The beginning of the jihad in Europe?

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.

If you can't see the difference between Dominion theology and the Christian right on the one hand and Islamicism on the other, then you've got real problems with basic reality. The idea that Christians should influence the culture, including the law, is as American as apple pie, and really how is that any different than beleiving lefties like you should influence law and culture?But the idea that male infidels should be killed, and their women raped and forced into being Moslem wives, concubines, or sex slaves is somehow analogous to the beliefs of the Christian right is totally absurd.

quote:

---

We simply will not agree.

---

That is undoubtably true. I am just trying to figure out with what are we disagreeing here? You made the claim that people made the claim that Christian fundamentalists and Islamists were comparable, and that this claim is baseless. I countered that this is not true; people gave reasons for making their claims, and so the claims were, by definition, not baseless. You are now saying that we are going to disagree.To what are we disagreeing? I claim that people gave reasons for their comparison. Is this where we are disagreeing? As I said, people can go back to those previous threads and read them.I claim that by providing reasons for their claims, that their claims were therefore not baseless. Is this where we need to disagree? Because, as I said, people can check the dictionary for the term "baseless".-

quote:

---

Rather, any conversation on this will go on and on, proving nothing, satisfying no one.

---

Well, to tell the truth, I find these conversations very satisfying. Since you do not appear to be willing to admit that you made a stronger statement than you should have (something that happens to everyone, and so nothing to really be ashamed of), I assume that I caught you doing what you are claiming everyone else does: you are simply dismissing the other peoples' arguments because you could not actually dispute them. I find that immensely satisfying, to tell the truth.-

quote:

---

We'll just have to make our points where relevant, and disagree at those times.

---

You made the claim that people made the baseless assertian that fundamentalist Christians are comparable to Islamists. That claim is relevant to the conversation we have been having.I countered that your claim was untrue; that people provided their reasons for making this assertian, and so their assertians were not baseless.We can disagree here, but anyone can go back to those threads and reread them.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

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

You might find this VD Hanson essay on iraq interesting.http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/18638

What can we say? You think religious people that think they should try to better the world are nutjobs?Maybe the same can be said for lefties like yourself, assuming objective standards are applied to both? You want laws to be evaluated based on your values and ideology, and Christians want their values reflected in legislation.Is there a difference?Imo, your denigration of Christians for being politically or culturally active or active in any form is mere bigotry.This message has been edited by randman, 11-08-2005 03:45 PM

the world is awash in Islamic terror, in nations across the globe and irrespective of faith or ethnicity. There is no equivalent Christian violence. Christian nations, in fact, are almost all peaceful, tolerant, liberal democracies, that even allow Muslims to pray, preach and convert. The only way around this fact is equivalence thinking and even it fails. Not that stops some from making it, over and over. You may see that there is reason to go on with this. I do not. So to you the last word, where, frankly, i expect you to provide another example of my point.

Hi, Steve.My French friends (multigeneration "native" French), and the native French people I listen to on the radio and read on the web, all tell me that French Muslims experience tremendous discrimination, particularly in employment, and that the North African immigrants suffer the worst. My understanding is that France lacks the antidiscrimination employment laws we have in the U.S. (for what they're worth)--I can't speak for Canada.Much of the Muslim immigrant presence in Europe began with the West's hunger for cheap labor. Now the Western capitalists save more by moving offshore to even cheaper labor, exacerbating the problem at home by eliminating jobs.Nearly every sizeable immigrant population suffers/has suffered from discrimination in the West, esp. when ethnically identifiable.In the earlier decades of the 20th century, Italian-Americans and Irish-Americans were so disdained that they were not considered white: "No Colored Or Irish" was a familiar sign. It took decades to improve this hateful attitude.As Crash pointed out, poor communities will periodically erupt anywhere.True, Muslim assimilation in the West would be difficult at the best of times; hostility and discrimination make it nearly impossible.

---

"It's hard to admit the truth."
-randman

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

quote:

---

the world is awash in Islamic terror, in nations across the globe and irrespective of faith or ethnicity. There is no equivalent Christian violence. Christian nations, in fact, are almost all peaceful, tolerant, liberal democracies, that even allow Muslims to pray, preach and convert.

---

What? This isn't even relevant to the point that I am making. We are discussing whether or not other people were making baseless claims. That you disagree with them does not make their claims baseless. Hell, even if those other people are wrong, their claims are still not baseless. Simply stating that they are making baseless claims is an attempt to denigrate their arguments without actually dealing with them with facts or logic.-

quote:

---

So to you the last word, where, frankly, i expect you to provide another example of my point.

---

My prediction is that your next post will say something like

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

I have never met anyone advocating that. Have you?Please tell me the names of the Christian organizations that hold to dominion theology that advocate forced church attendance, forced conversion, etc,... It seems to me you have trouble distinquishing between wanting Christian values to be reflected in the culture and law and "trying to write laws to enforce religion."The people most likely trying to use the law to force their ideology on others are the leftists, liberals, and fellow travellers that want to force the rest of us to abide by their beliefs and support their programs via forced confiscation of our money and excessive regulations.Let's take an example I am familiar with. Liberals with good intentions worked awhile back here in Florida to enforce child labor laws with respect to agriculture. In some ways, it was a good idea, but they were so fanatical they the law restricts even one's own family from working on the farm.So a liberal beaurocrat in Alachua county, Fl just outside the city limits of Newberry, actually hid out with binoculars to watch and see if a farmer let his child run the tractor, and caught him, and punished the farmer with fines at or over $10,000.That's using the law to force your beliefs on someone else, and that's pretty much what liberals are expert at. Christians are not the ones advocating things like that.

Answer me this. Was Martin Luther King, jr trying to force a faith-based agenda into the public square?You can bet he was, and if you are honest, you'll admit to that.This message has been edited by randman, 11-08-2005 04:19 PM

This is another fine example of the emptiness of your positions, CS. I took you to task for making unsupported assertions in this thread. You jump to what you think is my "orhtodoxy".How very amusing. Don't try to define "Moral Relativism" in a usable way. Don't support your claims. Don't offer to start another thread, since this is off topic, where these things can be done. Just make a stupid accusation and dance laughingly on.Oh, and to actually reply, since all I was discussing was the unsupported nature of your argument, that must be the orthodoxy you refer to. Thus. yes. I do dislike challenges to the idea of actually making an argument rather than simply saying things and expecting them to be believed.

I took European History in college and remember the anabaptists as but a minor footnote....you seem to think that they were a form of "born again" sectarianism running right alongside the Protestants and the Catholics. Do you by chance have a mennonite background?