Replies

I will commend you on your post, as it is the first I have had the chance to read that actually did what I was hoping: address my response in a mature, positive, constructive and intelligent way.

I will concede the point that semantics may have interfered in the interpretation of the original post, as well as further posts. A very well written, and thought out response on your part.

Now on to your comment on my change of attitude. I realize that my original post was harsh, and I know I have a tendency to be harsh when posting online. That was part of the reason for my attempt to at least make -one- positive comment directed to Mr. Montana, and no, I wouldn't blame him for not believing it. That is his choice.

As for your argument on Islam being a faction within the "religion of Monotheism," I can understand your train of thought. Since Monotheism is "a doctrine or belief that there is only one God," and Islam, Christianity, Judaism and a few other minor religions share this belief, it can be argued that they are simply "factions" within the larger whole. It would be more to the point that they are sub-cults within a larger cult, but your argument is sound.

The reasoning behind my statement that a religion cannot declare war falls under the pretense that, with one known exception, there are no major religions (Islam included) that have one specific seat of power (a holy site is not synonomous with a seat of power) or a hierarchial power structure crowned by a single individual who has world-wide power in that religious group. A religious group (faction, religiously based government, religiously driven terrorist cell, etc) may carry out acts of war, but without a presiding body of leadership, a single religion cannot do so.

You have commented that a group of Muslims have declared war on the non-Muslim world. THAT I most certainly agree with, as it was specifically noted that it was a group within the whole, not the whole.

What do I propose we do? This is where I begin agree with Mr. Montana. Tighter security on immigration and tourism (ie- Imigrant and Non-imigrant Visas) is needed, to start. The U.S. needs to start enforcing the policy of tracking down those who violate the terms of their Visas. Only recently did INS begin to do fingerprinting of incoming foreigners. This should have been done years ago, and sadly we are focusing only on the Arab individuals. While our current problems were orchestrated by Arabs, there is nothing that says people of other ethnicity won't jump on the bandwagon. I believe we need to put a tighter grip on ALL incoming non-Americans. This obviously leaves out the domestic threats, but I am still considering what should be done about this. When I come up with something, I'll be sure to share it.

As an aside, I would like to apologize to Mr. Montana, not for arguing against his post, but for the manner in which I did it. A friend of mine here read my posts, and said that I was very harsh when I'm online, and in hindsight I agree. So, despite the fact that I'm sure my apology won't be believed or accepted, I apologize to Mr. Montana and everyone else involved in this thread for the harshness of my posts, if not for the content.

Devon Weir
DeviantMind (whose name does NOT mean he hates America, believes in societal suicide or anything of the sort)

What do I propose we do? This is where I begin agree with Mr. Montana. Tighter security on immigration and tourism (ie- Imigrant and Non-imigrant Visas) is needed, to start.

Hear, hear! This is where I begin to agree with you. Who would have thought!

...Hey, you're not so bad...your last response crossed while I was writing my own nasty rant balame it on my burka...We are getting closer in thought & I always appreciate people who re-evaluate themselves as you have done, so am doing same.