General Music Chat

I'd like to thank Craig & everyone else who's been involved in this discussion. It's helped me to solidify my beliefs by exploring the reasons for the way I feel on a lot of issues.

I don't often sit down & try to determine why I have this or that opinion. I just have them. But after going over it all, I must say that I'm kinda proud of my opinions & the reasons behind them, and I'm sure the rest of you are, as well.

There are so many problems with these issues, and ppl need to do that - explore why they feel as they do, & reevaluate thier positions in the face of facts as other ppl present them.

I've enjoyed this immensely, & hope I haven't offended too many of you.

Good lively debate!

In response, all I can say is that you seem to be approaching all of this with your own brand of religious fanaticism. You want to convert them. You want to give them the benefits of your better way of life, both here & in the hereafter, I suspect.

The society you live in, is founded in large part, on what you call "MY brand of religious fanaticism". I am a religious fanatic? What are you smoking dude? I have made comments here before that I believe in a spiritual connection with God, as of primary importance, and not a religious connection. That religion often kills the spiritual connection, and people begin worshipping religion, rather than God. I have stated, that based on the Bible itself, it is CLEAR to me, that religious affiliation has NOTHING to do with salvation. That it is a PERSONAL experience between you and your creator. That people of ALL religions can find salvation and an eternity in Heaven with God.

The only people who see that as fanatical, are extreme fundamentalists.

Keep in mind that nowhere in the Bible is any form of democracy or republic espoused, Craig. So where do these ideas, these "religious truths" come from?

First of all, in quoting some of our founding documents, I am merely pointing out "WHY" the founders expressed the ideas they did. That in believing our "rights" come from God himself, it secures them infinitely stronger than claiming they are man's best attempt at ruling himself. Man cannot take away something that God gave. That is the domain of God alone. You call this fanaticism, but instead, aside from being the real beliefs of the founding fathers, it was also part of their genius. This particular belief, was an essential element in the founding and MAINTAINING of our nation. Whether you agree with the founding fathers or not, it is a matter of historical record, and you can at least pay respect to that. I believe in the separation of church and state. I could care less whether you take the term "God" off the money or not. The design of the one dollar bill pays much more homage to Masonry than it does God anyway. Change it all if you want. It is meaningless. God is not superstitious. Hell, if we was that kind of God, He would want his title on the $100 dollar bill, not the one dollar bill. I believe in God more than I believe in ANYTHING else, but my belief is that God cares MUCH MORE about how we live as individuals and conduct ourselves as a nation, than he does about whether his title appears on money or not.

Secondly, there was no such concept of democratic government throughout the time frame that the Old Testament was written. The world's earliest form of a pseudo-democracy, was in the 6th century BCE in India, and some dispute even there, whether it should be thought of as Democracy. Democracy as we know it, it is a fairly recent phenomenon. However, all throghout the Bible, including the Old Testament, there are "hints" of Democracy, and maybe even a foundation for it. So you are not quite right on this point. In the Old Testament, God instructed the people to "choose their own King" and he has instructed that Kings should rule in morality, providing godly leadership for the people, being fair, caring for the weak and the poor, etc. The example alone, of the people electing their King, is very democratic. There was also to a degree, a concept of church and state being separate functions, as the King was NOT the spiritual leader of the nation. There were prophets and priests who served that function, and they would admonish the King when he was acting in discord with God's will.

Christianity does not propose the destruction of other forms of religion? Tell that to the Native Americans!! Or to the nations of Islam, for that matter. That's why our 1st president had to make those promises that we've broken.

The Bible, and by extension God, does not EVER or ANYWHERE demand that Christians are to, by force, destroy other religions. Whether Christians take matters into their own hands, against the tenets of scripture is another matter. You're clever enough to understand the difference. Stop doing the Obama Shuffle.

In thier eyes, the acts of 9/11 were perfectly justified on several fronts.

Prior to that, they pretty much left us alone, made good bucks off of us selling oil, & all was right in the world.

That just shows a complete ignorance of history. There were numerous terrorist attacks LONG BEFORE 9-11 and many teorrorist groups. As they have gotten more organized and received more funding from oil wealth, the attacks have gotten more sophisticated and more destructive.

There has NEVER been a time when "all was right in the world". There have always been wars, or incidences of assaults on human rights, thoughout ALL of history. There probably has never been a time, when some nation or clan, has not been at war with another.

Just because you weren'y paying attention to the news, when ships, military compounds, embassies and discos were bombed and attacked, does not mean it did not occur. It did. This has existed for decades. Not only in the 6+ years since 9-11.

They most certainly were NOT forcing thier religion on us, or even trying to convert us in any slightest way. I appreciated that. It wasn't until after the Shah was overthrown in Iran that things started heating up between our cultures (again! well, there was that whole Isreal thing).

The Muslim religion, BEGINS with the idea of coversion by force dude. It is foundational. They have been busy inflicting that force on their neighbors for hundreds of years before now, and as technology and travel has increased, and oil wealth, they have begun trying to inflict it on the rest of the "infidels". You are supremely naive, if you don't understand that, where they can get away with it, they practice conversion by force. They believe THE WORLD must be converted and the "evil" destroyed. Period. People like you don't like Christians prostyletizing, by preaching in the streets, or knocking on doors, and so you take this to an extreme and believe that Muslims don't prostyletize at all, cause you don't see them knocking on doors or street preaching. Their prostyletizing began at the end of a sword, that's why. And to this day, though they have incorporated other methods, the radicals among them, still believe in the sword, where religious conversion is concerned.

Our support of Isreal, in spite of the innumerable civil rights violations against Palestinians, has also exacerbated a volatile, tenuous relationship.

You probably are unaware that politically, "Palestinians" have NEVER exercised sovereignty over the land called "Palestine". At least in modern times, that area of land has always belonged to other nations, including the Persians, the Ottoman Empire, Egypt and Great Britain, among others. People have always occupied that land, but they have been there as sheep herders and such, as an occupied land. Jews owned this land, thousands of years ago, and claim it as given to them by God. They have just as much historical claim to it than anyone else. Nevertheless, they have authorized land for the "State of Palestine" to exist, though they won all this land in war. This state exists, and is recognized now, by over 100 countries, but it's borders have not yet been agreed upon. Israel, merely wants a certain buffer, to protect it against the murderous intentions of many of it's Aram neighbors. Israel, as I recall, is smaller than the state of Rhode Island. How is it that Israel is supposed to relinquish, an already small land, rather than the surrounding Arab communities, not relinquishing some of theirs, since they supposedly care so much about this issue? Other Arab countries historically, have annexed traditional Palestinian lands as well. Why don't they give up some of their's too? The answer is, that Palestine is merely a political tool for other Arab nations. In point of fact, they treat Palestinians as ugly step-children. Without the concessions Israel has been willing to make, they would still be ugly step children, answering to other governments. Israel is going through a process right now, and earnestly so, to see that they have complete independence, and a full-fledged Palestinian state. So get off Israel's back. And stop acting like the ultra-liberal media, and making Israel the enemy in this.

Our efforts would have been much better placed in the African continent, rather than against an entire religion...and yes...that's just how they see it.

You are right, in that many human rights issues are somewhat ignored by us as a nation. But on the priorities list, where economic interests are concerned, and where national threats are concerned, these will take priority. Whether right or wrong. I think where national security is concerned, it is only natural, that this should take precedence. However, even though, we may not always rush into the continent of Africa when we could, or even should, there are MANY numerous American based human rights groups and charity organizations that do.

Weren't YOU the one saying we can't be the policemen of the world? Yet you arguing differently, when it suits your needs.

When we took this country, the natives were forced to give up thier religion, thier nomadic way of life, & even thier own language, &, yes, thier own names as well. Hmmm...just like the "evil" Japanese, eh?

well, you are innacurate on this. We took their lands. They were not forced to assimilate into our culture. Look on a map, and see how many Indian reservations there are. Those exist, in direct contradiciton to what you are claiming. They DID maintain much of their culture by being placed in those areas. Was it the life they enjoyed previously? No. Was it still stealing? I suppose so. But to compare it to the Japanese occupation of Korea is not reasonable. It may not justify our claiming this land. But what has happened has happened. People who were considered uncivilized, living in jungles and without a system of writing, and formal types of government, and particularly no means of sufficient defense, are not going to hold onto the lands they hunt and live on, when much more advanced civilizations come calling. Whether this is right or wrong is debatable, but this "IS" how modern society has developed. And perhaps our origins were dubious, but this nation, since that time, has grown to become a light in the world, and an advocate of freedom and tolerance, when compared with ANY other nation in history.

The only way other countries can judge us is by our own sordid history. I can see why they are concerned.

Yes, I see your point. The way we occupied and enslaved Germany, South Korea and Japan, are prime examples of this "sordid" history. Oh wait, we didn't annex them and esablish them as colonies did we? And now, not only do they live in freedom, but they are all within the top 15 economies in the world now.

That truly is a "sordid" result for them to have to endure.

Liberals are so funny. LOL

No, my man. In my mind, the answer is not to poop myself. It's to live & let live,

Well, the enormous caveat with that plan, is that the OTHER party must also be willing to live and let live, or this plan fails. Guess what? The radical elements are not willing to do this.

But when we are messing with other nations as much as we have, it's hard for me to justify military action when they retalliate.

Perhaps your reading the wrong material after all, Craig.

I have no choice but to read the "right" material my friend, because I read ANYTHING and EVERYTHING in making my decisions and developing my opinions. When shown I am wrong, I change my opinions. I learned long ago, that it is MUCH easier to change a wrong opinion, than to spend your life in delusion, trying to maintain a wrong one.

I think you forget, that I am for the truth above all else. I am no more afraid of discovering and admitting my country is wrong, than I am if it is right. If right, I will praise and support it. If wrong, I will criticize and seek to change it. We are guilty of both right and wrong, so I spend a fair amount of time on both sides of that fence.

I'd like to thank Craig & everyone else who's been involved in this discussion. It's helped me to solidify my beliefs by exploring the reasons for the way I feel on a lot of issues.

Thanks for sharing that all of the facts I have shared have not resulted in your mind expanding even the slightest bit, toward the idea that you may actually be wrong in some of your views.

That's awesome!

I feel just peachy about that!

Thanks for sharing.

Craig,

Y'all should fell "peachy"! (damn ol' "Georgia" boy)

HJ

You can lead a horse to water but if you hold his head down he will drown.

I didn't realize that you had such a personal stake in this conversation, Craig. Lighten up, man.

If you enter into every debate with the goal of changing someone's mind, well, that's pretty unrealistic, and you're bound to walk away angry every time you talk to someone.

You said;

"Enjoying the freedom you do, yet believing everyone else should just be left in slavery or suppression, is tanamount to being in a desert where people are thirsting, and you not wanting to share the spring you know about and enjoy personally."

Gee, that sounds to me like the excuse every other born-again starry-eyed zealot uses for getting in my face about his religious beliefs. You want to save ppl with your good news gospel of god-given rights & democracy.

When you discover that I'm not particularly interested in your view, you turn rabid as you discover that your "facts" don't sway me. You are picking & choosing your facts to support your goals, just as I am. And I think you are neglecting a lot of history in your arguements to achieve your goals, and assuming things that may not be fact afterall.

"Christianity," Craig, defines a particular religious group of ppl. Yes, the Christians DID demand that others be converted or destroyed. I made no claim that the Bible told them to do it. It was just thier way of "spreading the good word."

It's interesting to note that, while the Koran DOES tell ppl to go out & convert or destroy, they really haven't done much of that in the last few hundred years with anyone but thier own sects, to counter differences of opinion in thier own religion.

"Hints of democracy throughout the Old Testament?" Gimma a break, "dude!"

(The Old Testament was written by a ppl that, at times, were enslaved, & at times enslaved or eliminated others. It's written from thier own personal viewpoint. It glorifies some of thier more atrocious acts by downplaying the actual horrors they committed when they won, & overplays the suffering they experienced when they lost. It's strictly from thier point of view. It's the nature of every writer of history to make oneself the "good guy," whether or not it's true.

Do you actually believe, for example, that "the land of milk & honey" was uninhabited, Craig? How DID the Jewish ppls acquire it? Did thier God suddenly create it at that point in time just for them? No, it was inhabited. So how DID they get it? Through a whole buncha bloodshed, that's how. No mention of it there, though.)

Putting aside my feelings for the bible, you could just as easily argue that there are "hints of democracy" in ANY religion, including Buddhism, Hiinduism, Native American religions, & yes, even Islam. Silly point, that is.

Just because the Bible does not propose going out & taking over & forcing ppl to accept Jesus or Yaweh, or whomever, that is NOT to say that it hasn't been done. And if you are unaware of the forced conversions and forced attempted assimilations in our dealings with American Natives, you are way under-educated in this area, my man.

The early Crusaders were also attempting to either forceably convert the Moslem ppls or forceably remove them from holy lands, or kill them outright.

But putting even all of that aside, if King Solomon himself were to rise from the grave, & take over Haiti & the Dominican Republic, join them together, & make the unified island country a viable economic entity in our modern world, this country would put economic sanctions on him for not creating a "democracy." It wouldn't matter if he were a good ruler or bad. We would take him out of power, replace him with someone we prefer, with a hastily thrown together "new democratic" form of gov't, & then we would send them our tainted goods in aid packages & eventually try to sell them stuff. That is the kind of "choices" we offer a ppl when we "liberate" them. We will not suffer a non-democratic gov't to start up on this planet anymore. (Unless it's in Africa or South America, ppl we don't give a damn about because we stand to gain little or nothing from them.)

When I said that "all was right in the world," I was referring to the relative peace that the area of Israel enjoyed prior to having the European Jews dumped in thier lap at the end of WWII. ( I am fully aware that this "relative peace" was not entirely peaceful. I'm saying it was better than what we've created by our interference, AGAIN!) Not only were the indigenous ppls expected to accept them into thier tiny bit of space, but suddenly they were to be RULED by them. For the few years prior to this, Jews & arabs coexisted in Israel, both could hold public office & the like, then suddenly, at the whim of outside forces, namely, the USA, England, & the Soviet Union, they were to be ruled by ppl that had never even LIVED there, because the "big three" refused to "assimilate" them into thier own cultures.

Yeah, that would irritate me a bit, too, if I were living there at the time. But the real problem was that these new-found rulers had no experience in ruling & had been supressed. What happens when a supressed ppl are suddenly in control, Craig, ESPECIALLY when they have done nothing to deserve that rule other than to be oppressed by others? They supress others. And that's just what they did, & have continued to do, for 60+ years.

The reason for the Palestinians being treated as "ugly step-children" is pretty obvious, too. They have been refugees, running back & forth between borders, looking for work & homes & food & medical care (basic "human rights," Craig), for 60 years. They are to the rest of the arab world what our own homeless are to us, namely, an embarassment & a hassle to everyone simply by existing. They were put in thier situation by our meddling in the area, & through no fault of thier own. I'd be pretty pissed about that if it happened to me, too, & would resort to ANY means of reversing the situation, as they are doing. I suspect that you would, too.

Yeah, my glib remark that "all was right in the world" wasn't true in its entirety if you're going to consider all the strife that's gone on in the region for millenia. "It was all as right as it could be, considering the parameters" would have put it better. My apologies.

There are innumerable reasons that this area has, is, & will most likely always continue to be a huge problem area in our world. The number one reason is religion, as I'm sure you will agree. And here we come back to my point.

YOU CANNOT FORCE CHANGE IN A RELIGION OVERNIGHT WITHOUT HORRIBLE CONSEQUENCES. And even if you could, I don't think it's right.

I don't believe that our treatment of the Mormons was/is right, either. You're not gonna sway me on this, so quit trying. It's none of your business what "degree" they place on a particular sin, Craig. I disagree with the degree & associated punishment our own country places on a lot of supposed "sins."

Who placed the puppet gov'ts in Panama, Iran, Cuba, & now Iraq, Craig? In every instance where we go forth to "make the world a better place," we mess up whole countries, & we do more harm than good. In every case, we also have to return & "fix" things, again, or we are thrown out, like in Iran and Cuba. The puppets reject us every time, and become worse rulers than the particular country had to begin with, by our own estimation.

Where, in the last 200 years, has the nation of Islam forced thier religion on a ppl? They have learned to leave other cultures alone, & to fight amongst themselves rather than to take on the considerable weight of the entire world. ( Um, except in Africa...but we aren't interested in them.)Well, that's just fine by me...let 'em have at it.

Now compare that to us. How many countries have we interefered with, both overtly & covertly, in hopes to make monetary gain, in the names of "capitalism" & "democracy?"

The king of Jordan has been a lot more humane, & ruled successfully by his religion's code of morality, more than the Shah did in Iran. Admittedly, neither did Saddam. But what outside force helped him in his early years? We did. Then what happened, Craig?

Do you think that we might get it right "this time?" We never have before.

Our efforts in WWII & in Korea were examples of when we worked in conjunction with other peacekeeping forces in the world. It was a group effort. When I suggested that our efforts would be better placed in the African continent, I was hoping to do the same, there, not for us to go in as we do all haphazzardly to fix things on our own.

You have yet to address the comment I made about how it took us nearly 200 years to arrive at the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Do you honestly believe that it's realistic to expect other countries to just jump on our bandwagon immediately, to change in a few years, because we tell them to? Hell, we still haven't written the ERA into law. We're still having racial issues in this country. We ain't so prefect, & we ain't so much better, imo.

You say that there's no need to understand them, that they are simply wrong. Heck, they say the same things about us. Oh, but the difference is that we are right & they are wrong, right?

It's perfectly okay for us to make promises & break them. We did it to our own indigenous ppl plenty of times. Yeah, we are virtuous & God is on our side in all things, so it's alright to break treaties & promises in the name of democracy because democracy is God's way.

You, the infidel, want to go in & change thier religion to be one that you can live with, to "clean up thier act," to force-feed them a new way of life that's worked so well for us for so long because it's right & it's hinted at in the bible & it's humane & it will make us safer cuz they have all that oil that they could use to finance a jihad against us, although in fact they have never once instigated any action against us other than to retalliate against what they considered to be unfair & unlawful & immoral interferences in thier way of life?

Oh, heaven save me ( AND them!) from this nationalism!

The funniest part in all of this is how many of our own leaders are in bed with a good many of these ppl, to make a profit off of us, the little guys.

Yes, we are most blessed in being born into this country, & not in one that this country interferes with.

I'd still like to hear what happened to the impotent husband that caused the girl's death. How was he dealt with?

SANSHOUHEIL FOR PRESIDENT !!
DEATH TO THOSE WHO OPPOSE !!
Oh so you spent $600,000 of taxpayer money on your boyfriend. BANG!!

I can't really address this in detail right now. I'm feeling pretty sick and have a gig tonight, but I would like to make a few points:


You are utterly mistake about Islam. It has a very detailed history of violence, from it's very roots. Muhammed spread his religion by violence. As an example, when he conquered Medina, he and his troops beheaded all the adult Jewish men, 600 of them. They invaded, even churches, during the Ottoman Empire, slaying the priests inside, to destroy Constantinople. They have embarked on terrorism worldwide today. Some believe that we are in the midst of the Third Great Jihad. The first being the original Great Jihad that spread Islam from the Atlantic to the borders of China. The second being the creation of Ottoman Turk Empire. And the third beginning with the takeover of Iran by the Ayatollah Khomeini and defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan by the "holy warriors" of Islam who came from all over the Muslim world to fight. All of these are bathed in blood, perpetuated through violence, and designed to bring back Islam to it's supposed former glory, when Muhammed was taking over the world, and converting it to Islam by force.

You like to bring up the Crusades, but this is a tricky issue, since the crusades were begun to STOP the violent Islamists from expanding throughout various lands, taking them over by force, and killing anyone who did not convert. Islam had begun it's own "crusades" at least 500 years earlier, than the Christian one, that everyone likes to point to in history.


Muhammed said:

"The sword is the key of heaven and hell; a drop of blood shed in the cause of Allah, a night spent in arms, is of more avail than two months of fasting or prayer: whosoever falls in battle, his sins are forgiven, and at the day of judgment his limbs shall be supplied by the wings of angels and cherubim."


The Qur'an states:

Surah 5:33
"The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter."

They believe we wage war against God, simply by our lifestyle.

Islamic law divides the world into two realms: Dar al-Harb (the land of war) and Dar al-Islam (land under Islamic rule). There is no in-between.

Both Muhammed and The Qur'an states that the world MUST be conquored by Islam, and that everyone MUST accept Allah. If someone is allowed to live, then they are to live as second class citizens, with few rights, and they are to be taxed heavily for the "priveledge" of living among Muslims.

Osama Bin Laden issued a "fatwa" in 1998 (Before 9-11, so take note!)

In it, he said...

"The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies – civilians and military – is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque [in Jerusalem] and the holy mosque [in Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. "

"This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah."


Did you catch that? Kill "ALL" Americans and their allies, military and CIVILIAN, kill them ANYWHERE, and destroy Israel and FIGHT THEM until faith in Allah prevails.

Even today, you are KILLED if you convert to Christianity or "insult" Muhammed in many Islamic countries.

How you can say that a country where you are MURDERED for distributing a bible to someone, or making a political cartoon with Muhammed in it, is somehow equivalent with the goals and beliefs that this nation espouses is DISGUSTING!

It is irrational and worthy of contempt.

Just as some Christians are accused of "leaving their brains at the door" for believing the universe is a mere 7000 years old or so, or that it was created in a literal 7 days, so too, do you leave your brain at the door, where history and politics are concerned.

Your liberalism has driven you mad if you sincerely believe that an Islamic government is anywhere near, on par, with the philosophies of Democracy.

You have also ignored the Iroquois' considerable influence in our democratic way of life, & in the development of our constitution.

No democracy before us? Again...look to the Native Americans, tribal, uneducated, & "savage jungle dwellers" that they were. These lines just crack me up.

We are the 1st melting pot in the history of the world?

Wrong again. There was a considerably advanced civilization in Spain, that encouraged radical thinking, esp in the arts, way back...I'm sorry I can't recall thier name or the exact time they existed, the Knights Templer were supposedly hiding treasures & stuff in thier country, so that oughtta give you a rough time frame. But I recall that they were quite taken with the Gnostic chapters of the Bible, that they also attracted & welcomed many ppls from many cultural backgrounds. They were a peaceful bunch. They were wiped out by the Catholic Church, because of the beliefs they held in those Gnostic Bibles.

Even Egypt, at one time, was a "melting pot" of race & culture, as well, & very forward in thier thinking. Hence the extensive library in Alexandria, which again was wiped out by the Romans.

Read any of the bio's of Crazy Horse, or other histories of the indigenous ppls that lived here, & you will learn that we WERE indeed trying to reeducate & eliminate the native American culture, and forcing them to be good Christians. (I contend that by placing them in reservations, & removing thier god-given right to move about freely on thier own soil, you have destroyed a HUGE part of thier culture right there.) No, it didn't happen to ALL of them. But it did to quite a few tribes, in at least three states.

We have really worked very hard to assure that in no place on this planet can you move about freely, enjoying the fruits of the land, as I believe the true "ultimate power" intended. It's all cut up, now. I own this & you own that. BS!

We don't mess with religions? Tell that to the Native Americans, again...they have to get special permission to perform thier sacred peyote rites. Recently, the Supreme Court has ruled against the Native American Church on that, too. They don't even have sovereinty to build thier own casinos on thier own lands without our OK. Yeah, they, too, are "free." (To do as WE want, when we want.)

We have in no way made the world safe for all religions. We simply outlaw thier rights & thier rites as described by thier tenets as we please...peyote, polygamy, marijuana, etc....kinda like Obama outlawing guns by making it too difficult to get or use them, eh? You wipe out enough of thier habits, & they'll have no choice but to join us, right? Very insidious indeed!

Why don't you just admit that you would like to declare all-out war on the religion of Islam, & get it over with?

Still....if you wanna go to war with them, Craig, then DO it, for heaven's sake! Don't force them to change, & then leave them hanging. Go in & take 'em, annex 'em, & force them to enjoy our rights, if that's what you're going to do anyway. Don't leave them to be poor after you've wiped out thousands of years of development in your religious quest to "make all men equal in all things (as long as it suits your needs.)"

Yup...I agree that there has been at least as much violence & war perpetrated by them as by the Christians.

The 1st jihad was indeed the beginnings of the very religion. The 2nd was started to spread the religion.

The 3rd came about only AFTER we (& Russia) had intervened in thier culture, in modern times. No, we weren't the only ones messing with them, we were simply too far for them to attack directly at that time, other than in our embassies. So they attacked our embassies.

I cannot seem to get the point across that our intervention, time & time again, has roused them to war in modern times. The horrid events that they had to endure at the hands of our friend the Shah's puppet gov't has enraged them, & it should.

Our intervention in establishing the state of Israel has enraged them, & it should.

Our economic sanctions have enraged them, & they should.

Our unprovoked attack on an Islamic nation has enraged them, & it should.

While we espouse the sovereinty of states, our actions show that we are double-dealers, at best.

As I believe I stated previously, the religion scares me, as it does you.

Bin Ladin's views cannot be associated with the average guy in any of these countries, or we'd not be trading with them & living in the relative peace we have. He is an extremist of the highest degree.

But by continuing to interfere with them, his way is sounding better and beter to them, I'm sure. And I can see why.

In this country, I would be jailed for saying I wish someone would off this political figure or that, whether or not I was serious about it. I can be sued for saying something derogatory about lots of things. I can be arrested & jailed for performing the rites of my religion, if it isn't mainstream.

It's only a matter of degree to me. Over there they kill you. Over here they jail you & steal your property. None of us are free.

Regretfully, my reference to 9/11 as the beginning of our troubles was indeed inacurrate, & I apologise...I meant the time before the Shah was placed in power as the time we weren't being attacked by these ppl. Just poor editing on my part when I placed the thought that 9/11 was justified in thier eyes in between the two paragraphs as I did.

I say we roust up all christians, put them on a reservation and make them listen to 24-7 SCREAMO!!!

Punishment for all the Native Americans they murdered.


OK Sorry I'll shut up now.

Hope you feel better soon, Craig. Good luck tonight.

I havent killed any, Yet.

Look bro,


You have to go back hundreds of years for many of your arguments to our claiming these lands from Indians. I mean give me a break. This country is far from perfect. In other threads I have said "America is not God's country" and "America is not good". I'm not half the fundamentalist that you are a liberal. Not even a quarter. You have shown yourself to be fairly extremist. I'm not. This country is not "good". NO country is good. We shipped the indians off to reservations, but there is a whole novel that could be written on breaking many of those treaties, of reducing the size of land promised, etc... So, can we drop Indians now? It's just ridiculous.

We can also agree that ANY religion, has at times, misinterpreted, or interpreted for their own desires, what various passages of scriptures mean. Various groups of Christians throughout history have done this. Accepted.

But one thing that cannot be misinterpreted, and you'll agree, since you have read the entire Qur'an, and I have read most of it, is that the second half, is FILLED with things like calls to violence, and directives to spread Islam throughout the world, kill those who don't accept it, or if you let the, live, to treat them as dogs, and tax them for the priveledge.

The Bible on the other hand directs believers to "love your enemy".

Find any comparable verse in the Qur'an.

There isn't any.

Luckily for us, approximately 80% to 85% of Muslims do not neccessarily believe that the Qur'an is to be taken literally, or even that Muhammed's example is to be followed precisely where this is concerned. Luckily. Howeve, the radicals that DO accept this, and WILL follow Osama Bin Laden's "fatwa" are of great concern, and these are the people likely to fill the void in Iraq, if we pull out prematurely.

And freedom?

You are going to compare the fact that you shouldn't make death threats against someone, as a lack of your freedom, to the monkey courts that get people's hands chopped off, cause they allegedly stole something?

That is IDIOCY!!!

This country GOES OUT OF IT'S WAY to stay out of religious affairs. If anything, it errs in the WRONG direction, as witnessed by the Mormonesque cult that got raided just last week. Government officials assumed there were about 250 people living in this compound, and now they find out it is more like 750 people. Do you know how many teenage girls were likely abused with 50 year old men, "marrying" 14 and 15 year old girls, and beating them and keeping them in fear, to accept their particular "religious" way of life? It breaks my heart. If anything, this government errs in the WRONG direction.

Some of your arguments are simply juvenile and very misguided. Society would live in chaos, if there were NO restrictions on freedom. I mean, even a child understands this. Am I supposed to be able to set up a campground on I-95 and stop all Interstate traffic, cause I think that, personally, it is a nice place to live? Should I be allowed to fool everyone in a crowded theater, using my free speech, that there is a fire, causing panic, and deaths, cause I thought it would be funny to do so? Should I really be allowed to ruin your life or business, cause I could wage a campaign of lies against you, without fearing any retribution whatsoever. In the name of freedom?

Grow up.

Freedom comes with responsibilities. As a society, we vote on various pieces of local law, and we decide what is best for our communities. If we don't like the laws we have chosen, or the ones congress passes, than we can vote them out of office, and replace them with those favorable to our views.

To compare a democratic government to an Islamic one, is ridiculous. I can't believe you are still doing it. Stay off the glue.

Hope you feel better soon, Craig. Good luck tonight.

Thank you.