suggest that the insinuated qualifier for that kind of action was being a white man, and that that is a misrepresentation of white people. People are brutal everywhere, and black men hang black men all over Africa...but to myiopically depict the action as being about race as an action is to suggest that white people are somehow more pre-disposed to commiting it.

 

I am responding to your assertion that the sig is offensive to Muslims because all suicide bombers aren't Muslims.

that is what the debate is about...suicide bombers..

and if a quote about the said suicide bombers is offensive.
Have you sidetracked this to be about bombers in general?

because if so, then you are off-topic.
In a nutshell, the sig is referring to the fact that most Muslims would prefer hugs to blowing up people, it is only a few of them that prefer to do it with a bomb strapped to their chest..

am I misunderstanding your point? or are you misunderstanding mine?

My point has nothing whatsoever to do with semantics...it has to do with the logical assertion that a funny little statement about the difference between normal Muslims and suicide bomber Muslims is not offensive.

Did I clarify what I am referring to?