Orlando:Nous avons tous assez de force pour supporter les maux d’autri (Page 1 of 4)

Congressman Elijah Cummings has stated during a camera moment, that this will now become the norm as it is in other parts of the world and we simply need to accept the change in our way of life. A sure sign of defeatism. During a live TV broadcast in Egypt, when Morsi led the Muslim Brotherhood and were in power, one of the parliament members screwed up and told the others during a dispute over what to do about a dam being built by Ethopia (paraphrased) - We are not at war with Ethopia. We are at war with America but must move in secret. When an aide ran in to tell him he was live on TV the member said since he was only speaking what everyone knew already there was no harm in it. Just so you know, the MB is the grandfather of Al Queda and other offshoots. It's a very large organization and has ties all the way up to governmental levels in most of the Muslim countries. It's not a JV team either.

I can't recall the last time a group of fanatic Christians that *key point here* cited a verse from the New Testament as justification for murder. For example, Timothy McVeigh could say he was a Christian, or a Martian for that matter, but he could not point to a valid text in the New Testament to expressly justify what he did. That is the main difference here. Islam has peaceful versus Muhammed fashioned while in Medina. His post Medina violent versus are the problem. The Quran and all Islamic jurisprudence centers, clerics, and Imams agree post Medina versus are valid and nullify those prior. These are the violent versus we are all becoming familiar with whether we like it or not. The reformation of Wahab that also gave birth to the Salafists only made it that much worse as there was an even greater focus on spreading Islam by force. Our news likes to call Jihadists "radicals" but they are in actuality the most fundamental and learned of Quranic versus. Take the leader of Isis, Al Baghadid. He holds a doctorate in Islamic studies and knows more about the Quran and Hadiths than all the members on this site combined. This is what he publicly said to clear up the misconceptions Kafir had or those deemed not true Muslims, "Islam is not a religion of peace, it is a religion of fighting." Closer to home, Ibrahim Hooper, co-founder of CAIR said, "Islam is not in America to be on equal footing with other religions, it is here to dominate."

So why do you see CAIR and others starting to condemn these acts of Jihadism? Taqiyya is your answer. A tenet where Muhammed himself approved of using deceit to further the cause of Islam. In Muhammed's case it was more personal as he was enraged with a poet's criticism and ordered his death. If you've read Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series and the famous Dune series you will see where the authors incorporated aspects of Islam for their books.

There have been over 22k Jihadi attacks around the world since 9/11 - Jihad Watch and similar sites keep track as religiously as our gov't keeps track of the national debt. I don't know the tally on fanatic Christian attacks upon others, but I believe it is not even in the same universe for comparison sake. Actually, Coptic Christians, a group that is older in belief than American Christians, have been slaughtered on a regular basis without much to say on that matter by our current POTUS.

What is the law? It is not "clearly" ones to slaughter others. It is commonly held--in theology--the law, or core tenets, refers to the 10 commandments. The 10 are the core laws and considered indisputable in the face of questionable "laws" that have been suspected of being passed by priests wishing to increase their power over the Jewish population. Deuteronomy is a good example of this. Jesus comes to fulfill the prophecy of the Messiah that is what he refers to in Matthew 5-17. But it is a never ending debate as there are those who say "law" is everything cited, and those like me who say "law" refers to the 10. Where I believe your argument here falls apart is in his historical deeds contrasted with Muhammed. You know there is zero chance you can find anything to show Jesus killed anyone. Sure, he trashed the markets he found in the Temple area, but he didn't beat to death anyone or even come close. Oh, but Muhammed sure did! He is cited as having personally beheaded hundreds and is responsible for the deaths of many more through his commands and sayings. Christianity and Islam in the same bucket? Not even close. So then how can such a peaceful carpenter named Jesus say, "Yes, Vern, you got it right. I meant I came to also fulfill all the violent passages and acts of murder you can find in the Old Testament." The shoe doesn't fit and you know it.

During the time of the Jews, Old Testament, the men found they had a problem with marriage. It was commanded marriage was a unity to be held unto death because of an oath to God and the commandment was not to take it in vain. So the solution found for many such men was to kill their wives to be free of marriage when they no longer favored the wife. You find this still going on today although it's mostly done for insurance money now. So what to do about this said the priests? They *created* laws permitting the concept of divorce. This was not Yahweh calling down to the masses to send up another to Mount Sinai so he could amend the 10 commandments to say, If you covet your neighbors wife you may divorce your current one. Those are the laws of man passed off in the bible you speak of.

Where is the text within the core tenets to justify death camps in Cambodia or anywhere else you cite? It is very relevant. Without being able to justify the religious validity, it has no valid basis in religion at all. If it has no valid basis why would you or anyone else then cite or imply it was the cause? Is it not more accurate to say it was *used* against its original intent? The Ottoman Empire, the last Caliphate, exterminated over a million Armenians aka unbelievers but could justify it in the Quranic verses. Those who refuse to submit to Muslim rule will have their protection withdrawn.

Many think Hitler just hated Jews from the get go. B.S. He had a great deal of help in his thinking from Amin Al-Husseini, The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem during WW2. There's actually photos online of the two chums sitting side by side. And now you know who perched on Hitler's shoulder exhorting him in exterminating the Jews. He relished the opportunity to work with Hitler since he had an effective tool in carrying out the will of Allah. Sound familiar? Ottoman Empire - Caliphate from WW1 to Hitler in WW2? The body count due to Jihad beliefs is around 7.5 million in total from just those two acts of genocide.

Africa is over 58% Muslim and growing and winning, so please don't imply the Muslims are the victims. Boko Haram and Al Shabab easily do whatever they please, control whatever territory they please as adjuncts of an Islamic militant movement worldwide. Libya is owned by Muslim warlords. All the examples you provided lack the validity of the 10 commandments to support the acts. I personally think the current Pope is 3 fries short of a happy meal in many of his statements since ascending to office, but this does not invalidate the 10. If the Pope says this week - You may covet your neighbor's possessions and take them as you like. It does not invalidate the 10, it does invalidate the Pope.

Your argument does and doesn't provide a valid summary for the problem at hand. You argue that some fall prey to manipulation and ignorant teachings while not every Christian or Muslim does. What's wrong here is simply those that don't fall prey are knowledgeable and true to their faith which is why they don't fall in the first place. Those that did fall prey aren't considered Christians (let's trot out Timothy McVeigh or Planned Parenthood shooter here) or Muslims. Here's how it goes in simple terms - We find the Son of Sam killing people because he says God told him to do so. We ask him to show us in the 10 where it justifies this. He can't. On the flip side, we ask Abdullah why he hates Jews. He points at several verses in the Quran and Hadith, showing that Jews and Christians are to be fought against (Quran 9:29). We argue he doesn't have a personal reason to hate Jews, he counters saying by not following Allah's commandments, he would be Takfir, aka not a true Muslim, and why should he question the word of Allah? Taking Jews or Christians as friends is Haram. This is not the case in Judaism. A Jew may befriend a Gentile. And so we have yet another difference showing they aren't the same thing. Are you seeing a common denominator here about how often "not the same" comes up?  Another differing point - To Abdullah, all the commandments and versus in the Quran are core beliefs (the perfect book handed down and copied in perfect likeness from Gabriel), unlike those for the Christian or Catholic who are instructed the 10 are the core beliefs to focus on. Makes sense? I mean Yahweh didn't tell Moses at the top of Mount Sinai, "Here are the stone tablets with the 10 commandments. Oops, I forgot to give you these hundreds of other sayings to be taken as the same as the 10 with equal merit." The 10 are the core and stand far above anything else cited. Theology 101.

In Islam, the Quran was handed down personally by the archangel Gabriel and it is the perfect book even in distributed form to the masses. There is no such belief in Christianity or Catholicism regarding the Bible being used as a paperweight on one's table. This is why if you burn a King James bible you may piss off a Christian or Catholic, but if you burn a Quran you are to be killed. Profaning a perfect book from Gabriel is a much more serious offense in Islam.

The belief drives the masses which is why it is relevant. Individuals here and there are certainly relevant to us when we ourselves are their victim, but armies of thousands or millions can be driven by belief. If the belief is not valid there is no tether to hold the weapon of mass destruction together, so to speak.

And so what is my point here? We can argue and show the text to self-proclaimed Christians that they are not justified in their violent acts, but we cannot do the same with Islamic beliefs. Thus they are not the same thing at all. You cited examples of those not following their core tenets, but you should be arguing this is exactly the problem. Our morality guidelines have to come from somewhere. If you think the idea of killing Jews and unbelievers and homosexuals is wrong, don't say the 3 phrases and become a Muslim. If you think the 10 are garbage then don't become a Christian or Catholic or Jew. But on the Muslim side of things, this is very difficult to do in a Muslim dominant nation as such a free will concept is considered ridiculous. That's why they have blasphemy laws in place. Many think Islam is about killing infidels, it's main purpose is to convert kuffar. One's life is made miserable under Sharia Law for that purpose. You will become so miserable you will want to convert.

When we gather at the next parade, at the next stadium game, at the next concert, there is only one religion that will be cited we need to worry about the most, making this particular religion quite relevant to us here and now. This is another reason why they are not the same thing. As ISIS leader Al Baghdadi told his U.S. captors upon his release, "I'll see you in New York." But the lesson I'd like us to take away from all of this is Tsun Tsu's "Know your enemy."

An interesting debate for a serious concern of our times, I'll give you that. And when I say, "Take care." I also mean "Stay alert" out in large groups of people. Here's a tip that could help if such an event goes sideways. As Tsun Tsu would remind us, "Know your enemy." A common Jihadist tactic when using bombs on masses of people is they set 2 bombs to go off a minute or so apart. The first bomb goes off and the second is positioned to "catch" those fleeing in the opposite direction. This was the case in the Boston Marathon bombing and Mumbai Hotel bombing in India and many other places civilians gather. Don't run in the opposite direction! Yes, you will tell me your chances of being caught up in such a situation are less than being struck by lightning, but that chance will rise all the time if security in our nation remains the same.

A thousand years ago, it was Muslims who were stunned by the savagery of Christian radicals:
http://www.delanceyplace.com/view-archives.php?p=3016

The excerpt:
"War has been aptly described as 'a psychosis caused by an inability to see relationships.' The First Crusade was especially psychotic. From all accounts, the Crusaders seemed half-crazed. For three years [on their march from Europe to Jerusalem] they had had no normal dealings with the world around them, and prolonged terror and malnutrition made them susceptible to abnormal states of mind. They were fighting an enemy that was not only culturally but ethnically different -- a factor that, as we have found in our own day, tends to nullify normal inhibitions -- and when they fell on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, they slaughtered some thirty thousand people in three days. 'They killed all the Saracens and Turks they found,' the author of the Deeds of the Franks reported approvingly. 'They killed everyone, male or female.' The streets ran with blood. Jews were rounded up into their synagogue and put to the sword, and ten thousand Muslims who had sought sanctuary in the Haram al-Sharif were brutally massacred. 'Piles of heads, hands and feet were to be seen,' wrote the Provencal chronicler Raymond of Aguilers: 'Men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins. Indeed, it was a just and splendid judgment of God that this place should be filled with the blood of unbelievers.' There were so many dead that the Crusaders were unable to dispose of the bodies. When Fulcher of Chartres came to celebrate Christmas in Jerusalem five months later, he was appalled by the stench from the rotting corpses that still lay unburied in the fields and ditches around the city.

"When they could kill no more, the Crusaders proceeded to the Church of the Resurrection, singing hymns with tears of joy rolling down their cheeks. Beside the Tomb of Christ, they sang the Easter liturgy. 'This day, I say, will be famous in all future ages, for it turned our labors and sorrows into joy and exultation,' Raymond exulted. 'This day, I say, marks the justification of all Christianity, the humiliation of paganism, the renewal of faith.' Here we have evidence of another psychotic disconnect: the Crusaders were standing beside the tomb of a man who had been a victim of human cruelty, yet they were unable to question their own violent behavior. The ecstasy of battle, heightened in this case by years of terror, starvation, and isolation, merged with their religious mythology to create an illusion of utter righteousness. But victors are never blamed for their crimes, and chroniclers soon described the conquest in Jerusalem as a turning point in history. Robert the Monk made the astonishing claim that its importance had been exceeded only by the creation of the world and Jesus's crucifixion. As a consequence, Muslims were now regarded in the West as a 'vile and abominable race,' 'despicable, degenerate and enslaved by demons,' 'absolutely alien to God,' and 'fit only for extermination.' ...

"The Muslims were stunned by the Crusaders' violence. By the time they reached Jerusalem, the [Crusaders] had already acquired a fearsome reputation; it was said that they had killed more than a hundred thousand people at Antioch, and that during the siege they had roamed the countryside, wild with hunger, openly vowing to eat the flesh of any Saracen who crossed their path. But Muslims had never experienced anything like the Jerusalem massacre. For over three hundred years they had fought all the great regional powers, but these wars had always been conducted within mutually agreed limits. Muslim sources reported in horror that the Franks did not spare the elderly, the women, or the sick; they even slaughtered devout ulema, 'who had left their homelands to live lives of pious seclusion in the holy place.' "

Memphis Trace

I've already covered the problems of Deuteronomy being many laws passed by the Jewish priests and not holding the same weight as the 10 so citing the particularly unsavory ones after I emphasized show me where the 10 are at issue for causing mayhem and violence based on what they command the followers to do ignores my point.

Yes, I got that from the first post you made on the subject that you aren't defending either and were arguing both are equally at fault for guiding the masses into a mess. My issue of disagreement all along has been they are not equal. They don't both take the path of peace when strictly adhered to. The verses between the two are clear on that.

A wide majority of theology professors will tell you, should you ask, that if you were a Christian or Catholic and ignored Deuteronomy and Numbers and the other laws of man, but only followed the 10 you would be good to go. That's how significant the difference is. A devout Muslim cannot do the same. He cannot follow only certain Quranic verses and ignore the ones he doesn't like. All of it is considered handed down by Gabriel where none of it can be ignored. A big difference.

That's an endless debate over what was discounted from the bible, like the book of Mary for example. or the one you cite showing Jesus slaying a child. The big picture here is your original point, did you forget? How it impacts us today. Does agreement with your unclean version of Jesus translate to thousands being killed around the world today? Do the Quranic verses along with Hadith and Sura contribute to the militant movement of Jihad around the world? The first is no and the second is yes.

I'll sign off here on this subject because I think we've both wore out the major differences in our positions.

I didn't know tossing you a bit of advice for their bombing tactics was considered paranoia. It certainly would have saved quite a few in the Boston Marathon and it's not something widely known. My bad, I should have not told you anything at all about that.

Take care.

I don't believe anyone is arguing against the "Who and Why of Now." And it would be preposterous to think the US as a so-called Christian nation has not gone after perpetrators in spades in several Muslim countries. At the same time it is hard to dismiss the actions of the US and others over many decades in contributing to and motivating the enemies of Christianity, embodied by the West, to propagate atrocities in the name of their god.

The argument from my perspective is that organized religion is the basis for the vast majority of atrocities in the world -- past, present, and probably future -- and no single one has a monopoly though each will argue to the death they are on the right side doing God's work. Take religion and the accompanying leaders lust for money, power, and control out of the equation and the result is a much more civilized world. Of course you will still have individual murders, rapists, thieves, etc. but without the persuasive lure of religion there is not a mass audience to do the bidding. My opinion. Take care. Vern

I didn't say your advice was paranoia and you didn't tell me anything I didn't already know about their tactics. But to live a life in fear of any crowded event such as the Boston Marathon because some idiot might do something verges on paranoia imo. How many thousands/millions of events go off without a bombing or assault rifle attack, etc.? Yes, I, or someone I cherish, could ultimately get caught in some mishap, but considering the 300 million or so people in the US vs the number killed by terrorists, the odds are in my favor and yours of not being a victim. My odds of being killed in a car wreck or struck by lightning or most any other cause of death are much greater than being killed in terrorist attack. I'm not paranoid about any of those either. So I will not live in a paranoid world where common sense loses out to fear; to do so would be to declare the perpetrators victorious by default. Take care. Vern

Edited for PS: Yes, you were correct in your educated observation that I would mention the odds of being struck by lightning, etc.

Most, if not all professed atheists who rise to power are really not much different than religious figures and often are worshipped as such. There is a pronounced religious influence in the early lives of most, to include Hitler you might add to your list. The early influence of religion can't be discounted as the Catholic Church has said in the past that give them a child to age six or so, they will have them for life. I don't believe that paraphrased statement in all cases, but it does show the profound influence upon young minds. Specific to those you mentioned:

STALIN

Notwithstanding the fact that Stalin was raised as a Christian under the religious influence of his mother, who enrolled him in seminary school, and that Stalin later took it upon himself to study for the priesthood, as Hitchens and others have pointed out, Stalin merely stepped into a ready-made religious tyranny, constructed by the Russian Orthodox Church and paved with the teachings of St. Paul.

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.                                           Romans 13:1-2

Pol Pot
A snippet from Alexander Labon Hinton's book "Why did They Kill? Cambodia in the Shadow of Genocide" 
***This [Pol Pot’s regime’s] line of thinking about revolutionary consciousness directly parallels Buddhist thought, with the “Party line” and “collective stand” being substituted for dhamma…One could certainly push this argument further , contending that the Khmer Rouge attempted to assume the monk’s traditional role as moral instructor (teaching their new brand of “mindfulness”) and that DK regime’s glorification of asceticism, detachment, the elimination of attachment and desire, renunciation (of material goods and personal behaviors, sentiments, and attitudes), and purity paralleled prominent Buddhist themes…  ***

Mao
The problem with communism, etc. is not that they reject religion, but that they are too much like religion. Mao believed in blind faith and obedience just as religious leaders and followers do. Communism, just as religion, is dogmatic to the core, and may well be looked at as another religion with the leaders being worshiped much like cult religious leaders.

So, I contend that organized religion is still responsible for the vast majority of atrocities inflicted on mankind. Atheism guided by tyrants is simply another form of religion. The despots simply replace on god with another, themselves, demanding obedience and what amounts to worship. Take care. Vern

Indeed.  And yet the atheists are more deadly, perhaps because they try to redefine humanity.  (See C.S.Lewis's The Abolition of Man.)  Other religions have operated hospitals, tried to feed the poor, and preserved learning.  The Jesuits tried to stop the enslavement of New World peoples.  English clerics led the movement to end slavery in England and Europe, and eventually across the Anglosphere.

Calling the Crusaders 'radicals' is probably a category error.  This isn't to say there was nothing wrong done, or nothing right, but that the category of 'radical' doesn't apply to them, any more than the category of Marxist.

Indeed, the road to hell may be paved with good intentions.  Certainly the road to hell on earth is.

Good intentions are not enough.  Good intentions must be supported by practical wisdom (also called the cardinal virtue of prudence) so that the intentions are directed through understandings and actions that will further them, rather than thwarting them and making a travesty of them.

Let me take an example that should be non-political.

Let's say that you or I are standing near the curb in front of the stores of a shopping center, and a driver is on the roadway about to cross in front of us.  Let us also stipulate that the traffic is light.

What should the driver do?  Should the driver stop to let us pass, or continue at his (presumably) safe speed?

The answer may surprise you.  To speed both us and the driver, and to avoid creating needless danger, the driver should continue without slowing.  Why?

It will take the driver a certain amount of time to reach our position at his speed, and a little more for his vehicle to pass us.  (At 20 mph, or about 29 feet per second, it will take about two-thirds of a second to pass our position once he has reached us.)

But if he chooses to slow to a stop, it will take longer for him to reach us and reach that stop--about twice as long if his deceleration is reasonable.  And only after he has stopped can we be sure that he means to stop, and decide to move in front of him.

But we shouldn't decide to move in front of his vehicle (still in gear with the engine running, and held only by his foot on the brake) until we have established eye contact.  That's a further delay--for us and for him.  If we don't establish eye contact, we don't know he was stopping for us.  He might have been waiting for something else--and if he doesn't notice us, he could run us over when he decides he wants to go.

In addition to the hazard of walking in front of a vehicle with its engine running and in gear, and to the time lost by everyone involved, there is the waste of fuel and added pollution resulting from bringing a vehicle to a needless stop and then setting it in motion again.

What should practical wisdom counsel?  That the driver not stop!  But we-the-pedestrian cannot count on it, and too many pedestrians will walk in front of the car assuming the driver will stop for the driver to continue without slowing a little--which may encourage the pedestrian to walk off the curb prematurely.

Apart from making sure that everybody takes high school physics, what can be done about this stupidity?  Would making everyone take high school physics even help, in this era of grade inflation and passing students without regard to their performance?

What does MSNBC have to do with the Crusades?

Islamic fascists have a lot more Sunday mornings to go like this past Sunday morning to catch up to the Christian fascists of the Crusades.

Memphis Trace