NATO personnel recalled from Afghan ministries after killing of 2 Americans

[Rage Against the McKee]

However depicting a prophet in any context is forbidden within Islam.  Depicting that prophet as a terrorist is sure to piss people off.

How many modern religions consider blasphemy a capitol crime?

I hear you.

But it is not like Islam is the only religion that has a fanatical sect.  Pat Robertson is a fracking lunatic who has called for the assasination of political figures.  Numerous devout Christians have killed abortion providers in the name of god.  Phil Jensen of South Dakota introduced a bill that would make the killing of an abortion provider legal.  The Huratee of Michigan, a christian paramilitary group were and are prepared to kill law enforcement in the name of god.

As for abortion doctor murderers, if they were truly Christians, they wouldn't even consider killing as an option. There isn't anything that resembles Sharia law in modern Christianity that I am aware of.

Somebody hasn't read Leviticus.

The bible has become a metaphor as we've learned to govern ourselves and attempt to become less barbaric, right or wrong. If you take it literally, you will find yourself on the fringe. I think true believers realize this.

I agree, but I also believe that same logic applies to Muslims.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

However depicting a prophet in any context is forbidden within Islam.  Depicting that prophet as a terrorist is sure to piss people off.

How many modern religions consider blasphemy a capitol crime?

I hear you.

But it is not like Islam is the only religion that has a fanatical sect.  Pat Robertson is a fracking lunatic who has called for the assasination of political figures.  Numerous devout Christians have killed abortion providers in the name of god.  Phil Jensen of South Dakota introduced a bill that would make the killing of an abortion provider legal.  The Huratee of Michigan, a christian paramilitary group were and are prepared to kill law enforcement in the name of god.

As for abortion doctor murderers, if they were truly Christians, they wouldn't even consider killing as an option. There isn't anything that resembles Sharia law in modern Christianity that I am aware of.

Somebody hasn't read Leviticus.

The bible has become a metaphor as we've learned to govern ourselves and attempt to become less barbaric, right or wrong. If you take it literally, you will find yourself on the fringe. I think true believers realize this.

I agree, but I also believe that same logic applies to Muslims.

Agreed, but as long as the fringe, a very large fringe, is in control of countries with nuclear and biological weapons, they are a threat to millions of people and must be dealt with. You can't trust that they will act rationally.

[LickNeckey]

However depicting a prophet in any context is forbidden within Islam.  Depicting that prophet as a terrorist is sure to piss people off.

How many modern religions consider blasphemy a capitol crime?

I hear you.

But it is not like Islam is the only religion that has a fanatical sect.  Pat Robertson is a fracking lunatic who has called for the assasination of political figures.  Numerous devout Christians have killed abortion providers in the name of god.  Phil Jensen of South Dakota introduced a bill that would make the killing of an abortion provider legal.  The Huratee of Michigan, a christian paramilitary group were and are prepared to kill law enforcement in the name of god.

There are bound to be fanatics in any group, but "radical" Christianity isn't nearly as widespread as radical Islam, and you know it. Liberals just sound Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) when they draw these false equivalencies.

I agree that currently radical Christianity in no way an apples to apples comparison with radical Islam.   However, the point does remain that believers of any faith can easily become barbaric when provided a moral/spiritual justification.  Whether it be abortion or gay rights or perceived/ real imperialism or offences against religious sites/artifacts.


Pat Robertson may be correct in terms of machivellian politic.  However as a man of the cloth it is pretty cracking nuts to call for the murder of a man on national tv.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

However depicting a prophet in any context is forbidden within Islam.  Depicting that prophet as a terrorist is sure to piss people off.

How many modern religions consider blasphemy a capitol crime?

I hear you.

But it is not like Islam is the only religion that has a fanatical sect.  Pat Robertson is a fracking lunatic who has called for the assasination of political figures.  Numerous devout Christians have killed abortion providers in the name of god.  Phil Jensen of South Dakota introduced a bill that would make the killing of an abortion provider legal.  The Huratee of Michigan, a christian paramilitary group were and are prepared to kill law enforcement in the name of god.

There are bound to be fanatics in any group, but "radical" Christianity isn't nearly as widespread as radical Islam, and you know it. Liberals just sound Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) when they draw these false equivalencies.

I agree that currently radical Christianity in no way an apples to apples comparison with radical Islam.   However, the point does remain that believers of any faith can easily become barbaric when provided a moral/spiritual justification.  Whether it be abortion or gay rights or perceived/ real imperialism or offences against religious sites/artifacts.


Pat Robertson may be correct in terms of machivellian politic.  However as a man of the cloth it is pretty cracking nuts to call for the murder of a man on national tv.

Right, but that doesn't seem like much of a point when one group is far worse than the other.

[06wildcat]

 this whole thread

[Panjandrum]

this whole thread

I think Dougie invalidated the Bible.

I'm pretty sure the whale belly thing was intended to be taken literally, but I don't know for sure.

[Stupid Fitz]

Any apology yet :tappingtoeguy:

[ednksu]

However depicting a prophet in any context is forbidden within Islam.  Depicting that prophet as a terrorist is sure to piss people off.

How many modern religions consider blasphemy a capitol crime?

That is only because there are no countries with Christianity as a state religion. You just have to look back in history to see that the Christians were very barbaric before church was separated from state.

well your first notion is wrong.

second it isn't a capital offense to depict Jesus.  It is in Islam or a very specific reason, which in reality has actually cased what they tried to prevent. 

[Rage Against the McKee]

However depicting a prophet in any context is forbidden within Islam.  Depicting that prophet as a terrorist is sure to piss people off.

How many modern religions consider blasphemy a capitol crime?

That is only because there are no countries with Christianity as a state religion. You just have to look back in history to see that the Christians were very barbaric before church was separated from state.

well your first notion is wrong.

second it isn't a capital offense to depict Jesus.  It is in Islam or a very specific reason, which in reality has actually cased what they tried to prevent.

Blasphemy is also a capital offense with Christianity if you follow the bible by the letter. When the catholic church actually had power, blasphemers were burnt at the stake.

[LickNeckey]

or sometimes drowned which was often the punishment doled out to Anabaptists.

In fact acclaimed Saint, Mr. Thomas Moore actively sought individuals who were printing the Bible in English (which at the time was a blasphemous act) to have them burnt at the stake.

William Tyndall was the most famous of these treacherous bible printers.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

or sometimes drowned which was often the punishment doled out to Anabaptists.

In fact acclaimed Saint, Mr. Thomas Moore actively sought individuals who were printing the Bible in English (which at the time was a blasphemous act) to have them burnt at the stake.

William Tyndall was the most famous of these treacherous bible printers.

...and Democrats were the party trying to block the Civil Rights Bill. You guys sound like KU fans discussing the Helms championships. Ancient history.

[06wildcat]

or sometimes drowned which was often the punishment doled out to Anabaptists.

In fact acclaimed Saint, Mr. Thomas Moore actively sought individuals who were printing the Bible in English (which at the time was a blasphemous act) to have them burnt at the stake.

William Tyndall was the most famous of these treacherous bible printers.

...and Democrats were the party trying to block the Civil Rights Bill. You guys sound like KU fans discussing the Helms championships. Ancient history.

 

Yes, it's true Southern Democrats tried to block Civil Rights legislation. They also became Republicans by the end of the 1960s after being actively recruited by the GOP.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

or sometimes drowned which was often the punishment doled out to Anabaptists.

In fact acclaimed Saint, Mr. Thomas Moore actively sought individuals who were printing the Bible in English (which at the time was a blasphemous act) to have them burnt at the stake.

William Tyndall was the most famous of these treacherous bible printers.

...and Democrats were the party trying to block the Civil Rights Bill. You guys sound like KU fans discussing the Helms championships. Ancient history.

 

Yes, it's true Southern Democrats tried to block Civil Rights legislation. They also became Republicans by the end of the 1960s after being actively recruited by the GOP.

Again, ancient history. The reason the racists started to vote republican in the 60's had nothing to do with the republican party and everything to do with the fact they felt betrayed by the likes of Kennedy and Johnson of their own party. It was retaliation. In the 70's the Dems started to adopt a more socialist agenda, and the more conservative south found some conservatism in the republican party. Republicans have also been the party of state's rights, which also appeals to the southern democrats, but for different reasons.

If you are suggesting that many southern democrat politicians switched parties, I don't think more than 2 or 3 of the 20 or so well known segregationists did. The great majority of them died democrats.

[06wildcat]

Voters, JD, voters.

Also, so many world problems should be resolved because of your ancient history dismissal. Israel? Ancient history. India/Pakistan, ancient history. Why is this crap still relevant if it's all ancient history?

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Voters, JD, voters.

Also, so many world problems should be resolved because of your ancient history dismissal. Israel? Ancient history. India/Pakistan, ancient history. Why is this crap still relevant if it's all ancient history?

Yes, voters.

Your two examples deal with the devolved Islam vs another religion, so those conflicts will go on forever, or until one is destroyed or converted.

[LickNeckey]

Not necessarily forever Hindus and Muslims in the area of Pakistan and India have enjoyed long periods of peace and mutual understanding in their shared history.  During the Mughal period the level of peace in the region largely depended on the rural at the time.  The current history and conflict is a direct result of the British Partition.  Given what has happened in the past there is no reason that these two can't work past their differences. 

Will it happen in our lifetimes??? prolly not.