Posted on 01/20/2005 3:22:49 PM PST by fishtank
If you had learned a little nuance in your reading or your hearing, presuming you are not deaf, you would have heard the call to arms about the unborn.
"By citing the Koran as a respected source for a major religion...yeah right up there with the bible...he is ..."
[sigh]
what can one say about such spiritual blindness? This is what happens when people have more faith in men rather than God (Jesus's Father....not Mohamud or his god!)
This poster is deaf as a post. He only wants to hear what is on his agenda. Not unlike many others on this forum.
Just a bitter old man who was rejected for a position at Berkeley.
The IRA and McVeigh both were terrorists who associate themselves with Muslims. Did any of you people hear what McVeigh said about the USA? He was not right-wing Christian nut but an athiest liberal who said the US is an imperial power killing innocent Muslims.
Here the Truth about the Satantic Koran and Islam
I understand now that Bush loves Islam it is unpopular here to speak the truth about it or else you go to GOP jail for be politically incorrect.
By the way when was the last time you had a Christian or Jewish terrorist attack against the US?
We already see how Islam is swallowing Europe and it coming to America just look what they did in NJ to that Egyptian Christian Family.
Call to arms?
It's a catch-all statement that has ZERO political risk. Had John Kerry been elected, he could have made the very same statement and appeased his core base.
"Our nation relies on men and women who look after a neighbor and surround the lost with love. Americans, at our best, value the life we see in one another, and must always remember that even the unwanted have worth. And our country must abandon all the habits of racism, because we cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of bigotry at the same time".
First off, I don't have a problem with Islam or Muslims in general. I don't care too much about the religon itself one way or another. IMO, it's simply a vehicle for immature, repressed people to lash out at anyone they percieve to be responsible for their oppression. A great many of them buy their government's lies about the US, aka the Great Satan. I have a VERY big problem with those governments that use religon as a tool to manipulate the populace to keep them in line and their anger directed at someone other than themselves. It's also an easy out for people who are angry about their situation and feel unable to do anything to challenge the system that oppresses them. They would prefer to lash out at another target they see as weaker, or at least unwilling to punish them for their views. There is also a perverse pleasure in being the underdog, which a lot of these people see themselves as being.
I think it has very little to do with Islam. I believe in God and Jesus Christ...they don't. I don't consider that to be morally inferior, just ignorant. Like many other religons, Islam has been interpreted differently by different people. (Witness Shia, Shiite, and Sunni Muslims, for example) My problem is with the ones who interpret it in a way that is dangerous, foolish and belligerent for no other reason than to promote their view of the Western world as degenerate and as a basis to attack us. I am not, nor have I ever been, one of those "My God is better than your God people". I personally don't care if someone wants to worship a ream of paper, so long as they don't use it as an excuse to attack me. Their worship of paper isn't the problem, it's their belief that everyone must worship paper or die. Not everyone that follows Islam believes non-believers must die, any more than every Christian believes every verse in the Bible is meant the way they are acted upon by someone else.
The fact that very few Muslims besides the jihadi's have the guts to speak out doesn't automatically mean they agree...it just means they aren't brave enough to call these people what they are, or to stand up for what THEY believe Islam to be. They are a cowed people, imo.
Your analysis lists possible explanations but assumes that they are susceptible to change by pretending they are morally or ethically equals in faith and in deed appears to be an exercise in futility, since it has zero effect on where they live and what they experience and hear daily.
This is absolute gibberish. I can't address it directly, because it makes no sense.
The "modern" IRA are NOT Catholic, they're Marxist, and have been condemned by the Catholic Church. They "protect" the Catholics from the violence of the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) and the Ulster Defense Association (UDA) who are both Protestant, and the other "Orange" (Protestant) groups.
The UDA and the UVF have been endorsed by the Reverend Ian Paisley, Protestant minister, educated at Bob Jones University.
Are you assuming McVeigh was Catholic because of his last name? Don't; being RC is a choice and you have to follow the guidelines, McVeigh was NO Catholic.
He's also honest. He has integrity, and doesn't pander to people he hopes will respond to pandering by liking him/his show. A lot of people who don't like him, don't appreciate what's good about him. It's kind of like people who, after visiting NYC, say "I didn't like it!" You wonder "Hmmmmm."
9 January 2005, presumably.
I'm fairly happy with the course that the U.S. government has taken.
We, as a nation, went after the terrorists who planned the attack; we destroyed the Taliban government of Afghanistan (incidentally liberating the Muslim population) because they offered sanctuary to the al-Qaeda terrorists; we've shut down "charities" after they've been proven to have funded terrorists; we've done investigations and made arrests after reasonable suspicion (which, BTW, is more than "They're Muslim.") has been satisfied; we've destroyed the Saddam Hussein government of Iraq (incidentally liberating even more Muslims) due to, amongst other reasons, its material support of terrorists.
What do you think would have been the proper course of action?
Great another baseless wonder who can only hurl personal insults.
No one has ever called or could ever rightfully call me a bigot. ROFL
I'm partial to many cultures, many religions and have an appreciation for whatever is true, good and beautiful in the diversity of the human experience.
Muslim Kahil Gibran was a great poet, but is that going to inspire me to condone Islam ? No way.
Denouncing an evil filled religion doesn't make me a bigot.
I deplore Islam, Scientology and the Church of Satan.
Eww what a bad girl I am, gee what a bigoted view.
And you claim Salman is a muslim .....
-It is well documented in Rushdie's essay 'In God We Trust', that Rushdie totally lost faith in Islam when he was fifteen years old and studying in England, he states that "quite abruptly I lost my faith" ('In God We Trust', Imaginary Homelands: Essays and Criticism 1981-1991, Granta, London: 1991, p.377). Prior to this, Islam played a minimal part in his life, in his words it "took a back seat". Timothy Brennan, in Salman Rushdie and the Third World, points out that Rushdie was always in conflict with Islam, he lived a "childhood of blasphemy", and it was rumoured that "he liked to draw the Arabic script for 'Allah' so that it resembled the figure of a naked woman" (Macmillan, Basingstoke: 1995, p.145)-
Some hunger for a religous war more than others. Some wish to try as best we can to avoid that with pacific means. I am one of those. When in doubt, keep the lighter fluid in the cabinet.
Boolean Logic
Since Jan 21, 2005>>>
thanks for playing
If Bush does not want to be accused of showing favouritism then he needs to mention the 'Book of Homer' as well.
It hasn't been mentioned in the previous 42 inaugerations so why mention it now? PC gone too far.
It also means that they have no THEOLOGY on which to criticize because it is fundamentally OK in the Koran to kill.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.