[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: [/QUOTENAME]My original point here was that we never see Christian fanatics committing worldwide acts of terrorism. How come?[/QUOTE]
The problem you have here is that just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Anyone who thinks the media tells everything honestly is naive (trust me, I was a journalism major for 3 years). Christians haven't committed WORLD wide acts of terrorism, but they still committ terrorist actions. Just not on the same scale as the Muslim terrorists. Everytime a black chuch is burned by the KKK, that's an act of Christian terrorism. But you don't hear about that in the national news until a few churches are burned by the same group... unless you live in the area where it happend.
Why don't they committ worldwide acts of terror anymore? Part of it is that they don't have the financial resources (Bin Laden is vastly wealthy), and those that do are under too much scrutiny by the government (The US government would never let a private individual get away with that, while other governments are willing to turn the other cheek).
Terrorism is terrorism: it doesn't have to affect vast numbers of people before it becomes terrorism. It doesn't even technically have to hurt one person. Intimidation of Homosexuals/Blacks/Non-Christians is a form of terrorism. The Matthew Sheapard beating was a form of terrorism. The anti-abortion religious fundamentalists who came to my campus and disrupted classes on the lower floors of buildings by screaming in the windows and shoving pictures through the cracks in doors...that's terrorism too.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zeni wrote: [/QUOTENAME]But let me ask this, if you don't teach them religion, then what do you teach them? It seems to me that in order to teach children the evils of "bad" religion, then you have to teach them why it is "bad." The point of parenting (which is my ultimate point) is to guide children into adulthood.[/QUOTE]
And I agree with that. But there are plenty of alternatives to religion. You can teach children positive moral values seccularly, without an ancient religious tale and belief requirements to go along with them. In my opinion, kids raised without a god above to believe in are raised to be self-sufficient people, rather than childishly depending on a father figure "up there" to fix their problems for them.
And I agree with that. But there are plenty of alternatives to religion. You can teach children positive moral values seccularly, without an ancient religious tale and belief requirements to go along with them. In my opinion, kids raised without a god above to believe in are raised to be self-sufficient people, rather than childishly depending on a father figure "up there" to fix their problems for them.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zeni wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Except that it was pointed out earlier in the thread that he agreed with Falwell, who advocated the slaughter of muslims. By aggreeing, he's advocating the same thing. [/QUOTE]
Ok, so when did Falwell say they should be slaughtered? All I can find is my post about Jerry saying stupid things (which, as I remember, were not about slaughtering) and Pat nodding in agreement.
Jerry has also said many stupid things, but I cannot imagine he actually said Muslims should be slaughtered. I don't mind being corrected with a proper citation, but we don't have that here.[/QUOTE]
OK Zeni. You wanted a proper citation for Falwell promoting the slaughter of Muslims, and here it is:
He has continued to be a harsh critic of Islam and Muslims. In a radio interview on March 4, 2002, Falwell said of former President Jimmy Carter, "His message of peace and reconciliation under almost all circumstances is simply incompatible with Christian teachings as I interpret them. This 'turn the other cheek' business is all well and good but it's not what Jesus fought and died for. What we need to do is take the battle to the Muslim heathens and do unto them before they do unto us."
That's from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell#Controversial_remarks)
What we need to to is take the battle to the Muslim heathens and do unto them before they do unto us?? Couldn't put it more plain than that.[/QUOTE]
To be honest, that's quite a watered down version of "calling for the slaughter of all Muslims."
Except that it was pointed out earlier in the thread that he agreed with Falwell, who advocated the slaughter of muslims. By aggreeing, he's advocating the same thing. [/QUOTE]
Ok, so when did Falwell say they should be slaughtered? All I can find is my post about Jerry saying stupid things (which, as I remember, were not about slaughtering) and Pat nodding in agreement.
Jerry has also said many stupid things, but I cannot imagine he actually said Muslims should be slaughtered. I don't mind being corrected with a proper citation, but we don't have that here.[/QUOTE]
OK Zeni. You wanted a proper citation for Falwell promoting the slaughter of Muslims, and here it is:
He has continued to be a harsh critic of Islam and Muslims. In a radio interview on March 4, 2002, Falwell said of former President Jimmy Carter, "His message of peace and reconciliation under almost all circumstances is simply incompatible with Christian teachings as I interpret them. This 'turn the other cheek' business is all well and good but it's not what Jesus fought and died for. What we need to do is take the battle to the Muslim heathens and do unto them before they do unto us."
That's from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell#Controversial_remarks)
What we need to to is take the battle to the Muslim heathens and do unto them before they do unto us?? Couldn't put it more plain than that.[/QUOTE]
To be honest, that's quite a watered down version of "calling for the slaughter of all Muslims."
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: [/QUOTENAME]My original point here was that we never see Christian fanatics committing worldwide acts of terrorism. How come?[/QUOTE]
The problem you have here is that just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Anyone who thinks the media tells everything honestly is naive (trust me, I was a journalism major for 3 years). Christians haven't committed WORLD wide acts of terrorism, but they still committ terrorist actions. Just not on the same scale as the Muslim terrorists. Everytime a black chuch is burned by the KKK, that's an act of Christian terrorism. But you don't hear about that in the national news until a few churches are burned by the same group... unless you live in the area where it happend.
Why don't they committ worldwide acts of terror anymore? Part of it is that they don't have the financial resources (Bin Laden is vastly wealthy), and those that do are under too much scrutiny by the government (The US government would never let a private individual get away with that, while other governments are willing to turn the other cheek).
Terrorism is terrorism: it doesn't have to affect vast numbers of people before it becomes terrorism. It doesn't even technically have to hurt one person. Intimidation of Homosexuals/Blacks/Non-Christians is a form of terrorism. The Matthew Sheapard beating was a form of terrorism. The anti-abortion religious fundamentalists who came to my campus and disrupted classes on the lower floors of buildings by screaming in the windows and shoving pictures through the cracks in doors...that's terrorism too. [/QUOTE]
The terrorism you described is hardly on the same level of the fundamentalist Muslim terrorism we hear about almost every day.
The problem you have here is that just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Anyone who thinks the media tells everything honestly is naive (trust me, I was a journalism major for 3 years). Christians haven't committed WORLD wide acts of terrorism, but they still committ terrorist actions. Just not on the same scale as the Muslim terrorists. Everytime a black chuch is burned by the KKK, that's an act of Christian terrorism. But you don't hear about that in the national news until a few churches are burned by the same group... unless you live in the area where it happend.
Why don't they committ worldwide acts of terror anymore? Part of it is that they don't have the financial resources (Bin Laden is vastly wealthy), and those that do are under too much scrutiny by the government (The US government would never let a private individual get away with that, while other governments are willing to turn the other cheek).
Terrorism is terrorism: it doesn't have to affect vast numbers of people before it becomes terrorism. It doesn't even technically have to hurt one person. Intimidation of Homosexuals/Blacks/Non-Christians is a form of terrorism. The Matthew Sheapard beating was a form of terrorism. The anti-abortion religious fundamentalists who came to my campus and disrupted classes on the lower floors of buildings by screaming in the windows and shoving pictures through the cracks in doors...that's terrorism too. [/QUOTE]
The terrorism you described is hardly on the same level of the fundamentalist Muslim terrorism we hear about almost every day.
Liquid bombs?! They could have just brought in venomous snakes and let them loose all over the plane...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: [/QUOTENAME]My original point here was that we never see Christian fanatics committing worldwide acts of terrorism. How come?[/QUOTE]
The problem you have here is that just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Anyone who thinks the media tells everything honestly is naive (trust me, I was a journalism major for 3 years). Christians haven't committed WORLD wide acts of terrorism, but they still committ terrorist actions. Just not on the same scale as the Muslim terrorists. Everytime a black chuch is burned by the KKK, that's an act of Christian terrorism. But you don't hear about that in the national news until a few churches are burned by the same group... unless you live in the area where it happend.
Why don't they committ worldwide acts of terror anymore? Part of it is that they don't have the financial resources (Bin Laden is vastly wealthy), and those that do are under too much scrutiny by the government (The US government would never let a private individual get away with that, while other governments are willing to turn the other cheek).
Terrorism is terrorism: it doesn't have to affect vast numbers of people before it becomes terrorism. It doesn't even technically have to hurt one person. Intimidation of Homosexuals/Blacks/Non-Christians is a form of terrorism. The Matthew Sheapard beating was a form of terrorism. The anti-abortion religious fundamentalists who came to my campus and disrupted classes on the lower floors of buildings by screaming in the windows and shoving pictures through the cracks in doors...that's terrorism too. [/QUOTE]
The terrorism you described is hardly on the same level of the fundamentalist Muslim terrorism we hear about almost every day.[/QUOTE]
I was just about to say that. Could it be that Muslim governments secretly support these organizations? I don't know, it's just a thought, so don't flame me. Or do, I don't care.
The problem you have here is that just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Anyone who thinks the media tells everything honestly is naive (trust me, I was a journalism major for 3 years). Christians haven't committed WORLD wide acts of terrorism, but they still committ terrorist actions. Just not on the same scale as the Muslim terrorists. Everytime a black chuch is burned by the KKK, that's an act of Christian terrorism. But you don't hear about that in the national news until a few churches are burned by the same group... unless you live in the area where it happend.
Why don't they committ worldwide acts of terror anymore? Part of it is that they don't have the financial resources (Bin Laden is vastly wealthy), and those that do are under too much scrutiny by the government (The US government would never let a private individual get away with that, while other governments are willing to turn the other cheek).
Terrorism is terrorism: it doesn't have to affect vast numbers of people before it becomes terrorism. It doesn't even technically have to hurt one person. Intimidation of Homosexuals/Blacks/Non-Christians is a form of terrorism. The Matthew Sheapard beating was a form of terrorism. The anti-abortion religious fundamentalists who came to my campus and disrupted classes on the lower floors of buildings by screaming in the windows and shoving pictures through the cracks in doors...that's terrorism too. [/QUOTE]
The terrorism you described is hardly on the same level of the fundamentalist Muslim terrorism we hear about almost every day.[/QUOTE]
I was just about to say that. Could it be that Muslim governments secretly support these organizations? I don't know, it's just a thought, so don't flame me. Or do, I don't care.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: [/QUOTENAME]My original point here was that we never see Christian fanatics committing worldwide acts of terrorism. How come?[/QUOTE]
The problem you have here is that just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Anyone who thinks the media tells everything honestly is naive (trust me, I was a journalism major for 3 years). Christians haven't committed WORLD wide acts of terrorism, but they still committ terrorist actions. Just not on the same scale as the Muslim terrorists. Everytime a black chuch is burned by the KKK, that's an act of Christian terrorism. But you don't hear about that in the national news until a few churches are burned by the same group... unless you live in the area where it happend.
Why don't they committ worldwide acts of terror anymore? Part of it is that they don't have the financial resources (Bin Laden is vastly wealthy), and those that do are under too much scrutiny by the government (The US government would never let a private individual get away with that, while other governments are willing to turn the other cheek).
Terrorism is terrorism: it doesn't have to affect vast numbers of people before it becomes terrorism. It doesn't even technically have to hurt one person. Intimidation of Homosexuals/Blacks/Non-Christians is a form of terrorism. The Matthew Sheapard beating was a form of terrorism. The anti-abortion religious fundamentalists who came to my campus and disrupted classes on the lower floors of buildings by screaming in the windows and shoving pictures through the cracks in doors...that's terrorism too. [/QUOTE]
The terrorism you described is hardly on the same level of the fundamentalist Muslim terrorism we hear about almost every day.[/QUOTE]
I was just about to say that. Could it be that Muslim governments secretly support these organizations? I don't know, it's just a thought, so don't flame me. Or do, I don't care.[/QUOTE]
Nah, I'm not going to flame you, because to a certain extent it's true. Not all Muslim Governments support these kinds of activities, but there are some (Syria, Iran, and Afghanistan pre-US Invasion) who do actively support these activities. Depends on the government you are talking about....but it's important to remember that not ALL Muslim governments support these activites.
The problem you have here is that just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Anyone who thinks the media tells everything honestly is naive (trust me, I was a journalism major for 3 years). Christians haven't committed WORLD wide acts of terrorism, but they still committ terrorist actions. Just not on the same scale as the Muslim terrorists. Everytime a black chuch is burned by the KKK, that's an act of Christian terrorism. But you don't hear about that in the national news until a few churches are burned by the same group... unless you live in the area where it happend.
Why don't they committ worldwide acts of terror anymore? Part of it is that they don't have the financial resources (Bin Laden is vastly wealthy), and those that do are under too much scrutiny by the government (The US government would never let a private individual get away with that, while other governments are willing to turn the other cheek).
Terrorism is terrorism: it doesn't have to affect vast numbers of people before it becomes terrorism. It doesn't even technically have to hurt one person. Intimidation of Homosexuals/Blacks/Non-Christians is a form of terrorism. The Matthew Sheapard beating was a form of terrorism. The anti-abortion religious fundamentalists who came to my campus and disrupted classes on the lower floors of buildings by screaming in the windows and shoving pictures through the cracks in doors...that's terrorism too. [/QUOTE]
The terrorism you described is hardly on the same level of the fundamentalist Muslim terrorism we hear about almost every day.[/QUOTE]
I was just about to say that. Could it be that Muslim governments secretly support these organizations? I don't know, it's just a thought, so don't flame me. Or do, I don't care.[/QUOTE]
Nah, I'm not going to flame you, because to a certain extent it's true. Not all Muslim Governments support these kinds of activities, but there are some (Syria, Iran, and Afghanistan pre-US Invasion) who do actively support these activities. Depends on the government you are talking about....but it's important to remember that not ALL Muslim governments support these activites.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: [/QUOTENAME]My original point here was that we never see Christian fanatics committing worldwide acts of terrorism. How come?[/QUOTE]
The problem you have here is that just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Anyone who thinks the media tells everything honestly is naive (trust me, I was a journalism major for 3 years). Christians haven't committed WORLD wide acts of terrorism, but they still committ terrorist actions. Just not on the same scale as the Muslim terrorists. Everytime a black chuch is burned by the KKK, that's an act of Christian terrorism. But you don't hear about that in the national news until a few churches are burned by the same group... unless you live in the area where it happend.
Why don't they committ worldwide acts of terror anymore? Part of it is that they don't have the financial resources (Bin Laden is vastly wealthy), and those that do are under too much scrutiny by the government (The US government would never let a private individual get away with that, while other governments are willing to turn the other cheek).
Terrorism is terrorism: it doesn't have to affect vast numbers of people before it becomes terrorism. It doesn't even technically have to hurt one person. Intimidation of Homosexuals/Blacks/Non-Christians is a form of terrorism. The Matthew Sheapard beating was a form of terrorism. The anti-abortion religious fundamentalists who came to my campus and disrupted classes on the lower floors of buildings by screaming in the windows and shoving pictures through the cracks in doors...that's terrorism too. [/QUOTE]
The terrorism you described is hardly on the same level of the fundamentalist Muslim terrorism we hear about almost every day.[/QUOTE]
I realize that, but that wasn't my point. My point was that Christian terrorism exists.
As for the "watered down" version of Falwell calling for the fight against Muslims....seems pretty clear to me. Of course, that's the problem...he's just smart enough to know not to say it outright, so he says it in a veiled way. But it doesn't take a genius to see what he meant.
The problem you have here is that just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Anyone who thinks the media tells everything honestly is naive (trust me, I was a journalism major for 3 years). Christians haven't committed WORLD wide acts of terrorism, but they still committ terrorist actions. Just not on the same scale as the Muslim terrorists. Everytime a black chuch is burned by the KKK, that's an act of Christian terrorism. But you don't hear about that in the national news until a few churches are burned by the same group... unless you live in the area where it happend.
Why don't they committ worldwide acts of terror anymore? Part of it is that they don't have the financial resources (Bin Laden is vastly wealthy), and those that do are under too much scrutiny by the government (The US government would never let a private individual get away with that, while other governments are willing to turn the other cheek).
Terrorism is terrorism: it doesn't have to affect vast numbers of people before it becomes terrorism. It doesn't even technically have to hurt one person. Intimidation of Homosexuals/Blacks/Non-Christians is a form of terrorism. The Matthew Sheapard beating was a form of terrorism. The anti-abortion religious fundamentalists who came to my campus and disrupted classes on the lower floors of buildings by screaming in the windows and shoving pictures through the cracks in doors...that's terrorism too. [/QUOTE]
The terrorism you described is hardly on the same level of the fundamentalist Muslim terrorism we hear about almost every day.[/QUOTE]
I realize that, but that wasn't my point. My point was that Christian terrorism exists.
As for the "watered down" version of Falwell calling for the fight against Muslims....seems pretty clear to me. Of course, that's the problem...he's just smart enough to know not to say it outright, so he says it in a veiled way. But it doesn't take a genius to see what he meant.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
OK Zeni. You wanted a proper citation for Falwell promoting the slaughter of Muslims, and here it is:
[/QUOTE]
I agree with Music Man that this comment is not as heinous as actually saying "slaughtered," but it certainly does not speak well of Jerry. Kudos to point it out, though.
But, in the name of fairness, your earlier comments concerning Robertson are off base. Jerry's "do unto them" remarks were made via a radio interview, and not in Pat's presence. Therefore, Pat was not guilty by agreeing with Jerry in this case.
And, to be safe, I mean no harm by my comments, Maggie.
OK Zeni. You wanted a proper citation for Falwell promoting the slaughter of Muslims, and here it is:
[/QUOTE]
I agree with Music Man that this comment is not as heinous as actually saying "slaughtered," but it certainly does not speak well of Jerry. Kudos to point it out, though.
But, in the name of fairness, your earlier comments concerning Robertson are off base. Jerry's "do unto them" remarks were made via a radio interview, and not in Pat's presence. Therefore, Pat was not guilty by agreeing with Jerry in this case.
And, to be safe, I mean no harm by my comments, Maggie.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
And I agree with that. But there are plenty of alternatives to religion. You can teach children positive moral values seccularly, without an ancient religious tale and belief requirements to go along with them. In my opinion, kids raised without a god above to believe in are raised to be self-sufficient people, rather than childishly depending on a father figure "up there" to fix their problems for them.
[/QUOTE]
Allright, I'll agree to disagree with you, Bob.
Your comments seem to indicate that you do not believe that religion has any role in a child's development. In my opinion (and history and anthropology seem to support this), religion is the foundation for most societies and serves a vital role in a community's development.
To give one historical example of what I mean:
Black churches in the American South provided an important outlet for Black independence and autonomy after the American Civil War. By the early 20th century, these churches fostered a growing civil rights movement that came to fruition in the 1950s and 1960s. In fact, many of the movements leaders, like Martin Luther King and members of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, not only grew up in the church, but were ministers themselves.
And I agree with that. But there are plenty of alternatives to religion. You can teach children positive moral values seccularly, without an ancient religious tale and belief requirements to go along with them. In my opinion, kids raised without a god above to believe in are raised to be self-sufficient people, rather than childishly depending on a father figure "up there" to fix their problems for them.
[/QUOTE]
Allright, I'll agree to disagree with you, Bob.
Your comments seem to indicate that you do not believe that religion has any role in a child's development. In my opinion (and history and anthropology seem to support this), religion is the foundation for most societies and serves a vital role in a community's development.
To give one historical example of what I mean:
Black churches in the American South provided an important outlet for Black independence and autonomy after the American Civil War. By the early 20th century, these churches fostered a growing civil rights movement that came to fruition in the 1950s and 1960s. In fact, many of the movements leaders, like Martin Luther King and members of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, not only grew up in the church, but were ministers themselves.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zeni wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
OK Zeni. You wanted a proper citation for Falwell promoting the slaughter of Muslims, and here it is:
[/QUOTE]
I agree with Music Man that this comment is not as heinous as actually saying "slaughtered," but it certainly does not speak well of Jerry. Kudos to point it out, though.
But, in the name of fairness, your earlier comments concerning Robertson are off base. Jerry's "do unto them" remarks were made via a radio interview, and not in Pat's presence. Therefore, Pat was not guilty by agreeing with Jerry in this case.
And, to be safe, I mean no harm by my comments, Maggie.[/QUOTE]
No harm taken, Zeni. Sometimes it's hard to tell when you are just really into a debate and when you are actually taking offence to things in the printed word...and I have not taken offence to anything said. I enjoy a good debate!
I was pretty sure when I started looking that Falwell didn't say "slaughter"...he's not that stupid. But it's pretty obvious what he means by the comments he's made. Same thing, different name, really.
Yes, I was mistaken where you point out. I was under the impression that Robertson was there when Falwell said it...it escaped my notice that it was two different interviews. Thanks for pointing that out though. :-)
OK Zeni. You wanted a proper citation for Falwell promoting the slaughter of Muslims, and here it is:
[/QUOTE]
I agree with Music Man that this comment is not as heinous as actually saying "slaughtered," but it certainly does not speak well of Jerry. Kudos to point it out, though.
But, in the name of fairness, your earlier comments concerning Robertson are off base. Jerry's "do unto them" remarks were made via a radio interview, and not in Pat's presence. Therefore, Pat was not guilty by agreeing with Jerry in this case.
And, to be safe, I mean no harm by my comments, Maggie.[/QUOTE]
No harm taken, Zeni. Sometimes it's hard to tell when you are just really into a debate and when you are actually taking offence to things in the printed word...and I have not taken offence to anything said. I enjoy a good debate!
I was pretty sure when I started looking that Falwell didn't say "slaughter"...he's not that stupid. But it's pretty obvious what he means by the comments he's made. Same thing, different name, really.
Yes, I was mistaken where you point out. I was under the impression that Robertson was there when Falwell said it...it escaped my notice that it was two different interviews. Thanks for pointing that out though. :-)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zeni wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
And I agree with that. But there are plenty of alternatives to religion. You can teach children positive moral values seccularly, without an ancient religious tale and belief requirements to go along with them. In my opinion, kids raised without a god above to believe in are raised to be self-sufficient people, rather than childishly depending on a father figure "up there" to fix their problems for them.
[/QUOTE]
Allright, I'll agree to disagree with you, Bob.
Your comments seem to indicate that you do not believe that religion has any role in a child's development. In my opinion (and history and anthropology seem to support this), religion is the foundation for most societies and serves a vital role in a community's development.
To give one historical example of what I mean:
Black churches in the American South provided an important outlet for Black independence and autonomy after the American Civil War. By the early 20th century, these churches fostered a growing civil rights movement that came to fruition in the 1950s and 1960s. In fact, many of the movements leaders, like Martin Luther King and members of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, not only grew up in the church, but were ministers themselves.
[/QUOTE]
You've got a point here, Zeni, but I think what Bob is trying to say is that you need to stop living life simply waiting for an afterlife, which will be better than the one you are living. You need to live for the here and now, and that's the only way this world will become a better place. Mighty hypocritical to claim that your religion tells you to make the world a better place, and then spend all of your time praying for "God" to make it better without putting any effort into it yourself, and when no results happen saying that it's "God's Will".
Your example of the Black South is correct, but just because history is that way doesn't mean it will always be that way, or that it's the only right way. Children in many European countries (I saw this demonstarted in France when I studied abroad there) are raised secularly, with religion as an afterthought (if at all) And Europe hasn't fallen into chaos yet. It's doing just fine. In fact, it can be argued historically that Europe is better off now as a secular entity than it was when it was a religious entity (The Protestant Reformation and the Spanish Inquisition being two examples that come to mind).
And I agree with that. But there are plenty of alternatives to religion. You can teach children positive moral values seccularly, without an ancient religious tale and belief requirements to go along with them. In my opinion, kids raised without a god above to believe in are raised to be self-sufficient people, rather than childishly depending on a father figure "up there" to fix their problems for them.
[/QUOTE]
Allright, I'll agree to disagree with you, Bob.
Your comments seem to indicate that you do not believe that religion has any role in a child's development. In my opinion (and history and anthropology seem to support this), religion is the foundation for most societies and serves a vital role in a community's development.
To give one historical example of what I mean:
Black churches in the American South provided an important outlet for Black independence and autonomy after the American Civil War. By the early 20th century, these churches fostered a growing civil rights movement that came to fruition in the 1950s and 1960s. In fact, many of the movements leaders, like Martin Luther King and members of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, not only grew up in the church, but were ministers themselves.
[/QUOTE]
You've got a point here, Zeni, but I think what Bob is trying to say is that you need to stop living life simply waiting for an afterlife, which will be better than the one you are living. You need to live for the here and now, and that's the only way this world will become a better place. Mighty hypocritical to claim that your religion tells you to make the world a better place, and then spend all of your time praying for "God" to make it better without putting any effort into it yourself, and when no results happen saying that it's "God's Will".
Your example of the Black South is correct, but just because history is that way doesn't mean it will always be that way, or that it's the only right way. Children in many European countries (I saw this demonstarted in France when I studied abroad there) are raised secularly, with religion as an afterthought (if at all) And Europe hasn't fallen into chaos yet. It's doing just fine. In fact, it can be argued historically that Europe is better off now as a secular entity than it was when it was a religious entity (The Protestant Reformation and the Spanish Inquisition being two examples that come to mind).
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: [/QUOTENAME]My original point here was that we never see Christian fanatics committing worldwide acts of terrorism. How come?[/QUOTE]
The problem you have here is that just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Anyone who thinks the media tells everything honestly is naive (trust me, I was a journalism major for 3 years). Christians haven't committed WORLD wide acts of terrorism, but they still committ terrorist actions. Just not on the same scale as the Muslim terrorists. Everytime a black chuch is burned by the KKK, that's an act of Christian terrorism. But you don't hear about that in the national news until a few churches are burned by the same group... unless you live in the area where it happend.
Why don't they committ worldwide acts of terror anymore? Part of it is that they don't have the financial resources (Bin Laden is vastly wealthy), and those that do are under too much scrutiny by the government (The US government would never let a private individual get away with that, while other governments are willing to turn the other cheek).
Terrorism is terrorism: it doesn't have to affect vast numbers of people before it becomes terrorism. It doesn't even technically have to hurt one person. Intimidation of Homosexuals/Blacks/Non-Christians is a form of terrorism. The Matthew Sheapard beating was a form of terrorism. The anti-abortion religious fundamentalists who came to my campus and disrupted classes on the lower floors of buildings by screaming in the windows and shoving pictures through the cracks in doors...that's terrorism too. [/QUOTE]
The terrorism you described is hardly on the same level of the fundamentalist Muslim terrorism we hear about almost every day.[/QUOTE]
I realize that, but that wasn't my point. My point was that Christian terrorism exists.
As for the "watered down" version of Falwell calling for the fight against Muslims....seems pretty clear to me. Of course, that's the problem...he's just smart enough to know not to say it outright, so he says it in a veiled way. But it doesn't take a genius to see what he meant. [/QUOTE]
We all know that Christian fundamentalists who cause Christian terrorism exist. The fact is, though, the frequency and amplitude of this is almost unnoticable when compared to its Muslim counterpart.
As for what Falwell said...all he really says is that the United States should take some pre-emptive preventative measures against Muslim terrorists...you can't really imply at all that he said, "All Muslims should be slaughtered, and we should do it."
The problem you have here is that just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Anyone who thinks the media tells everything honestly is naive (trust me, I was a journalism major for 3 years). Christians haven't committed WORLD wide acts of terrorism, but they still committ terrorist actions. Just not on the same scale as the Muslim terrorists. Everytime a black chuch is burned by the KKK, that's an act of Christian terrorism. But you don't hear about that in the national news until a few churches are burned by the same group... unless you live in the area where it happend.
Why don't they committ worldwide acts of terror anymore? Part of it is that they don't have the financial resources (Bin Laden is vastly wealthy), and those that do are under too much scrutiny by the government (The US government would never let a private individual get away with that, while other governments are willing to turn the other cheek).
Terrorism is terrorism: it doesn't have to affect vast numbers of people before it becomes terrorism. It doesn't even technically have to hurt one person. Intimidation of Homosexuals/Blacks/Non-Christians is a form of terrorism. The Matthew Sheapard beating was a form of terrorism. The anti-abortion religious fundamentalists who came to my campus and disrupted classes on the lower floors of buildings by screaming in the windows and shoving pictures through the cracks in doors...that's terrorism too. [/QUOTE]
The terrorism you described is hardly on the same level of the fundamentalist Muslim terrorism we hear about almost every day.[/QUOTE]
I realize that, but that wasn't my point. My point was that Christian terrorism exists.
As for the "watered down" version of Falwell calling for the fight against Muslims....seems pretty clear to me. Of course, that's the problem...he's just smart enough to know not to say it outright, so he says it in a veiled way. But it doesn't take a genius to see what he meant. [/QUOTE]
We all know that Christian fundamentalists who cause Christian terrorism exist. The fact is, though, the frequency and amplitude of this is almost unnoticable when compared to its Muslim counterpart.
As for what Falwell said...all he really says is that the United States should take some pre-emptive preventative measures against Muslim terrorists...you can't really imply at all that he said, "All Muslims should be slaughtered, and we should do it."
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zeni wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
And I agree with that. But there are plenty of alternatives to religion. You can teach children positive moral values seccularly, without an ancient religious tale and belief requirements to go along with them. In my opinion, kids raised without a god above to believe in are raised to be self-sufficient people, rather than childishly depending on a father figure "up there" to fix their problems for them.
[/QUOTE]
Allright, I'll agree to disagree with you, Bob.
Your comments seem to indicate that you do not believe that religion has any role in a child's development. In my opinion (and history and anthropology seem to support this), religion is the foundation for most societies and serves a vital role in a community's development.
To give one historical example of what I mean:
Black churches in the American South provided an important outlet for Black independence and autonomy after the American Civil War. By the early 20th century, these churches fostered a growing civil rights movement that came to fruition in the 1950s and 1960s. In fact, many of the movements leaders, like Martin Luther King and members of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, not only grew up in the church, but were ministers themselves.
[/QUOTE]
You've got a point here, Zeni, but I think what Bob is trying to say is that you need to stop living life simply waiting for an afterlife, which will be better than the one you are living. You need to live for the here and now, and that's the only way this world will become a better place. Mighty hypocritical to claim that your religion tells you to make the world a better place, and then spend all of your time praying for "God" to make it better without putting any effort into it yourself, and when no results happen saying that it's "God's Will".
Your example of the Black South is correct, but just because history is that way doesn't mean it will always be that way, or that it's the only right way. Children in many European countries (I saw this demonstarted in France when I studied abroad there) are raised secularly, with religion as an afterthought (if at all) And Europe hasn't fallen into chaos yet. It's doing just fine. In fact, it can be argued historically that Europe is better off now as a secular entity than it was when it was a religious entity (The Protestant Reformation and the Spanish Inquisition being two examples that come to mind). [/QUOTE]
Seriously, though, the Protestant Reformation and the Spanish Inquisition have no bearing on the modern world. However, I think that Zeni was not saying that religion is necessary to avoid chaos, but rather that it was not detrimental and potentially beneficial.
In truth, to your first point, those of religion tend to be several times more likely to take an active role in "making the world a better place," primarily through the Church, an organization who sees that as a main goal of theirs. You must understand that the vast majority of all religion in the west is not fundamentalist, and the fundamentalist portion is almost statistically negligible. Most Churches spend their time organizing donations and drives, volunteering time to actively help the poor, sending resources overseas to the needy, etc. Contrary to what one might believe, VERY LITTLE is done to simply "promote Christianity." Christianity is for the Church, philanthropy is for the world.
And I agree with that. But there are plenty of alternatives to religion. You can teach children positive moral values seccularly, without an ancient religious tale and belief requirements to go along with them. In my opinion, kids raised without a god above to believe in are raised to be self-sufficient people, rather than childishly depending on a father figure "up there" to fix their problems for them.
[/QUOTE]
Allright, I'll agree to disagree with you, Bob.
Your comments seem to indicate that you do not believe that religion has any role in a child's development. In my opinion (and history and anthropology seem to support this), religion is the foundation for most societies and serves a vital role in a community's development.
To give one historical example of what I mean:
Black churches in the American South provided an important outlet for Black independence and autonomy after the American Civil War. By the early 20th century, these churches fostered a growing civil rights movement that came to fruition in the 1950s and 1960s. In fact, many of the movements leaders, like Martin Luther King and members of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, not only grew up in the church, but were ministers themselves.
[/QUOTE]
You've got a point here, Zeni, but I think what Bob is trying to say is that you need to stop living life simply waiting for an afterlife, which will be better than the one you are living. You need to live for the here and now, and that's the only way this world will become a better place. Mighty hypocritical to claim that your religion tells you to make the world a better place, and then spend all of your time praying for "God" to make it better without putting any effort into it yourself, and when no results happen saying that it's "God's Will".
Your example of the Black South is correct, but just because history is that way doesn't mean it will always be that way, or that it's the only right way. Children in many European countries (I saw this demonstarted in France when I studied abroad there) are raised secularly, with religion as an afterthought (if at all) And Europe hasn't fallen into chaos yet. It's doing just fine. In fact, it can be argued historically that Europe is better off now as a secular entity than it was when it was a religious entity (The Protestant Reformation and the Spanish Inquisition being two examples that come to mind). [/QUOTE]
Seriously, though, the Protestant Reformation and the Spanish Inquisition have no bearing on the modern world. However, I think that Zeni was not saying that religion is necessary to avoid chaos, but rather that it was not detrimental and potentially beneficial.
In truth, to your first point, those of religion tend to be several times more likely to take an active role in "making the world a better place," primarily through the Church, an organization who sees that as a main goal of theirs. You must understand that the vast majority of all religion in the west is not fundamentalist, and the fundamentalist portion is almost statistically negligible. Most Churches spend their time organizing donations and drives, volunteering time to actively help the poor, sending resources overseas to the needy, etc. Contrary to what one might believe, VERY LITTLE is done to simply "promote Christianity." Christianity is for the Church, philanthropy is for the world.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: [/QUOTENAME]My original point here was that we never see Christian fanatics committing worldwide acts of terrorism. How come?[/QUOTE]
The problem you have here is that just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Anyone who thinks the media tells everything honestly is naive (trust me, I was a journalism major for 3 years). Christians haven't committed WORLD wide acts of terrorism, but they still committ terrorist actions. Just not on the same scale as the Muslim terrorists. Everytime a black chuch is burned by the KKK, that's an act of Christian terrorism. But you don't hear about that in the national news until a few churches are burned by the same group... unless you live in the area where it happend.
Why don't they committ worldwide acts of terror anymore? Part of it is that they don't have the financial resources (Bin Laden is vastly wealthy), and those that do are under too much scrutiny by the government (The US government would never let a private individual get away with that, while other governments are willing to turn the other cheek).
Terrorism is terrorism: it doesn't have to affect vast numbers of people before it becomes terrorism. It doesn't even technically have to hurt one person. Intimidation of Homosexuals/Blacks/Non-Christians is a form of terrorism. The Matthew Sheapard beating was a form of terrorism. The anti-abortion religious fundamentalists who came to my campus and disrupted classes on the lower floors of buildings by screaming in the windows and shoving pictures through the cracks in doors...that's terrorism too. [/QUOTE]
The terrorism you described is hardly on the same level of the fundamentalist Muslim terrorism we hear about almost every day.[/QUOTE]
I realize that, but that wasn't my point. My point was that Christian terrorism exists.
As for the "watered down" version of Falwell calling for the fight against Muslims....seems pretty clear to me. Of course, that's the problem...he's just smart enough to know not to say it outright, so he says it in a veiled way. But it doesn't take a genius to see what he meant. [/QUOTE]
We all know that Christian fundamentalists who cause Christian terrorism exist. The fact is, though, the frequency and amplitude of this is almost unnoticable when compared to its Muslim counterpart.
As for what Falwell said...all he really says is that the United States should take some pre-emptive preventative measures against Muslim terrorists...you can't really imply at all that he said, "All Muslims should be slaughtered, and we should do it."[/QUOTE]
I could buy that, if I didn't know how the media works. Can you honestly say that a huge event like 9-11 got the same media coverage as the frequent burning of black churches? Even Muslim things on a smaller scale, like the bombings in Jordan at a wedding, don't get the same amount of attention in the US media. The US media is scewed to be hyper-sensative to Muslim threats, because they've acted out the greatest damaging one so far. We always hear about stuff coming out of the Muslim world...but how often does the KKK make national news? I'm not arguing that the Muslim events are the same in scale as Christian events....I'm just saying the numbers are equal over any period of time. It just seems like there are more Muslim events because they get more media coverage.
If you are waiting for someone like Falwell to actually say the word "slaughter" in relation to a group of people...you'll be waiting a long time. He's not that stupid. But "We need to take the fight to the Muslim Heathen
The problem you have here is that just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Anyone who thinks the media tells everything honestly is naive (trust me, I was a journalism major for 3 years). Christians haven't committed WORLD wide acts of terrorism, but they still committ terrorist actions. Just not on the same scale as the Muslim terrorists. Everytime a black chuch is burned by the KKK, that's an act of Christian terrorism. But you don't hear about that in the national news until a few churches are burned by the same group... unless you live in the area where it happend.
Why don't they committ worldwide acts of terror anymore? Part of it is that they don't have the financial resources (Bin Laden is vastly wealthy), and those that do are under too much scrutiny by the government (The US government would never let a private individual get away with that, while other governments are willing to turn the other cheek).
Terrorism is terrorism: it doesn't have to affect vast numbers of people before it becomes terrorism. It doesn't even technically have to hurt one person. Intimidation of Homosexuals/Blacks/Non-Christians is a form of terrorism. The Matthew Sheapard beating was a form of terrorism. The anti-abortion religious fundamentalists who came to my campus and disrupted classes on the lower floors of buildings by screaming in the windows and shoving pictures through the cracks in doors...that's terrorism too. [/QUOTE]
The terrorism you described is hardly on the same level of the fundamentalist Muslim terrorism we hear about almost every day.[/QUOTE]
I realize that, but that wasn't my point. My point was that Christian terrorism exists.
As for the "watered down" version of Falwell calling for the fight against Muslims....seems pretty clear to me. Of course, that's the problem...he's just smart enough to know not to say it outright, so he says it in a veiled way. But it doesn't take a genius to see what he meant. [/QUOTE]
We all know that Christian fundamentalists who cause Christian terrorism exist. The fact is, though, the frequency and amplitude of this is almost unnoticable when compared to its Muslim counterpart.
As for what Falwell said...all he really says is that the United States should take some pre-emptive preventative measures against Muslim terrorists...you can't really imply at all that he said, "All Muslims should be slaughtered, and we should do it."[/QUOTE]
I could buy that, if I didn't know how the media works. Can you honestly say that a huge event like 9-11 got the same media coverage as the frequent burning of black churches? Even Muslim things on a smaller scale, like the bombings in Jordan at a wedding, don't get the same amount of attention in the US media. The US media is scewed to be hyper-sensative to Muslim threats, because they've acted out the greatest damaging one so far. We always hear about stuff coming out of the Muslim world...but how often does the KKK make national news? I'm not arguing that the Muslim events are the same in scale as Christian events....I'm just saying the numbers are equal over any period of time. It just seems like there are more Muslim events because they get more media coverage.
If you are waiting for someone like Falwell to actually say the word "slaughter" in relation to a group of people...you'll be waiting a long time. He's not that stupid. But "We need to take the fight to the Muslim Heathen