Persecution (Dec 2)

[Troutnoodler]

A lot of the stuff cited in the latest HardOnions is questionable at best, and yellow journalism at worst. By the same token, quite a few of the rebuttals have also come from less-than-objective sources as well, so I'm going to leave Piss Christ alone. It's already been dealt with and is a non-issue.

As for the Pilgrims? Ahhhh, no. They didn't "flee" religious persecution, they were essentially kicked out of Europe for trying to practice a form of Christianity so rigid and extreme, that even the Protestants were sick of them. And no sooner did they get here, then they started doing crap that got them thrown in jail back in Europe. Such as whipping people for such horrible crimes as working on the Sabbath.

This is where we get Boston Baked Beans, for example? You'd put the beans in a pot with sugar, molasses, pork and spices on Saturday, then bury it in the fireplace ashes to keep warm for Sunday. Because you weren't even allowed to make a fire on the Sabbath, and you'd be whipped raw if they saw smoke coming out of your chimney.

Nice guys, huh? So yeah, Europe didn't persecute the pilgrims, they persecuted everyone else until Europe got sick to the back teeth of them and shoved them on the Mayflower.

As for the students being expelled for carrying a bible? A quick Google shows that's not quite the case. There were a few isolated cases of students being disciplined for proselytizing, and also one or two of students being denied the use of public school bus use for after-school bible meetings.

Kids already have enough to deal with in school. They really do NOT need anyone telling them they're going to Hell, for ANY reason.

And honestly, if any Christian is handing out Chick Tracts, then they deserve everything they get, short of physical injury. Puh-LEASE!! *insert image of Christ gagging on His finger*

It's also ironic to note the same search also turned up an equal number of students being expelled for bringing "violent toys" to school, harrasing another student for believing in leprechauns, wearing a skean dubgh with their kilt during a prom and a whole HOST of other, equally ridiculous reasons.

I'd argue that it's not Christian students who are being persecuted by non-Christians or their agenda, it's students in GENERAL being persecuted by hyper-sensitive, politically-correct idiots who exist in mortal terror of black trenchcoats and dissenting opinions or viewpoints.

One thing I've noted, though, is the peculiar vehemence some of the genuine anti-Christian bias? I wonder where it comes from? I mean, you don't just end up hating something straight out of the blue like that. People with that kind of hate either have to be raised in that hate...

Or created by it.

I roll my eyes at so-called "pagans" who decry the "Burning Times". Yeah, yeah, right...whatever, Gothika. Here, lemme get out of the way of some REAL Pagans who wanna thump your head for you, okay?

But many of my Pagan friends-people who really do practice what they believe and do it well-have experienced genuine persecution at the hands of the religious. Some of them were beaten by parents at the urging of their pastor. Others were terrorized with mental abuse by their clergy or their parents. Visions and predictions of Hell, condemnations and more.

But this is all the current generation. Let's step back a few decades to when my parents were kids, and what they saw.

Both my mother and father were Catholic and Polish, so they saw plenty of abuse from that fact alone. Heck, dad was denied a bank loan to purchase land because he was Polish Roman Catholic! How could he possibly pay back any kind of loan? He's too stupid and worships a false god. Bah!

Anyway...

He quite clearly remembers being punished-and very harshly-by the priests for even the slightest offense. Kneeling on corn kernels for an hour and reciting the Rosary was very popular, as were beatings with a paddle, smacking rulers across your knuckles until they bled and other fun games.

What were the offenses? Well for my dad, he had to kneel on corn for three hours because he farted in church.

Yep! Let out a pooter and ended up hobbling home afterwards.

He remembers his good friend Doug getting pulled out of the confessional by his collar and dragged into the rectory for a beating that left him limping for a week. Nobody ever found out what he did. He'd always turn pale and clam up about it.

Also, finishing school at all was a very rare occurence. If you actually made it to high school graduation, you got a visit from your priest. They told you in no uncertain terms that it was time to get a job, marry a wife and start having children. Military service was frowned upon, but accepted with respect, but college was out and out forbidden.

Knowledge was "dangerous" to salvation, and the clergy did everything in their power to keep their flock from gaining too much knowledge. Thankfully, neither of my parents paid much attention to the clergy and both did very well in education, and therefore in life.

So when both my mother and father-both Good Christians in my eye-hear about the church or Christians in general getting "persecuted", their general reaction is "Good! They earned it!" Along with a variable selection of choice vocabulary that would make a sailor blush for added emphasis.

But that's all in the past. Or is it?

Every other week, we hear about some very visible "Christian" calling for someone-gays, Muslims, world leaders; take your pick-to be either punished or outright killed. Pat Robertson comes to mind right off the bat, and man! What a moonbat to boot! Then you've got Fallwell-an ironic name if there ever was one-calling the National Organization of Women the "National Order of Witches", and I'm not even trying hard.

I won't even try to make an argument with that asshole, Fred Phelps. That's just too cheap a shot.

Yet despite all the publicity and stupidity, these people and those like them are trying to legislate their faith into national law and politics. And people like *me* are right in their crosshairs, so I'm not going to be very cordial to those sort of folks.

On a personal level, I see no moral problem with putting the Ten Commandments in a court building? I mean, hey? They're a pretty good set of laws when you get right down to it? But if you're going to look at it from a moral standpoint, why not go with something much more direct and to the point?

Why not: "An it harm none, do as thou will."

I kinda doubt you'd get much support for putting distillations of the Wiccan Rede on the walls of ANY courthouse, let alone an American one, but it's something to consider.

But from a legal and professional standpoint, I see it as an official recognition of one religion by my government. And this is not only extremely dangerous, it's also WRONG. If you want government-sponsored religion, go live in a Muslim country, not here, since Islam *is* the law in those places.

Thomas Jefferson was a vicious opponent of religion in law, since he personally saw the abuses by judges who also wore the mantle of the clergy in New England. Even George Washington was arrested by the clergy for trying to ride back home on the sabbath! He got a pretty hefty fine, too!

So when you've got the president of the United States being arrested for riding a horse on Sunday, I think it might be a little easier to understand WHY our forefathers were so adamant about saying NO to religion in government.

And it's also why people like myself are so voiciferously opposed to allowing even the slightest trace of religion enter into the law of the land. Granted, there needs to be some proper judgement observed-crosses, menorahs, santas and Easter bunnies are NOT challenges to legal precedents-but for the most part the two need to be kept apart.

And when people like RH start to call for them to be mixed, my objections can sound an awful lot like "persecution".

[Steltek]

Steltek, what you are suggesting is conspiracy theory of the highest order, ranking up there with loose change, liberal media, the evolution conglomerate, illuminati, or OLPEC.

No. A conspiracy implies some central organization. It implies shadowy meetings and secret handshakes. That's not what I am suggesting at all. The mere sum total of groups and individuals who have an anti-Christian agenda for a variety of reasons is not anything like a conspiracy -- a better word would be solidarity.

What you suggest is that anti-Christianism has managed to controll television, news, print, public opinion, language, the Internet and even our private and personal thoughts in order to create a mindset of "Christians are bad" in such a way that now they controll all forms of legislation and law. What is this?

What it is, is the saturation of higher education and of the media (both news and entertainment) almost exclusively with a particular worldview, which happens to be diametrically opposed to a Christian worldview. It is not that there is no Christian answer to this, or that there are sturmtruppen going about suppressing dissent with bayonets and jackboots, it is merely that the Christian viewpoint is underrepresented proportionate to the number of Christians in this country, and hence Christians are marginalized
in the media and in education. I am not talking as much about government, but there again as I pointed out earlier, a direct takeover of government is not the strategy.

Besides which, even if it were true, wouldn't the effect be a little more devastating? So far as I can see, Chrisitianity is still holding a lot of sway both socially and politically. The 'whining' comes from a push to have more being met with opposition.

No, it comes from a push to be heard over the cacophony of anti-Christian attacks being met with outrage that we are intruding on institutions our adversaries believed they had a lock on.

I refer you again to Dennis Prager's remarks on Keith Ellison's swearing-in. This is the 'persuction' that Christians face. This is the great horrible wound that RHJ wishes to use as his battle cry. Chrisitans are simply losing ground as power of the majority, at worst, or are being forced to back down from where we never should have been. That's it. And its not unreasonable. In fact, the only thing unreasonable is the outrcry of 'persucution' when government endorses Chrisitianity a little bit less, or when a forced endorsement thereof is shot down.

You are singling out individuals who have made complaints about that as representative of us all -- a typical exercise in groupthink. I personally do not care.

Oh, yeah, sure, its not human nature to desire victimhood. The psychology of victimhood isn't something that analysts like Zur (2006), Santy (2006), Dineen (1996), Zilbergeld (1983), Greene (2002), Zimbardo (2002), Slater (2003) and others have studied, or have found to be largely universal particularly in American Culture. Sure, there isn't a reason why anyone would ever want to believe they aren't in the majority, aren't besically given all the benefits of their idealogies, aren't they whose bloodline is littered with the persucuters of old. There isn't any possible reason Hayes, you, Mazanec, et. al., could want to believe you are victims when you aren't.

I do not say no one desires victimhood. I say that we do not -- even martyrdom is not victimhood, but ultimate victory over the world. The system of victimhood is a throwback to the primitive fear of black magic -- we see in neolithic tribes how women who give birth to healthy children are known to lament instead of rejoicing, crying it in anguish that her child is sick or deformed, lest anyone be envious of her joy and curse her or her child with some evil magics. Thus those who have begun to backslide from enlightenment to savagery embrace the politics of victimhood, of masochistic self-deprecation, of working against their own interests. Whatever their rationale, the true motivation is the same: primal, atavistic fear. From the witch doctor who says that a particularly healthy man must have somehow used black magic to steal the health of a sick person, to the political demagogue who decries the affluent man because he somehow must have stolen the wealth he worked for from the poor, it is all the same.

And, while you're rewriting psychology, sociology, and a large part of history in order to make youself the winning triumphant force, o great new Arthur, why don't you prewrite yourself winning the war you've delcared yourself?

Only time will tell who wins -- you're just upset because we're trying to win instead of falling for the rhetoric and giving up without a fight.

The truth of the matter is that, conspiracies and conscious miswordings aside, this is simply an excuse to go to war for people who really like war.

It is war for the reason wars have always been fought -- survival. Only in this case it is idealogical survival. If you think we like it, you're wrong.

Now quit your whining, your chest-beating, and your otherwise ridiculous bullshit, Melenkai.

The time is past where mere haughty and arrogant declarations that no one's rights are being violated dissuade people from standing up for their rights. Believe it or not, we are not going to "sit down and shut up" just because you say so. We reject your politics of victimhood -- we're not fighting because we're victims, we're fighting for what we believe is right -- and the "right" we believe in is not defined by how poor and oppressed we think we are. I admit, some may trade on that, thinking that what's good for the goose is good for the gander so to speak, but they are not the majority.

[Frigidmagi]

As for the Pilgrims? Ahhhh, no. They didn't "flee" religious persecution, they were essentially kicked out of Europe for trying to practice a form of Christianity so rigid and extreme, that even the Protestants were sick of them. And no sooner did they get here, then they started doing crap that got them thrown in jail back in Europe. Such as whipping people for such horrible crimes as working on the Sabbath.

Ahhh... Being kicked out of your home nation is a form of religious persecution. And the Pilgrims were a more moderate sect, you're thinking of the Purtians, who would absorb the Pilgrims later.

As for the Purtians... Yes they were in the end a harsh, intolerant people, does that mean they should be hounded to the ends of the Earth? I happen to think Islam and Hinduism are harsh religions, Hinduism because of the Caste system, dowery murders and the Hindu Nationalist parties and Islam because of what I saw going on the middle east when I served there. That does not mean I support throwing Muslims and Hindus out of their homes or harrying them out of the United States. They have a right to what they believe, as long as in their actions they do not break the law. When the law is broken, they should be tried for breaking that law, not for their beliefs.

Now as for Purtian beliefs, they were the guys calling on everyone to abadon human heirarchies and embrace God and the Bible in a abolsutist fashion. They tended to be young and rather passionate. They were known to break Englands ban on Jews and consulate them for Bibical translations in order to purify Christianity. That was their overwhelming goal. The Purfication of Christianity and then Humanity from everything that got between it and God. In the end they would go to far. In the meantime they would make New England a very democratic place. Every Town and Colony was ran by the Congregation, that is the membership of the church, since everyone was at first a member of the church...

Purtianism contained both the seeds of it's radicalization and eventual downfall, by throwing off the idea of bishops and hierarchary they left themselves open to mob rule and hystria. By insisting that God spoke to everyone, they ensured a constant drumbeat of heresies and theological rebellion against mainstream Purtian beliefs.

As early as the 1630s, women were stepping forward and attempting to take equal religious footing in the church. It should be noted that this is the first time this would happen for centuries. One of the greatiest of these was Ann Marbury Hutchison, who would claim that she to recieved revealtion from the Holy Spirit.

Nor were the Purtians the only ones fleeing here however, what about the Quakers, the Amish, Mennoities and so on? Most of those sects were tossed out on their ass and they were nonviolent and tolerant. The Quackers were so peaceful and tolerant that they could live among the native tribes with no problems and even employ the natives has babysitters for the love of God.

The sheer varity of people who fleed Europe to escape persecution rathers any attempt to generalize meaningless rather quickly.

[Dabenner]

It all depends upon what the persecuted group is doing. If the persecuted group holds they have the right to impinge their rigid beliefs upon my life - as a non-member - then hound them puppies to Hell and back, bake 'em, freeze-dry the remains and shoot the whole caboodle into a black hole. The rights to practice their beliefs end at the point where they touch my property or my body.

Derek

[quote="frigidmagi

snipped.

Ahhh... Being kicked out of your home nation is a form of religious persecution. And the Pilgrims were a more moderate sect, you're thinking of the Purtians, who would absorb the Pilgrims later.

As for the Purtians... Yes they were in the end a harsh, intolerant people, does that mean they should be hounded to the ends of the Earth? I happen to think Islam and Hinduism are harsh religions, Hinduism because of the Caste system, dowery murders and the Hindu Nationalist parties and Islam because of what I saw going on the middle east when I served there. That does not mean I support throwing Muslims and Hindus out of their homes or harrying them out of the United States. They have a right to what they believe, as long as in their actions they do not break the law. When the law is broken, they should be tried for breaking that law, not for their beliefs.

[/quote]

[The JAM]

[...unWARP!!!]

Good evening.


I see that the majority here think that the backlash against Christians is because, in essence, Christians, or those who call themselves Christians, are really hypocrites.

I'll just quote Bob Hartman:

Too many black sheep in the family
Too many stones from a house of glass
They've heard the stories, they've heard the lines
But talk is too cheap to change their minds
They want to see some vital signs

Convictions- in the way we live
Convictions- not a narrative
Actions speak a little louder than words

Seen and not heard, seen and not heard
Sometimes God's children should be seen and not heard
There's too much talk and not enough walk
Sometimes God's children should be seen and not heard

Delayed reaction to hostilities
Brings us into reality
Cause when we answer in our defense
They can see through the false pretense
They want to see some evidence

Commitment- no more alibis
Commitment- not a compromise
Actions speak a little louder than words

Seen and not heard, seen and not heard
Sometimes God's children should be seen and not heard
There's too much talk and not enough walk
Sometimes God's children should be seen and not heard

Let your light so shine in all you do
With an answer near when they come to you
Don't let your mouth start talkin'
Until your feet start walkin'

Seen and not heard, seen and not heard
Sometimes God's children should be seen and not heard
There's too much talk and not enough walk
Sometimes God's children should be seen and not heard

And as I said before, just be glad you don't live in Chiapas or Oaxaca.


¡Zacatepóngolas!

Until next time, remember:

I

AM

THE

J.A.M. (a.k.a. Numbuh i: "Just because I'm imaginary doesn't mean I don't exist")

Good evening.

[WARP!!!]

[Namrepus221]

2 people come to mind as to why that might be true JAM.

Jack Chick
Fred Phelps

[MikeVanPelt]

So far as I can see, Chrisitianity is still holding a lot of sway both socially and politically. The 'whining' comes from a push to have more being met with opposition.

It looks to me like you have it exactly backwards.

The pushing and the movement has all come from the other direction since, at the very least, the 1960s. Prayer in schools, stamp it out. Christmas pagents, ban them all. Any reference to the religious heritage that our history can not even begin to be understood without, "historical revisionism" it right out of the textbooks. Memorial to Korean War veterans that happens to have a cross on it, bulldozer it over. The City of Los Angeles Seal, which shows a capsule summary of California history, of which the missions were historically extremely prominent, get the Wite-Out and cover up the mission.

The Secularist Jihad demands all vestiges of religious imagery be stamped out of the public square. The so-called "pushing" of Christians is to say "Hey, wait a minute, we don't want that changed."

[Skull]

The pushing and the movement has all come from the other direction since, at the very least, the 1960s. Prayer in schools, stamp it out. Christmas pagents, ban them all.

How very, very ironic. Did the Church issue you those blinders?

~fin.

[Frigidmagi]

We're talking about events within the US, not bloody Kenya. You would have done better to mention Kansas.

[Skull]

Ah. So that example is irrelevant, then, because it's not in the US? Is this entire board full of hypocrites?

Perhaps I should have instead mentioned now-convicted-tax-evader "doctor" Hovind, who similarly protested museums and similar displays of fossils, and who was, at the time of his arrest, building a creationist amusement park that called dinosuars "Jesus horses". Is Florida sufficiently local enough for you?

[Sapphire]

No. A conspiracy implies some central organization. It implies shadowy meetings and secret handshakes. That's not what I am suggesting at all. The mere sum total of groups and individuals who have an anti-Christian agenda for a variety of reasons is not anything like a conspiracy -- a better word would be solidarity.

Check that: Conspiracy only means alliance. Not organization. From Websters:

: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators

Conspiracy remains the best word for describing the alliance of powerful forces which you, yourself, will describe below.

What it is, is the saturation of higher education and of the media (both news and entertainment) almost exclusively with a particular worldview, which happens to be diametrically opposed to a Christian worldview. It is not that there is no Christian answer to this, or that there are sturmtruppen going about suppressing dissent with bayonets and jackboots, it is merely that the Christian viewpoint is underrepresented proportionate to the number of Christians in this country, and hence Christians are marginalized
in the media and in education. I am not talking as much about government, but there again as I pointed out earlier, a direct takeover of government is not the strategy.

Well, I'd just like to quickly point out that "Strategy" implies an organization capable of forming that strategy.

But otherwise, you point is that there isn't enough Chrisitianity in school and television. That is, however, more an unwarrented and seflish desire than an objective bettering of society. The Christian worldview belongs in school only secondhand: As a study of culture and history. Anything else; led prayer, biblical studies, ID, is part of the dominionist demand for the destruction of the church-state barrier.

No, it comes from a push to be heard over the cacophony of anti-Christian attacks being met with outrage that we are intruding on institutions our adversaries believed they had a lock on.

Your right except for the last part: "our adversaries believed they had a lock on." Your adversaries (what a word. Like a bad Star Trek villain) are upset about Chrisitan encroaching on institutions to which you have no claim. Federal buildings. Schools. Government. Christianity as law. etc.

You are singling out individuals who have made complaints about that as representative of us all -- a typical exercise in groupthink. I personally do not care.

Fine. One guy said something bad, and you say that doesn't represent you. That would make a lot of sense if that was all I was using. But, and read this next part very carefully, It wasn't.

I take, also, as the series of congratulatory comments that followed, speaking such vile things about the horrors of the Muslim invasion,

I take, also, Jerry Klein's radio hoax exposing Anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S.

I take, also, a recent Gallup Poll of 1,000 Americans which shows a 39% support of special identification of some kind for American Muslims.

I take, also, an AOL poll which shows the same: 38% approval accross 275,000.

I take, also, the six Muslim clerics slapped with handcuffs on U.S. airways for 'praying.'

I take, also, the CAIR (Council for American-Isla Relations) study which shows heavy precognitive links between Muslims to words such as 'Terrorist,' 'War,' and 'Hatred.'

I take, also, the rise in violence on Muslims and Mosques (and Hindus, for mistaken identity) in America in the past five years.

Tell me how much more you need before you concede its representative of "you all." Or, better yet, how much it take before you, personally, do care.

I do not say no one desires victimhood. I say that we do not -- even martyrdom is not victimhood, but ultimate victory over the world. The system of victimhood is a throwback to the primitive fear of black magic -- we see in neolithic tribes how women who give birth to healthy children are known to lament instead of rejoicing, crying it in anguish that her child is sick or deformed, lest anyone be envious of her joy and curse her or her child with some evil magics. Thus those who have begun to backslide from enlightenment to savagery embrace the politics of victimhood, of masochistic self-deprecation, of working against their own interests. Whatever their rationale, the true motivation is the same: primal, atavistic fear. From the witch doctor who says that a particularly healthy man must have somehow used black magic to steal the health of a sick person, to the political demagogue who decries the affluent man because he somehow must have stolen the wealth he worked for from the poor, it is all the same.

Please re-read my post. The findings of the above show that the desire for victimhood is universal and often tied to the need to be the underdog. Your response actually does more to help me prove it happens regardless of time, place, race, or society, and I'd like to thank you for that.

Only time will tell who wins -- you're just upset because we're trying to win instead of falling for the rhetoric and giving up without a fight.

You were the one who already said you were going to win. Now do you take it back? You present utter confidence before, and now, when it's convenient for you, you pretend you've always been full of doubt. Take a stance and stay there.

If I'm upset, by the way, its because you're declaring war for that which you have overblown in your mind as having been unforgiveable offenses. As opposed to losing power and control in politics and society.

It is war for the reason wars have always been fought -- survival. Only in this case it is idealogical survival. If you think we like it, you're wrong.

Oh, now that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard on any forum that didn't involve foreign baked goods.

Christianity is fighting for survival in America.
Christianity is fighting for survival in America.
Christianity is fighting for survival in America.

The idiocy of this statement is so vast and so deep that I don't think I can, let alone have the desire to, respond to it.

The time is past where mere haughty and arrogant declarations that no one's rights are being violated dissuade people from standing up for their rights. Believe it or not, we are not going to "sit down and shut up" just because you say so. We reject your politics of victimhood -- we're not fighting because we're victims, we're fighting for what we believe is right -- and the "right" we believe in is not defined by how poor and oppressed we think we are. I admit, some may trade on that, thinking that what's good for the goose is good for the gander so to speak, but they are not the majority.

What the hell is this "You're not a victim" schtick? Go read your own post. You describe how your being attacked. Your survival is threatened. The world is against you. How is this, even in the most twisted of views, not claiming victimhood?

I'm not asking you to shut up. I'm asking you to cut the B.S. I can see how you'd be confused because, unfortunately for you, cutting it would leave you with only the punctuation.

The controll of Government, education, and media by a single idealogy forwarded by a certain group of people with a 'strategy' is not a conspiracy:
B.S.

There isn't anti-Muslim sentiment and persecutive desires in America, and they aren't "representative":
B.S.

You don't want to be victims:
Psychological B.S.

You're 'Just trying to win':
Two-Faced B.S.

Christianity is fighting for survival in America:
Record-Setting B.S.

We reject your 'victimhood' (while simultaneously claiming to be victims attacked by Government, media, schools, and encompassive sentiment)
Total and utter B.S.

If you've got something to say, a good point to make, try. But, so far, not only have you been shown to to be pulling some major-league doublethink and obfuscation, but everything in Hayes's original comic has been debunked, refuted, or exposed as at best a half-truth.

So, I'm gonna say it again, because, apparently, it bears repeating:

Cut out the Bullshit.

[Madmoonie]

Argue what you want but do with respect and a lack of profanity, please.

[Sapphire]

Argue what you want but do with respect and a lack of profanity, please.

I concur, and would hope to apologize if my tone was offensive.

But, on the same idea, let me defend myself:

This is not a child's topic. This is not something fascile or sophomoric. We are adults here, or, at least, should be. And this is how we, adults, express our frustration.

Consider, also: would my post have been the same, really, if I had called what I believe to be a set of deeply and thickly tangled obfuscations, "Hogwash," or "Humbug," or "Horsefeathers"? Profanity is simply part of language, and, if used sparingly, is sometimes the best way to make your point.

I would argue that artificially softening the language would, itself, be disrespect; A secondhand inference that he is neither adult nor mature enough to discuss things in what is, if handled well, can be an adult and mature use of words.

[MikeVanPelt]

Perhaps I should have instead mentioned now-convicted-tax-evader "doctor" Hovind, who similarly protested museums and similar displays of fossils, and who was, at the time of his arrest, building a creationist amusement park that called dinosuars "Jesus horses". Is Florida sufficiently local enough for you?

Niven's Laws, #16 There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool following it.

[MikeVanPelt]

I take, also, the six Muslim clerics slapped with handcuffs on U.S. airways for 'praying.'

1) They were not slapped in handcuffs. One of the six said they had been, but it turned out later that he was lying.

2) They were not just "praying". They were acting in a deliberately provocative manner, doing a number of very suspicious things. Reports of their actions look to me like they were doing a "dry run", like the 9/11 mass murderers did several of, to see how much they could get away with. Or, they were deliberately trying to provoke a reaction to get thrown of the plane, so they could howl to the ever-reliable Monotone Media about how they were singled out and picked on.

If American Muslims want to not get tarred with the 9/11 brush, they really need to be a lot more visible in repudiating terrorism. A few have been -- and then they have been ostracized in their communities. This does not improve the average American's opinion of Muslims in general.

[Trillan]

To me, the biggest issue with religion in the world... and even in this thread... is that somehow being a moderate follower of your faith is considered superior to striving to perfect it. Instead of comparing moderate followers, why not compare the ideal? Granted, you'll never find someone who completely encapsulates that ideal, but you can at least know what the respective beliefs are striving towards. A belief should be judged on its merit, not on the butchering of it done by its believers.

[Lazerus]

To me, the biggest issue with religion in the world... and even in this thread... is that somehow being a moderate follower of your faith is considered superior to striving to perfect it. Instead of comparing moderate followers, why not compare the ideal? Granted, you'll never find someone who completely encapsulates that ideal, but you can at least know what the respective beliefs are striving towards. A belief should be judged on its merit, not on the butchering of it done by its believers.

Simple really. "Ideal" followers of faiths, weather it's muslems strapping explosives to their chest, or christans driving bomb-cars into abortion clinics, tend to be unadulterated phycho's who scare the crap out of the rest of us.

I hope Christians "wake up". However, when we do, I hope we do not prove that, in a democracy, it is possible for a majority to unfairly persecute a minority. It may be a tough balancing act.

As long as the idea that you can legistlate your morality persists, christan-government and oppression will go hand in hand.

----------------------------------

This seems to be the simplest way to explain why Christians are not being persecuted:

If I see a neo-pagan running his/her mouth off about new gods, power, and nature spirits, I will call him or her a fool. If I see a new-age hippie running his/her mouth off about energy levels and chi, I will call them an idiot. If I see a scientologist running his/her mouth off about Xeno, I will laugh derisivly. If I see a muslem explaining how his faith is really a peacefull one, I will call it bullshit. And if I see a Christan trying to force his values on society, I will kindly tell him to buzz off, because I'm not buying it.

Yes, your ideas encounter resistance. In that respect, you are like every other religon on the planet. Weather the person your talking too is an atheist or part of another faith, if they arn't christan, they think you are, supprise supprise, WRONG! By not going along with what you want, they are "oppressing" you about as much as you are "oppressing" Muslems by not forcing women to wear headscarves.

[Wanderwolf]

I take, also, the six Muslim clerics slapped with handcuffs on U.S. airways for 'praying.'

1) They were not slapped in handcuffs. One of the six said they had been, but it turned out later that he was lying.

2) They were not just "praying". They were acting in a deliberately provocative manner, doing a number of very suspicious things. Reports of their actions look to me like they were doing a "dry run", like the 9/11 mass murderers did several of, to see how much they could get away with. Or, they were deliberately trying to provoke a reaction to get thrown of the plane, so they could howl to the ever-reliable Monotone Media about how they were singled out and picked on.

1) Really? Good of you to say otherwise, when the Palm Beach Post, KTVZ in Oregon, and even AZ Central, (which accuses the imams of the most) state that the men were taken off in handcuffs. I'm glad an observant man like you was on the scene to tell us otherwise.

2) While the above-linked AZCentral piece makes many claims, it stands alone; the "suspicious actions" of the imams, according to all other sources, consisted of:

Praying in the terminal
Praying on the plane
Pacing while speaking in Arabic
Entering without proper regard for seating order
Having one-way tickets (all but one)
Only one having checked baggage

AZCentral adds the "suspicious" acts of asking for seatbelt extensions and making "anti-American statements" overheard by a total of one person.

In response to this, the imams were then removed from the plane and denied further travel. No more tickets, no alternate accomodations, nothing. They were dumped.

Yours factually,

The wolfish,

Wanderer

[Detrius]

1) They were not slapped in handcuffs. One of the six said they had been, but it turned out later that he was lying.

If you call someone a liar, provide a link for heaven's sake.

2) They were not just "praying". They were acting in a deliberately provocative manner, doing a number of very suspicious things. Reports of their actions look to me like they were doing a "dry run", like the 9/11 mass murderers did several of, to see how much they could get away with. Or, they were deliberately trying to provoke a reaction to get thrown of the plane, so they could howl to the ever-reliable Monotone Media about how they were singled out and picked on.

In other words: They probably were up to something, they're Muslims after all.

If American Muslims want to not get tarred with the 9/11 brush, they really need to be a lot more visible in repudiating terrorism. A few have been -- and then they have been ostracized in their communities. This does not improve the average American's opinion of Muslims in general.

I haven't seen you distance yourself from the likes of Demetrius "Van" Crocker lately, does this mean you support right-wing terrorism?

EDIT: BTW, I think the neonazis in Germany are braindead bastards that deserve a good spanking for being ignorant fools... was that repudiating enough?

[Sapphire]

I take, also, the six Muslim clerics slapped with handcuffs on U.S. airways for 'praying.'

1) They were not slapped in handcuffs. One of the six said they had been, but it turned out later that he was lying.

2) They were not just "praying". They were acting in a deliberately provocative manner, doing a number of very suspicious things. Reports of their actions look to me like they were doing a "dry run", like the 9/11 mass murderers did several of, to see how much they could get away with. Or, they were deliberately trying to provoke a reaction to get thrown of the plane, so they could howl to the ever-reliable Monotone Media about how they were singled out and picked on.

If American Muslims want to not get tarred with the 9/11 brush, they really need to be a lot more visible in repudiating terrorism. A few have been -- and then they have been ostracized in their communities. This does not improve the average American's opinion of Muslims in general.

Though I don't mean to question you, and I do agree with the following assertion, I would ask you cite source for claiming. I used the Reuters article written by Bernd Debusmann on Fri Dec 1, 2006 9:07am ET.

Not enough people on this forum, or, really, in general, citing source for their factual statements. Of course, I'm not innocent; I'm just as guilty as anyone else.

Edit: Previous two (2) posts, from Wanderwolf and Detrius, made at same time I was writing my post. By the way, hey, Detrius, from the IRT forums.