witness23
Veteran Expediter
Read my post. Number 58 I believe.
US Supreme Court allows anti-gay military funeral protests
- Thread starter EnglishLady
- Start date
Read my post. Number 58 I believe.
Someone asks if Muslims believe in the Trinity, and that gets translated into intolerance? True enough, Christians have arguably the least tolerance of all religions, and the least of all for Muslims, but the asking of a simple question isn't intolerant at all.
To answer the question, no, Muslims do not believe in such a plurality of God. They believe in just the one God.
As for there being no instances where Christian fundamentalists are killing innocents on a mass scale that compares to the Muslims' jihadism, that is correct, as Muslims are amateurs compared to the US military. Those who don't think the US military is largely fueled by Christian fundamentalism have been hoodwinked. People should also seriously learn about what jihad is and why it happens. They don't do jihad because they're bored, they do it in response to something. People would also do well to learn, or admit to, what that something is.
People should also learn what the Crusades were all about. The first Crusade, as were the other eight, was touted as being a fight for freedom. Like those other nine Crusades, this Tenth Crusade is also being touted as a fight for freedom. But it's the same as the others, it's about killing Muslims.
George Bush put it well on September 16, 2002 from the White House lawn when he said, "This is a new kind of — a new kind of evil. And we understand. And the American people are beginning to understand. This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while. And the American people must be patient. I'm going to be patient. But I can assure the American people I am determined, I'm not going to be distracted, I will keep my focus to make sure that not only are these brought to justice, but anybody who's been associated will be brought to justice. Those who harbor terrorists will be brought to justice. It is time for us to win the first war of the 21st century decisively, so that our children and our grandchildren can live peacefully into the 21st century."
Right after that, Bush's handlers highlighted the word "crusade" in Bush's dictionary and told him to quit using it.
But on February 16, 2002 in Alaska when he said, "They [Canada] stand with us in this incredibly important crusade to defend freedom, this campaign to do what is right for our children and our grandchildren."
Shortly after that his handlers ripped that page out of the dictionary. <snort>
A jihad is a response to an attack on Islam. Which we did, several times in several ways. After being asked to stop it, and then being told to stop it or else, we refused to stop it. Now they're the bad guys and we're fighting for freedom. The more things change the more they stay the same. History repeats. And too may people can't see it.
To answer the question, no, Muslims do not believe in such a plurality of God. They believe in just the one God.
As for there being no instances where Christian fundamentalists are killing innocents on a mass scale that compares to the Muslims' jihadism, that is correct, as Muslims are amateurs compared to the US military. Those who don't think the US military is largely fueled by Christian fundamentalism have been hoodwinked. People should also seriously learn about what jihad is and why it happens. They don't do jihad because they're bored, they do it in response to something. People would also do well to learn, or admit to, what that something is.
People should also learn what the Crusades were all about. The first Crusade, as were the other eight, was touted as being a fight for freedom. Like those other nine Crusades, this Tenth Crusade is also being touted as a fight for freedom. But it's the same as the others, it's about killing Muslims.
George Bush put it well on September 16, 2002 from the White House lawn when he said, "This is a new kind of — a new kind of evil. And we understand. And the American people are beginning to understand. This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while. And the American people must be patient. I'm going to be patient. But I can assure the American people I am determined, I'm not going to be distracted, I will keep my focus to make sure that not only are these brought to justice, but anybody who's been associated will be brought to justice. Those who harbor terrorists will be brought to justice. It is time for us to win the first war of the 21st century decisively, so that our children and our grandchildren can live peacefully into the 21st century."
Right after that, Bush's handlers highlighted the word "crusade" in Bush's dictionary and told him to quit using it.
But on February 16, 2002 in Alaska when he said, "They [Canada] stand with us in this incredibly important crusade to defend freedom, this campaign to do what is right for our children and our grandchildren."
Shortly after that his handlers ripped that page out of the dictionary. <snort>
A jihad is a response to an attack on Islam. Which we did, several times in several ways. After being asked to stop it, and then being told to stop it or else, we refused to stop it. Now they're the bad guys and we're fighting for freedom. The more things change the more they stay the same. History repeats. And too may people can't see it.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
No not really.
witness23
Veteran Expediter
Because the person already knew the answer to the question. There are a few reasons for asking a question you already know the answer to. You could ask the question because you aren't exactly sure if Muslims believe in the Trinity and are looking for a deeper understanding of what they believe, or you could ask the question to show superiority by sarcasticly asking a question you already know the answer to, or to just reduntantly make their opinion more clear, or you may just want to listen to others perspectives. I have a question, "why did you ask the question if you already knew the answer?"
I do agree with you about Christians being the least tolerant of other religions and lifestyles, but that is not what Jesus taught. The old adage, "Hate the sin, not the sinner" holds firm by Jesus' examples, which I gave earlier:
Legitimate question here, did you really think they were looking for an answer to that question?
So, you're assuming why the question was asked, rather than just dealing with the question itself? It could have also been posted to spark further debate. I have no idea what her motives were in asking the question. I prefer to deal with the question at hand, rather than trying to figure out what she was really asking, or why.
Since when do Christians pay all that much attention to what Jesus taught? For example...
Exactly. It's no different than, "Pay attention to the post, not the poster".
I really don't know. Considering the level of ignorance that many Christians (especially some of those here on EO as evidenced by the various and sundry ignorant comments) have about Islam and Muslims, one could easily conclude that she was trying to learn a little something about Muslims. Like I said, I really don't know. Don't really care what her motives are, actually. Regardless of what her motives were, the question was asked, and answered, and if there is someone out there who wasn't aware of the answer, then the question has served its purpose. This is a public forum after all, and you never know who might be reading.
There were some in the Nazi party that attempted to create a hybrid Christianity, or party religion that would still support their attitude towards the Jews. But Hitler and the leadership of the Nazi Party IN NO WAY "embraced" Christianity - ever.
"In 1941, Martin Bormann, a close associate of Hitler said publicly "National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable".[51] In 1942 he also declared in a confidential memo to Gauleiters that the Christian Churches 'must absolutely and finally be broken.' Thus it is evident that he believed Nazism, based as it was on a 'scientific' world-view, to be completely incompatible with Christianity.[52]
When we [National Socialists] speak of belief in God, we do not mean, like the naive Christians and their spiritual exploiters, a man-like being sitting around somewhere in the universe. The force governed by natural law by which all these countless planets move in the universe, we call omnipotence or God. The assertion that this universal force can trouble itself about the destiny of each individual being, every smallest earthly bacillus, can be influenced by so-called prayers or other surprising things, depends upon a requisite dose of naivety or else upon shameless professional self-interest.[53]
Other members of the Hitler government, including Rosenberg, during the war formulated a thirty-point program for the "National Reich Church" which included:
- The National Reich Church claims exclusive right and control over all Churches.
- The National Church is determined to exterminate foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the ill-omened year 800.
- The National Church demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible.
- The National Church will clear away from its altars all Crucifixes, Bibles and pictures of Saints.
- On the altars there must be nothing but Mein Kampf and to the left of the altar a sword.[54]
Religion in Nazi Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Well, even if we want to take this discussion all the way back to battles of the 7th century in an effort to rationalize contemporary jihadism, the above statement simply has no basis in fact. Maybe it's relevant that the Islamofascists would like to take the world's population back to the 7th century, but the body count since the death of the prophet - as if it could be determined - is not.
You'll get no argument from me that anyone who bombs an abortion clinic, or any other public place for that matter is a domestic terrorist. But a "terrorist effort"? For the sake of argument let's say that it is; since 1993 there have been EIGHT deaths in "terrorist related" attacks on abortion clinics. (source: National Abortion Federation: Clinic Violence: Murders and Shootings) A pretty lame effort compared to those of the radical jihadists, but even these "right-to-life" terrorists were targeting specific villains rather than random innocents. Also, these "right-to-life" terrorists were all sought out by the "Christian dominated" law enforcement authorities, arrested, convicted and thrown in prison or executed. On the other hand the muslim terrorists are glorified as martyrs if killed in the act, their families rewarded, and in cases like the Lockerbie bomber - given a hero's welcome home when their infidel captors are stupid enough to release them.
There is just no way to rationalize or justify this current Islamic terrorism - jihadism if you will. Granted, the moderate, civilized muslims have nothing to do with it and perhaps don't agree with it. However, they could sure as h*ll do more to condemn it - loudly - and fight it within their communities and native countries. If the mullahs would condemn the radicals and issue fatwahs against them like they did against the Danish newspaper and its cartoonist, maybe there would be angry mobs of decent, upstanding muslims in the street chanting "Death to al-quaeda" - imagine that!
The above opinion is so far off base - to say nothing of illogical and unsubstantiated - it hardly merits the effort to ridicule, much less refute. Using that same logic, one could also say that muslims are amateurs at killing innocents compared to General Motors. The US Military exists to defend a country, not a religion. Said country was founded on several basic rights - one of which was freedom of religion. At the time of its founding there were few, if any other nations that allowed this freedom and that remains the case today. Of course there are innocents that die during military operations and wars. In spite of the current political correctness and idealism in our society, this will continue to be a basic fact of life.
Those of us who have served in the military know that the above assertion - to put it mildly - is a load of horsecr*p. There will always be the anti-military and pacifist crowds that will use this and other silly arguments attempting to discredit our military forces. The military, like any other large organization will have religious radicals within it's ranks - Christian, Jewish and even Islamic (remember Major Hasan?). Our military isn't perfect by any means, but it is not controlled by religious organizations like the Catholic Church, the Baptists or the Mormons. That's because of our freedom of religion. It in no way compares to the forces of Hamas, Hezbollah or the other jihadist organizations comprised entirely of religious radicals.
Fair enough. Remember we're talking about RADICAL Islamists here, and they and their mullahs can declare jihad in response to any perceived affront they choose - like the US presence in Saudi Arabia for instance, that got Osama all bent out of shape. In a perfect world we probably shouldn't be there - but imagine what the world would be like if we weren't there. Diesel for $20 per gallon wouldn't be so bad, would it? Or, suppose the US didn't have any influence over control of the Suez Canal - should we just abandon that part of the world and turn that over to the muslims, perhaps the Iranians? Here's a reality check - our country has to look our for its own best interest. If that's in conflict with the jihadist worldview, too bad.
Yep, it's about killing muslims. Going back to the 7th century really isn't relevant, but since you brought it up the 1st Crusade wasn't just about "killing muslims" in some random effort by Christians to wipe them out. It came as a result of the muslim conquests that began after the death of Mohammed and lasted for about 100 years. They conquered large areas that included the Byzantine Empire and the Christian holy city of Jerusalem. These religious wars are an ancient fact of life, but they don't justify the notion that in this day and age the US deserved the attacks on 9/11, and that we should "understand" the Islamic radicals and their barbaric practices. As far as any perceived "attacks" on Islam, the only ones that should be relevant to us in the here and now are those that might have occurred since the Viet Nam war, and those have yet to be spelled out in a reasonable manner - if there are any.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Pilgrim, read what I said;
"... amazingly the Nazi leaders actually embraced Christianity to maintain the hate toward the Jews among some of the population"
This means that they put on a great big charade in order to maintain their allegiance by those who were religious, specifically Christian. Their concern was to prevent a backlash from those groups who were on the fence with national socialism and have been all along. This included a great amount of Lutherans who for the most part looked the other way. Catholics were targeted not just because of some of the opposition was coming directly from the church but also because Pope Pius XII wasn't as sympathetic to the Nazis to the point that he openly sided with German anti-Nazi bishops at the same time writing and publishing his Mit Brennender Sorge. His actions were clear, the church wasn't going to compromise their position nor capitulate to the Nazis.
Although my statement isn't as clear as it should be, it is backed up by what you posted;
"The churches were permitted some self governing and allowed to remain because Hitler did not want to risk strong opposition until other more pressing issues were dealt with."
Their plan to create a hybrid Christianity was far form even being solidified becasue of two reasons, the changes would not be accepted by a good majority of the population and the war was lasting too long to put in place any plan to move forward with this. Beside there were conflicting issues which had to do with Himmler, the rites of the SS and the created history of the Aryans that the used for the publics consumption.
Borman's speech is one of many that were made on the subject, but there are a few from Goring and Goebbels that were made during both easter and Christmas which they were explaining the importance of these holidays. Much of what isn't written about is the annual Christmas ceremonies that took place in Munich and Berlin (among other placed throughout Germany) where most of the people in power participated of as part of their charade. This continued until 1945 when travel was getting to be dangerous and even with some of the journal writings from those like Braun and Goebbels, there is mention of traveling for these events. It is like the arts festival in Munich that went on until I think 1944 when bombing of Munich canceled the event. Most of the people in power were always attending it not because they liked art but rather because they were in the public spot light.
Well I understand your point but I don't want to talk about anything but in the past say 100 years.
Yep terrorist effort, it is the same underlying effort to bring an end to something they don't agree with. BUT with that said, you can't tell me that these people are not glorified as heroes and they are rewarded in ways we don't hear about by people who are just like them. Some may even be cult heroes in our society, like that Tucson shooter seems to becoming.
NOPE not rationalizing their actions but defending the innocent who don't agree with it and want nothing to do with it. BUT see here is why I'm so vocal and not the best defender among you, their culture isn't one that they are willing to speak out, even if it affects them directly. A lot of people don't get that part and they condemn them for it but it is the same exact thing that happens among the Hispanics and Chinese when faced with problems like criminal behavior. They are fighting against it, most of it you or I don't know about but a lot of what law enforcement gets in tips and evidence seems to come from those who live in these communities and want to live without this crap.
BUT then I don't see the religious leaders of the Christian faith coming out and condeming the Westboro Baptist Church - to be exact I never heard people like Billy Graham or his son make statements about what they are doing even though they hate Graham.
"... amazingly the Nazi leaders actually embraced Christianity to maintain the hate toward the Jews among some of the population"
This means that they put on a great big charade in order to maintain their allegiance by those who were religious, specifically Christian. Their concern was to prevent a backlash from those groups who were on the fence with national socialism and have been all along. This included a great amount of Lutherans who for the most part looked the other way. Catholics were targeted not just because of some of the opposition was coming directly from the church but also because Pope Pius XII wasn't as sympathetic to the Nazis to the point that he openly sided with German anti-Nazi bishops at the same time writing and publishing his Mit Brennender Sorge. His actions were clear, the church wasn't going to compromise their position nor capitulate to the Nazis.
Although my statement isn't as clear as it should be, it is backed up by what you posted;
"The churches were permitted some self governing and allowed to remain because Hitler did not want to risk strong opposition until other more pressing issues were dealt with."
Their plan to create a hybrid Christianity was far form even being solidified becasue of two reasons, the changes would not be accepted by a good majority of the population and the war was lasting too long to put in place any plan to move forward with this. Beside there were conflicting issues which had to do with Himmler, the rites of the SS and the created history of the Aryans that the used for the publics consumption.
Borman's speech is one of many that were made on the subject, but there are a few from Goring and Goebbels that were made during both easter and Christmas which they were explaining the importance of these holidays. Much of what isn't written about is the annual Christmas ceremonies that took place in Munich and Berlin (among other placed throughout Germany) where most of the people in power participated of as part of their charade. This continued until 1945 when travel was getting to be dangerous and even with some of the journal writings from those like Braun and Goebbels, there is mention of traveling for these events. It is like the arts festival in Munich that went on until I think 1944 when bombing of Munich canceled the event. Most of the people in power were always attending it not because they liked art but rather because they were in the public spot light.
Well I understand your point but I don't want to talk about anything but in the past say 100 years.
Yep terrorist effort, it is the same underlying effort to bring an end to something they don't agree with. BUT with that said, you can't tell me that these people are not glorified as heroes and they are rewarded in ways we don't hear about by people who are just like them. Some may even be cult heroes in our society, like that Tucson shooter seems to becoming.
NOPE not rationalizing their actions but defending the innocent who don't agree with it and want nothing to do with it. BUT see here is why I'm so vocal and not the best defender among you, their culture isn't one that they are willing to speak out, even if it affects them directly. A lot of people don't get that part and they condemn them for it but it is the same exact thing that happens among the Hispanics and Chinese when faced with problems like criminal behavior. They are fighting against it, most of it you or I don't know about but a lot of what law enforcement gets in tips and evidence seems to come from those who live in these communities and want to live without this crap.
BUT then I don't see the religious leaders of the Christian faith coming out and condeming the Westboro Baptist Church - to be exact I never heard people like Billy Graham or his son make statements about what they are doing even though they hate Graham.
IF Hitler was so fond of Christians why did he send millions of them to the gas chambers?
Nope, that bunch called the WBC is though, why would you say that? Hitler sent AT LEAST another 6 million people, other than Jews, to the chambers. Stands to reason that a large percentage of those people were Christians. Catholics were a favorite target of his.
I was taught different. I was taught that Hitler did in 12 million. Stalin over 20 million. Hitler went after ANYONE who did not agree, was weak, retarded etc. He was a nasty sucker.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
He killed about 6 Million Jews, another million who were others like homosexuals, infirmed, retarded and some of certain religious beliefs.
I have the numbers somewhere but I'm too tired to look for them. He is responsible for 7 to 8 million in the camps, overall the entire war in both pacific and europe was something like 60 to 70 million killed. Poland by the way had the most Jews killed, 3 million while Germany I remember were under 150,000.
I have the numbers somewhere but I'm too tired to look for them. He is responsible for 7 to 8 million in the camps, overall the entire war in both pacific and europe was something like 60 to 70 million killed. Poland by the way had the most Jews killed, 3 million while Germany I remember were under 150,000.
Just a few things I found. Fits what I was taught in school.
Holocaust: 3 Million Holocaust Victims Were Non-Jews
Overlooked Millions: Non-Jewish Victims of the Holocaust
THHP Question: Numbers Killed
Holocaust: Five Million Forgotten: Non Jewish Victims of the Shoah
http://library.thinkquest.org/CR0215466/the_holocaust.htm
Last edited:
But my point is that it's ingrained in the Islamic culture in other countries to publicly demonstrate for or against certain causes, and in large numbers. Why don't they demonstrate against the radicals? It's understandable why they don't do it here - mobs in the streets are just not a US thing.
Regarding the protests against Westboro - evidently there's a good bit of that going on, but the media just doesn't cover it.
"Counter protests are often organized to be held at sites that Westboro Baptist pickets.[114][115][31][116][117][118][119][120][121] In some cases counter protesters have lined up and turned their backs on the Westboro Baptist pickets or encircled them in a ring, explaining that they want to symbolically shield the community from the protest.[citation needed]
In 1999, Michael Moore organized a humorous counter protest against the church for his television show The Awful Truth. He followed Phelps around the country in the "Sodomobile", a pink bus filled with gay men and women. At one point, they even got out to meet Fred Phelps and Moore introduced the Sodomobile to him.[122][123]
Two days after the September 11 attacks, a 19-year old man named Jared Dailey stood on the street corner facing the church holding up a plywood sign that said "Not today, Fred." Within two days, 86 people joined him, waving American flags and anti-hate signs.[124] Since then, "Not today, Fred" has become a commonly used motto for counter protests against Phelps.[citation needed]
On December 12, 2008, the group picketed a production of The Laramie Project at the Boston Center for the Arts. Local activists held a Phelps-A-Thon in response. Supporters pledged online to donate for every minute WBC protested. The event raised over $4,600 dollars for an LGBT-rights project, Driving Equality.[125]
On December 11, 2010, the day of the funeral of Elizabeth Edwards, a group called "Line of Love" planned to have about 200 protesters on the north side of West Edenton Street in Raleigh, North Carolina while 10 Westboro members picketed on the south side of the street, two blocks away from the funeral. While Westboro members who disagreed with Edwards' tolerance for gays were "promoting awareness of the dangers of homosexuality", Line of Love had the goal of "promoting proper respect for funerals."[126]
On February 24, 2011, hacktivists successfully took Westboro Baptist Church's websites down. The church claims this was the work of Anonymous, but the group denied responsibility, instead identifying The Jester as the culprit.[127] During a live TV confrontation on The David Pakman Show between Shirley Phelps-Roper and a spokesman for Anonymous, Shirley claimed that Anonymous could not "stop God's message" even if they were to try. In response, Anonymous seized control of one of Westboro's subdomains.[128]"
Westboro Baptist Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Additional info about counter protests and criticism of Westboro can be found at the above link.
Some are so contemptible of the US military, it shouldn't be a great surprise they find themselves sympatico with protests of military funerals. Some may enjoy a moment of quiet pleasure at the announcement of another dead US soldier. Some never miss an opportunity to make a disparaging remark or insult toward American military sericemembers. This is a strange and unfamiliar brand of patriotism, unknown to ordinary Americans. Seems this odd viewpoint is largely held by those who have never served in uniform. Perhaps, deeply self aware, these confused souls turn their rightful shame into torrents of scorn.
Last edited:
If you understand Islam, then you know the answer to that. It's complicated, but an oversimplification is Muslims believe everything is preordained by Allah, everything. Everything that has happened, or ever will happen, is by the direct hand of Allah. Whatever you do as a Muslims you are doing so because Allah has already determined that you will do it. If something happens that Allah has caused to happen, to demonstrate against that is to demonstrate against Allah.
Yes, I know, there are a lot of things they will demonstrate against, like the goober in Florida who was going to burn the Qur'an, or Danish cartoonists, because apparently some things do actually happen that Allah didn't ordain. They're very selective about what Allah did or didn't do, despite the fact that Allah has already preordained everything. <snort> They're an enigma. But most religions are like that. That's why they are so dangerous, because they tend to take human judgments and turn them into divine commands.
A pretty good explanation of why to stop apologizing and accepting and start resolving.