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

i suppose that's true...but it's really hard to read "kill in the name of Christ" from the New Testament. I mean, really hard. I have read bits and pieces of the Koran so I can not speak for it. My understanding of the Crusades is that the church was the power of the day...as such, they convinced people that conquering these new lands was what Christ would have them do...they had a bloodbath. And most of the populace was so uneducated, they couldn't read the Bible for themselves to defend another viewpoint.

 

This thread in a mini format.

WAH....you said....WAH !!


Wah...wah wah....you said...wah.....wah...wah.


Who gives a crap if something is offensive, quit whining about it.

If you don't like his sig, simply don't read it.

Man....whining is getting out of hand around here.

DD

 

Muslim extremists ARE more predisposed to suicide bombing than say, Buddhists or Jewish people.

I am Catholic, and the Catholic thing by BJ didn't offend me, mainly because I've heard so much of that stuff. And your truck bombing thing didn't offend me either, because extremists militias are a problem. But are Catholics more predisposed to abusing children than the general public? Are white men more likely to bomb government buildings than other groups? I don't think so.

So if you go by that standard, only Codell's seems to still stand.

 

Exactly. Christianity has reformed and is existing comfortably in the 21st centruy.

Islam is still in the 1500's in many ways. It has not modernized. Most Islamic countries do not give basic human rights and freedoms to people. You can criticize Christianity all you want in the West. But criticize Islam in the Middle East and you are very likely to get imprisoned and killed.

Macbeth's moral relativism is causing him to miss this very simple and obvious distinction.

 

Just turn off the sig's from the user-control panel. You won't see them at all. Some of them take up too much screen room.

Otherwise refer back to the Dennis Miller rant posted earlier...

 

1) Christianity is not based exclusively on the New Testament, and the Old Testament has a lot more material which can be interpreted as supporting 'kill for God' than does the Qu'ran, which has none.

2) I see what you are saying about educating the masses...i think it comes down to a couple of points; Was it easier to get people to commit to something like Holy War when their entire religious context came from the body desiring it to happen? Probably, but not substantially. It devalues the effect of translation, cultural bias, etc. and assumes that the intermieiaries, ie. the priests, were automatica supporters of Papal perspective, which is not true at all. There was no CNN to broadcast the message, and the messengers all had their own interpretations and agendas, for good or ill.

Also, and this is sad, but we are, as a race, gullible when it comes to word from above, whether that power is religious, political, etc. See Hitler and The Big Lie...If you have the position of power, and you say something over and over, people will believe it in effect, if not in substance.

For example...and MM, let's both of us forget for a sec whether we think Bush was right or wrong about this, but just look at the process...

The US is educated and has access to media sources from all over the world, irrespective of how gewo-centric the choices we make about which ones to tune into or listen to, agreed?

Ok...Bush's original claims that Iraq was behind 9-11 was met with mass skepticism. Something around 70% were unconvinced...and the CIA itself said they saw no connection. Again, for the purposes of this argument, whether Bush was right or wrong is irrelevent. He continues to make statements that iraq is connected to 9-11, in the midst of speeches about their various other evils. No new evidence of a connection os presented, just a repition of the statement that they are...A couple fo months later and 70% now believe that Iraq was behind 9-11. See what i mean? And this is in the moders, pst Reformation age of information. We are still subject to believing what we hear if we hear it enough, as a group, especially if the nature of what we hear, like 9-11 or the Crusades or the Jewish 'Problem', is based on an 'us' vs 'them' diatribe.

 

Statistically, in terms of clergy, yes.

 

Can you provide some data, please?

 

This is a post that everyone should read.

DD

 

actually, the post everyone should read and understand is the Dennis Miller rant he refers to...

 

What trap did Jorge fall into?

Macbeth's quote was a single event, while suicide bombings are not...Jorge clearly said that...what trap? He clearly stated the difference...

I like the sig code...

 

Ah, but don't forget the religion that is growing the fastest in the Southern Hemisphere - Christianity...a very different "medieval" kind of Chrstianity. I have read some interesting articles from religion scholars who think that Christianity will be the problem religion in the 21st century because of the clash between North (more liberal) and South (more conservative and msytical).

If that is to be believed, it would basically mean that imperialism/missionary work, etc. backfired.

 

Not offhand, but I have seen it. I was myself skeptical about this before I saw it, as I tend to defend Catholicism in the modern age. It does get a whole lot of undeserved bad press...but the study I saw was pretty clear. Now, to be fair, the study also said that men of any race, religion, persuasion, etc. who are denied normal sexual recourse have a much higher tendancy to experience/commit sexual acts not normally seen as socially acceptable, and children was just one of them. The only real connection to Catholicism is the non-marital/sexual practice of it's clergy.

 

Actually Mr. Clutch, there have been many examples of Jewish Terrorism in the creation of Israel till recently. Four times more Palestinian's have died in the last 'intifadah' than Jews, but shooting a missle into a city block is not considered terrorism.
What about when a Jewish settler walked into a mosque during the friday congregation with two fully automatic weapons and killed dozens of people?

Another commonly ignored fact is that a strong percentage of Palestinians are christians. And many groups are political and not religious groups. So any comments in Palestine towards muslims can also be made towards christians.

Lets look at the assertion statistically. First of all, Arabs make up less than 5% of the muslim world. Taking the total number of suicide bombers and dividing that by the over a billion muslims in the world, will yield a much smaller number than

1.) The number of terrorist attacks by jewish settlers divided by the Jewish population.

2.) Priests that molest children divided by the all the priests in the world.

So, statistically, Jews are more inclined to commit terrorism and priests are MUCH more likely to molest children than muslims are likely to be suicide bombers.

 

Deleted.....too offensive for the PC panzies on this BBS.

DD

 

Mr. Clutch and Macbeth seem to be arguing the same point and I have to agree with Mr. Clutch that suicide bombing is strictly a fanatical muslim tactic as opposed to other examples brought up and if your reasoning that Codell's signature is Okay because sucide bomings is limited to this group, the Mr. Clutch is probably right. Personally, I never had a problem with the signature for that reason. I can't think of any other group that uses that tatic.

 

Pgabriel,

That is 2 times this year we have agreed, we can not afford a 3rd time because it would cause a breach in the space time continuim.



DD

 

How does that alter the nature of whether or not each post is offensive? That T_J makes a distinction to support his reasoning makes no difference. My quote was, as Codell's, technically accurate...in fact more so.

There were at least 2 people involved in the OC bombing...hence 'some' Americans were involved in a direct, literal translation.

There are no incidents that i know of where a hug was invlved in a suicide bombing...but even if true, it merely means that bot statements were technically accurate, which refutes the position that the first is fine, the second offensive, aside from along the expected lines of we are good they are bad.

I could suggest an abstract distinction to...say, the suicide bombings are better bhecause the guys involved sacrifice their lives instead of murdering and running and hiding, or whatever ( not my belief, jusy making a point) and that would be as relevent to the question...Are either of these statements offensive...as T_J's. If they are both accurate, why is one not offensive because it may have happened more than once while one is offensive because it only happened one time? What's the connection?

The straws are that-a-way.

 

Macbeth,

You are offensive, first you lie about p*rn stars, then you lie about living with women, then you lie about being a model, what does that make you....a liar.



DD

 

Alright, I believe you. So modifying BJ's posts to say Catholic clergy would make it more like Codell's post.