The beginning of the jihad in Europe?

Hey CS,I agree that Islam has some screwed up philosophy/theology, but I don't see it as inherently different from any other Abrahamic faith. The fact that western countries tend to have better govt's. has little to do with Christianity and much more to do with Enlightenment values and the wealth generated thrugh conquest/colonization.Our liberal democracy comes not from Christians, but from enlightenment style values and ideology's that were fought for in bloody revolutions, often ousting brutal theocracy's. If it was up to the Christians we would be little different from the medieval muslim nations.

Again I agree. But we must also consider economics and politics.I don't think the Muslim world has ever experienced the economic/social upheaval of the type spurred forward by the colonial days. The vast European empires that sprung up over the spice/gold/tobacco/slave trade provided a great environment for materialists to trump theology I honestly don't think religion has very much to do with it.Predominantly Islamic countries like Turkey among others, are relatively stable and democratic. I'm willing to bet that a countries level of poverty (and by that I mean the people not their rulers) is probably directly correlated with their religiosity, fanaticism, and quality of life.

Hey, I said "reletively" , my point was on the role of poverty. Hehe... I see this as no different as the Christian Right, Dominanists, among other ideological nutjobs who sway power in our govt. While I admit, that perhapse over there they are at greater risk. I don't think Capitalism is a cure-all, nor is it allways the best choice. Further, I don't see Iraq cleaning up anytime soon. Even if the US does succeed in it's mission, I doubt Iraq will be stable in less than 20 years...Meh.. perhapse I am a pessimist.

You are right, and thats why we keep them around. I never said they shouldn't have their say, but they are fringe nutjobs just like radical islamists.But you are wrong if you think the VIEWS of those groups is as american as apple pie. This nation is NOT a "christian" nation, and laws showld never be evaluated on the basis of ANY religion. Numbers 31This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-08-2005 03:34 PM

No. I think religious people who try to write laws to enforce their religion on others are nutjobs. There is a difference.What if a muslem majoraty surfaced in this country? And Im talking a liberal one. What if they came to power and started lobying for a morning call to prayr in towns and cities? Incorect. I want the legislation to be based on rational objective thinking, based on the constitution, and written in a way to allow maximum pluralism within the society.Personal, "faith based", convictions should be left at home.This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-08-2005 03:53 PM

Incorrect. I denegrate groups that want to enforce a "faith based" agenda on the rest of the population.It's blatantly unconstitutional for one thing, and it's plain ol' dumb for another.I don't have a problem with religion, or religious people, but it has no place in the public square.ABE: err.. "public square" isn't the right word... hmmm... government I guess. Meh, ya know what I mean.This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-08-2005 03:56 PM

Not that I am aware of. What was his faith based agenda? I don't think he was. Please name the agenda, and describe how it was faith based.

Sure, the 'Christian Right' wants to have the ten comandments on public grounds, They want prayr in school, They want abstinance only, They want ID taught in public school, they want to ban gay marriage, they wanna ban Sponge Bob, Pokemon, D&D, and anything else they don't like.The Dominionits and Reconstructionists advocate full control by christians of govt. They want god written into the constitution. They want laws based on biblical morals. And they would have history re-writen to say that the country was not founded on secular principals. That's incorrect. There are plenty of conservative folks who disagree with christianity. Unfortunatly the religious folks have blured the line between faith and polatics and now it seems impossible to extricate the terms from each other.I object to your use of the term "liberal" and "leftist" as you are using it inapropriately in this context.

What's wrong with that?! WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT!?!I can hear jefferson rolling in his grave.1) It's unconstitutional.
2) Biblical morals are non pluralistic.
3) They are outdated. Inevitably a parties "values" will influence things, however, a legislator has to be objective and impartial. He cannot let his personal, "faith" opinion, sway his rational objective descisions.Case in point. I recently heard an interview with Jimmy Carter on NPR. Carter talked about how some big abortion bill came across his desk and he went ahead and let it pass. Carter explained that even though he, "personaly" did not agree with abortion, he realized that that was his own "private religious belief" and it could not play a part in him making an objective decision on what was essentially a matter of privacy. Because the 10 commandments are exclusive. One of the ten commandments is "thou shalt not have any other gods above me". How is that pluralistic?Would you be ok if there was a budhist shrine or a koran enshrined at the court house? Secularism is not a religion. Secularism is not anti-religion. Secular simply means NOT RELIGIOS.In other words, tax dollars cannot go forrward to promote one particular religion above the others. Meaning you cannot simply put a statue of jesus in the park unless you put a statue of everyone elses god there too.Kinda like in school, the teacher caught you chewing gum and asked: "Do you have enugh for everyone? No? Well spit it out then." Same idea. Hahahhaha! My own ideaology??What, you mean NO IDEOLOGY?Whats so bad about saying "No one should be pushing anything on anyone"Hows that? Happy?That's what I advocate. I'm sorry im so eeeeevilll. blah blah blahI don't give a rats ass. I don't think congress should open with prayr, I don't think god should be on our money. I don't think it should be in the pledge.I DON'T THINK IT HAS A PLACE IN GOVT.!What people do in their own houses/churches/private property is their own damn buissness.If our president was a hindu, I wouldn't wanna hear him praise vishnu all the damn time. It has nothing to do with conservative/liberal none of that crap. I don't belive any one group should maintain full controll over govt. In any case, the dominionists want more than just christian controll, they want to legislate based on christian laws. That's wrong.Second of all you toss around this word liberal all the damn time as if you think its some sort of religion in itself. This is not a matter of liberal polatics vs. conservative polatics. Its a matter of separation of church and state.The fact is nobodys god belongs in our govt. No one should be pushing any religion on anyone. Period. No. If you think that's what I said you didn't read it. I don't think the govt. should abide by any religion, what individuals do within govt. Is their own buisness. You hear what you wanna hear.This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-08-2005 07:45 PM

While I don't doubt that king was a faithfull beliver, there are two things working against you on this point.1) Many MANY christians at the time preached against the civil rights movement using the bible itself to back them up.2) MLK said he was inspired by Gandih:Martin Luther King Jr. - Wikipedia Some more on king and Gandhi:http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/96jan/king.html Ghandi was a hindu.This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-08-2005 07:56 PM

Ghandi was not inspired by Jesus's teachings. He was inspired by ancient hindu beliefs. He mentioned respect for Jesus later on in life, but his philosophy of non-violence was based on hindu ideas.Mahatma Gandhi - Wikipedia Gandhi's words on christianity contain some cool quotes The rest of your post is unsuported rambling.This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-09-2005 11:11 AM

Yes, and am I wrong?If you want to pass a law simply because your particular holy book says things should be such, and not because its to the benifit of the people, wouldn't you say that was wrong?Say we had a muslem majority in congress. And they start trying to pass laws forcing women to wear head-cover... say they weasle it into a decencey bill, and get the FCC to crack down on tv shows that show womens hair etc.Whats wrong with that? After all, the muslems in this sittuation are the majority.See what I mean? It's non-pluralistic. You want to pass laws based on your personal OPINION of whats right and wrong, not on your objective analasys. The Jimmy Carter thing I told you about is the perfect example.The rest of your post is a missrepresentation of my possition. If you want to continue this conversation, adress the point above.

Your claim wasn't that MLK was faith based, your claim was that his civil rights movement was inspired by Jesus Christ which was incorrect. Further, Ghandi's position on religion was rather broad.While for a time he considered himself a Jain, he latter professed to have no one single religion as he viewd all religions to have fundamental flaws that prevented any of them to be perfect.

So your point is what exactly? That faith-based=good?MLK's movement was successful because it had broad pluralistic appeal. If MLK was lobbying for prayr in public school I belive his reception would have been much different.Further, your point is moot. Because plenty of christian, faith-based, organizations decried MLK and his movement. Many of their arguments were based in scripture.

Can you respond to the post again.This time try to refraim from broad generalizations about my personal beliefs and/or agenda.1) you don't know me.2) attack my arguments, not me.Try again.