Pam Geller planning bus and train ad campaign featuring Muhammad cartoon

[TLK Valentine]

Someone should depict Mohammed as the seventh head of the beast because his followers trampled Jerusalem underfoot for 1260 years, and now have started the Battle of Ar Mageddon which began on 9/11 when the Euphrates was dry.

Good idea -- you get on that; post when you've finished.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I wouldn't really consider those secular communities, those are more Republican and Democrat based political commentary (which both have huge audiences that are self-professing Christians)

My apologies for not being a clear as I should have...when I said Secular, what I was referring to was (Atheist, Agnostic, Unaffiliated)

I went to the trouble of looking up secular. For the record it has many variations: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secular

1 a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal <secular concerns>
b : not overtly or specifically religious <secular music>
c : not ecclesiastical or clerical <secular courts> <secular landowners>
2: not bound by monastic vows or rules; specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation <a secular priest>
3 a : occurring once in an age or a century
b : existing or continuing through ages or centuries
c : of or relating to a long term of indefinite duration​

 

[Cearbhall]

Pam Geller has already significantly helped solved the "problem" of radicalization.

My apologies, I've never heard of her before. What has she done?

 

[KarateCowboy]

A Jew seeking to dehumanise a particular religion? Well there's an irony I wasn't expecting.

I like this. I'm going to use it the next time someone says something anathema to Catholicism. Or anything important to me for that matter. If drawing a picture of Muhammed dehumanizes Muslims ... then the government owes me a lot of money for "Pi** Christ".

 

[South Bound]

The Bibles were written in the languages Pashto and Dari. Is the US government into the business of forced conversions to Christianity now?

They weren't the government's Bibles. They were privately donated to Afghnistanis by American citizens. Not sure what being written in Pashto and Dari have to do with it.

But that's irrelevant. The issue is still the fact that Muslims threatened violence at the very suggestion of a Quran burning, while Christians did not when Bibles were actually burned.

 

[High Fidelity]

I like this. I'm going to use it the next time someone says something anathema to Catholicism. Or anything important to me for that matter. If drawing a picture of Muhammed dehumanizes Muslims ... then the government owes me a lot of money for "Pi** Christ".

Not quite. Purposely setting out to illicit a reaction you know you will get to then point your finger in apparent shock and horror at the 'horrible things Muslims do' is quite different.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Bibles were actually burned.

...which dehumanizes the religion and its participants!

 

[KarateCowboy]

Not quite. Purposely setting out to illicit a reaction you know you will get to then point your finger in apparent shock and horror at the 'horrible things Muslims do' is quite different.

It's obvious that making fun of Christ like that would illicit a negative response, so why would anyone do it except to cause that? Clearly, it is dehumanizing.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Then we should be able to look into the doctrine and find it.

I can't remember if it was in this thread or a similar one, but I did post a difference in the doctrine.

I'm not going to be non-genuine, like some, and try to make the false claim that Islam doctrine is all blood and guts and Christian doctrine is all rose petals and flute music.

I'm always straight forward about the fact that I view both as simply stories, and both stories make mentions of both violence, and peace.

However, the one critical difference is in the depiction of the 'protagonist' of the two stories as it were.

One protagonist is a very peaceful, forgiving character who's anger never elevated past a stern lecture and flipping over some tables of money changers.

The other protagonist is more of a warlord type character who left no room for dissent and had people executive for writing poetry that was critical of him.

I would liken it to a person who idolizes Morgan Freeman's character vs. someone who idolizes Chuck Norris's character.

When a Christian plants a bomb in a clinic, they more often than not have the courtesy to phone ahead first -- the really smart ones forego the bomb entirely and stick with the phone call, having already inspired the requisite terror.

When a Christian terrorist, such as Scott Roeder, guns down an innocent man, such as Dr. George Tiller, he is usually courteous enough to use a handgun, and not something splashier, such as an RPG.

On the whole, Christian terrorists seem to be a lot more sensitive about collateral damage than Muslim terrorists. Now, whether that's a religious distinction, a cultural distinction, a political distinction, or just a case of being more batguano crazy, I can only speculate.

It's also fair to note the difference in frequency between the religions when they commit these types of acts.

For the United States: (for the christian side)

• 1993: David Gunn was murdered by anti-abortion activist Michael F. Griffin
• 1994: Abortion provider John Britton and James Barrett became victims of Reverend Paul Jennings Hill.
• 1996–98: Eric Rudolph cited biblical passages as his motivation for a series bombings, including one at Atlanta's Olympic Centennial Park. But he otherwise denied that his brief association with the Christian Identity movement was a motivation. Rudolph is often misquoted as saying that his Roman Catholicism was a motivation. However, he only made reference to being "born a Catholic" as a hope for forgiveness of his actions, rather than as a motivation for them.
• 1998: James Kopp killed at least one and went on a series of anti-abortion shooting sprees, both in the U.S. and Canada.
• 2009: Anti-abortion activist Scott Roeder killed George Tiller in Kansas

(for the Islamic side)
Between 1993 and 2001, the major attacks or attempts against US interests stemmed from militant Islamic jihad extremism except for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.[197] In 2001 nearly 3,000 people were killed in the September 11 attacks organised by al-Qaeda and largely perpetrated by Saudi nationals, sparking the War on Terror. Former CIA Director Michael Hayden considers homegrown terrorism to be the most dangerous threat and concern faced by American citizens today.[198] As of July 2011, there have been 52 homegrown jihadist extremist plots or attacks in the United States since the September 11 attacks.[199]

Compare that to other groups like Jewish folks, whose last act of terror was (1986), the KKK (1981), Black Militant Groups (1973)

So, if we're looking at recent times, the tally establishes a pretty clear trend and establishes the fact that while Christian extremism might come in 2nd place...it's by no means a close 2nd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States

(Personally, I think given the political history of the region, collateral damage just doesn't faze them as much as it would us, but that's just my opinion)

I will definitely say there is some validity to your stance on that. Different cultures have different attitudes towards collateral damage...you're right about that.

Agreed -- but given the number of Conservatives who use such violence as ammo against Islam, you're not exactly going out on a limb with that prediction.

I'm not so much concerned about Republicans pointing out islamic extremism and Democrats pointing out christian extremism...that's nothing new or special.

I'm talking about the attitudes of the secular progressives. People who would defend speech over religion in 10 out of 10 cases in any other instance, but who seemingly want to walk on eggshells when discussing Islam.

In the video I posted earlier, you can see Ben Affleck quickly resorting to calling Maher and Harris "racist" when the bring this up, however, he was very vocal about how expression is something that needs to be protected and that people need to be open to all ideas when interviewed about his role in the movie "Dogma" which heavily criticized/mocked the Catholic church.

The difference in attitudes toward Catholicism and Islam is vastly different among that crowd as well.

Many of the progressives that oppose discussing Islam in this fashion would be having a very different conversation if you took the following sentence "Terrorism within Islamic groups" and replaced the word "Terrorism" with "Sex Abuse", and replaced "Islamic groups" with "Catholic Church"

 

[High Fidelity]

It's obvious that making fun of Christ like that would illicit a negative response, so why would anyone do it except to cause that? Clearly, it is dehumanizing.

Not even going to try and convince you otherwise lol.

 

[katautumn]

I'm not sure I understand the point behind being offensive just for the sake of being offensive.

 

[BigDaddy4]

In group, out group. My friends can insult me harshly while we are drinking and I'll laugh and give it right back to them. Some stranger says something like that, we're going to have a problem.

It is an odd situation to the extent of hypocrisy, IMO. I played sports with many blacks and they would sometimes greet each other with "what's up N?" Now if I had done that, I'd get pummeled. I understand the social context, though, even if I don't agree with it. It just doesn't sound right, no matter whose mouth it comes out of.

 

[BigDaddy4]

...which dehumanizes the religion and its participants!

But not something a Christian would go jihad over.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Many of the progressives that oppose discussing Islam in this fashion would be having a very different conversation if you took the following sentence "Terrorism within Islamic groups" and replaced the word "Terrorism" with "Sex Abuse", and replaced "Islamic groups" with "Catholic Church"

Progressives are only human, and it's human nature to not want to admit when one is afraid.

There's a perfectly valid reason not to walk up to the 300-pound Hell's Angel and tell him he stinks of roadkill and failure... that reason being that he and 8 of his buddies just might form a conga line on your face for it.

Progressives would rather overlook that and focus on the need to respect the biker culture and not lump them all together... technically true, but let's not pretend the "conga line" isn't the main reason.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

They weren't the government's Bibles. They were privately donated to Afghnistanis by American citizens. Not sure what being written in Pashto and Dari have to do with it.

But that's irrelevant. The issue is still the fact that Muslims threatened violence at the very suggestion of a Quran burning, while Christians did not when Bibles were actually burned.

#1 The bibles were sent to an American military base.

#2 Most Americans that were stationed at that American military base speak/spoke and read English, not Pashto and Dari, the local afghan languages.

#3 The American military base never requested the bibles printed in Pashto and Dari.

#4 There was no one sent along with the bibles to distribute the bibles printed in the local language to the local population.

#5 The US military is not in the business of handing out bibles to the local population.

#6 Because they were not requested, the bibles were useless and unsolicited junk mail that was burned.

#7 The person wanting to burn the Koran purchased it himself and it was not a part of a large unsolicited shipment of Koran’s from the citizens of an Islamic country and he was very vocal and public about it, advertising for weeks in advance in order to get all the attention the insecure little person wanted. On the other hand, the US military did not advertise the fact that they were going to burn a large pile of useless and unsolicited junk mail along with the usual garbage.

 

[South Bound]

#1 The bibles were sent to an American military base.

#2 Most Americans that were stationed at that American military base speak/spoke and read English, not Pashto and Dari, the local afghan languages.

#3 The American military base never requested the bibles printed in Pashto and Dari.

#4 There was no one sent along with the bibles to distribute the bibles printed in the local language to the local population.

#5 The US military is not in the business of handing out bibles to the local population.

#6 Because they were not requested, the bibles were useless and unsolicited junk mail that was burned.

#7 The person wanting to burn the Koran purchased it himself and it was not a part of a large unsolicited shipment of Koran’s from the citizens of an Islamic country and he was very vocal and public about it, advertising for weeks in advance in order to get all the attention the insecure little person wanted. On the other hand, the US military did not advertise the fact that they were going to burn a large pile of useless and unsolicited junk mail along with the usual garbage.

As I pointed out to you before, all of this is irrelevant, because the issue was not who the Bibles belonged to, but the difference in reactions between the Christians and the Muslims when their respective holy books were burned and threatened to be burned.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

As I pointed out to you before, all of this is irrelevant, because the issue was not who the Bibles belonged to, but the difference in reactions between the Christians and the Muslims when their respective holy books were burned and threatened to be burned.

Perhaps you will understand this then,


The person wanting to burn the Koran was very vocal and public about it, advertising for WEEKS IN ADVANCE in order to get all the attention he could.


No one even knew about the bibles until a YEAR after they had already been burned.


Or just perhaps the Muslims take their faith a little more seriously than the Christians of Laodicea…

 

[South Bound]

In 2008 American troops confiscated, threw away, and burned God’s Word at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan.

The incident became public in 2009



http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/02/day-us-military-burned-bible-in-afghanistan.html

FOX News is a television news network. It is not conservative talk radio.

 

[TLK Valentine]

As I pointed out to you before, all of this is irrelevant, because the issue was not who the Bibles belonged to, but the difference in reactions between the Christians and the Muslims when their respective holy books were burned and threatened to be burned.

If you don't know the difference between taking out the trash and attempting to make a political statement, then it's plainly obvious what is irrelevant here.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

[QUOTE="Aryeh Jay"}No one even knew about the bibles until a YEAR after they had already been burned.

Actually, it was all over conservative talk radio.



Or it may be that it's not a matter of how seriously we take our respective religions, but of how our religions teach us to react. Theirs tells them to react by killing the infidel and avenging Mohammed, while ours tell us to bless those who persecute us and pray for them.[/QUOTE]

In 2008 American troops confiscated, threw away, and burned God’s Word at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan.

The incident became public in 2009



http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/02/day-us-military-burned-bible-in-afghanistan.html