eddieVroom <glassgnost@nospam.sbcglobal.net> wrote:

A tree shall be known by it's fruit.
No sir, I mose definitely do *not* like the taste of them apples.

And Christianity's fruit? The Christian terrorists invaded an
innocent country and raped, tortured, and slaughtered their way
through Iraq to try to seize their oil -- while doing nothing
about Saudi Arabia, the terrorist State that attacked New York.

Speaks volumes about Christianity.

---
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating
any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of
his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all
totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist." -- W. Churchill, Nov
21, 1943 (Or whether Christofascist Republican.)

eddieVroom wrote:

stoney wrote:

On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 19:34:13 GMT,

"Thandarr" <thandarr@yahoo.com> wrote:

I said that the cartoons are not particularly offensive. I stand by
that, although I realize that there may be some subtext that a Yankee
might miss but a Muslim or perhaps even a Dane would grasp
instinctively.

Their complaint is that images of their "prophet" is against their
superstitions. Even if it were just of their "prophet" sitting on
a rock reading a book, the fundies would be screaming, burning, and
threatening mass murder.

***** 'em!

When I was about seven years of age, I had a rather intense spiritual
experience from which I learned two significant things. One of them was
a pointer to a chapter in the gospels (mark, IIRC) to the effect of:

A tree shall be known by it's fruit.

Some four and a half years after 9-11, more than ample time to learn,
observe and contemplate, I can state with litte if any reservation:

No sir, I mose definitely do *not* like the taste of them apples.

Look at the bright side of a riot -- they rarely make it very far out of
their own neighborhoods. Let 'em go to work. BURN, BABY, BURN!

What's happening is that the fundamentalist Muslim clerics are inciting
their followers over a minor dust-up.

This same type of thing happens in the US where fundamentalist preachers
stir up hatred and violence against mainstream society.

WK

"Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists don't lash out in homicidal

rage when their religion is insulted.

Yes, they do. Often.
Read history. Look around today."

No they don't. Not in the way intended by the originators of the
discussion.

Comparing Andrea Yates to the insanity Islam has become is pretty much
just conceding the point.

The Catholic Church is PAYING...?? Sounds awfully close to taking
responsibility to me.

PAT ROBERTSON? That's your big comeback? Lame, very lame...

Pat Robertson is a known nutbag. The President of Iran is...the
President of Iran, and has the full enthusiastic backing of the imams.

If that's the best comparison you can offer, thanks for assuring me
there is no comparison.

Most people and most religions have progressed beyond what was done
historically. Muslims seem to be stuck in the dark ages. They have to
use that ***** line about what was done historically to avoid the
real question of what things are like NOW.

König Prüße wrote:

jdgraeme wrote:

König Prüße wrote:

"Thandarr" wrote:

The Cartoons:

I said that the cartoons are not particularly offensive. I stand by
that, although I realize that there may be some subtext that a Yankee
might miss but a Muslim or perhaps even a Dane would grasp
instinctively.

1. A picture of a guy in a turban leading a donkey. Looks like they're
on a voyage.

2. A picture of a guy in a turban with the traditional halo of
Christianity replaced with a halo made out of a crescent moon.

3. A picture of the Islamic crescent moon and star symbol with a face
drawn in. The star is one of the eyes. The moon is the outline of the
face.

4. A picture of a man in a turban with two women in black full body
veils beside him. There is a black stripe over the man's eyes that
matches the small open place on the women's veils.

5. A picture of a man in a turban telling a bunch of smoldering men in
turbans "Stop, Stop, we ran out of virgins.

6. A picture of a young man or boy, no turban, no beard, before a
blackboard which says in Persian that the journalists from the
newspaper responsible for the pictures are a bunch of reactionary
provocateurs. The English translation was given at the bottom of the
page.

7. A picture of a cartoonist hiding a drawing of Muhammad.

8. A lineup with some hippies, some Muslim looking people, probably a
Jesus, and a few others with the Danish witness saying, "Hmm ... jeg
kan ikke lige genkende ham . . . " "Hmm, I can't identify him."
[Danish translation mine and perhaps wrong. I don't speak Danish]

9. Five stylized drawings of a man using the star and crescent moon
format. There's a legend I can't translate with an online Danish
English dictionary "Profet! Med kuk og khald i laget som holder
kvinder under aget.

10. A man in a turban looking at a piece of paper and holding off two
other men in turbans, one with a sword and one with a bomb. The
English translation of the caption is "Relax folks, it is just a sketch
made by a Dane from the south-west Denmark."

11. A stylized picture of a man in a turban with a beard. The turban
has calligraphy Arabic script that looks like what you see on the flags
of some Muslim countries and it morphs into a bomb.

12. A picture of a western looking guy in a turban. On top of the
turban is an orange with the word "PR-Stunt." The man is holding a
cartoon with a stick figure of a man in a turban and a beard.

That's it folks. That's what is supposed to have the entire Muslim
world up in arms.

Thandarr

Well, according to the rules, you are not supposed to
say the name of the Prophet, PBUH--

I have googled relioion+insanity, and there's a lot;
but what I had been looking for is religious mania.
There's a lot about religious mania, and that's sort
of what's going on now, both with the Muslims
and the Xtian Fundies. I read Eric Hoffer's old
book, "The True Believer," and there's a lot that
the fanatics have in common.

Religious freedom might be a good thing,
but I wonder when I read about the Christian
Scientists or some fundies who abuse and
neglect their children. Andrea Yates, for example.

Andrea Yates was judged schizophrenic by several psychiatrists; she's
at least seriously mentally unbalanced . But in any case there's a big
difference between what a few isolated persons do and what is done by
large numbers of adherents of a religion or what is advocated by
recognized leaders of the religion.

Far be it from me to defend Christianity, but no Christian sect calls
for the murder of people for blasphemy--which is exactly what Khomeni
and many Muslim leaders did. Muslims do routinely physically attack
anyone who criticizes Islam; Muslim leaders did condemn Salman Rushdie
to death for blasphemy--which consisted only of some passages in a
novel?! This wasn't some radical splinter group--It was the leading
Muslim clerics in Iran and elsewhere. And this was not some
exceptional case; such nonsense is commonplace for Muslims. It's a
serious crime to even criticize Islam in many Muslim countries.

Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists don't lash out in homicidal
rage when their religion is insulted.

Yes, they do. Often.
Read history. Look around today.

Most people and most religions have progressed beyond what was done
historically. Muslims seem to be stuck in the dark ages. They have to
use that ***** line about what was done historically to avoid the
real question of what things are like NOW.

Andrea Yates! religion=insanity
She was being carefully coached by a street preacher
who had his bus parked at the Yates house.

So what! She was psychotic or at least seriously mentally unbalanced.
What does the actions of one--or even a number--of deranged individuals
prove?

As Salman Rushdie, whom Khomeni and many Muslim leaders condemned to
death for blasphemy, wrote:

"If this isn't about Islam, why the worldwide Muslim demonstrations
in support of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda? Why did those 10,000 men
armed with swords and axes mass on the Pakistan-Afghanistan frontier,
answering some mullah's call to jihad? ...

Why the routine anti-Semitism of the much-repeated Islamic slander that
"the Jews" arranged the hits on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon, with the oddly self-deprecating explanation offered by the
Taliban leadership, among others, that Muslims could not have the
technological know-how or organizational sophistication to pull off
such a feat? Why does Imran Khan, the Pakistani ex-sports star turned
politician, demand to be shown the evidence of Al Qaeda's guilt while
apparently turning a deaf ear to the self-incriminating statements of
Al Qaeda's own spokesmen...

Of course this is "about Islam." ... For a vast number of "believing"
Muslim men, "Islam" stands, in a jumbled, half-examined way, not only
for the fear of God... but also for a cluster of customs, opinions and
prejudices that include their dietary practices; the sequestration or
near-sequestration of "their" women; the sermons delivered by their
mullahs of choice; a loathing of modern society in general, riddled as
it is with music, godlessness and sex."

God is what people have so that they don't have to
answer to eachother and be accountable.

A lot of religion is based on ancient historical
delusions and insane ranting that just would not
fly today. Certainly, Pat Robertson is delusional
and inciting to riot, trying to provoke hatred
for his own stinking Christian political ends.

The Catholic Church in Boston is all but bankrupt
from paying-out damages for somomite priests!

Tell me how great and good the religions are--

Then why are you defending Islam, which is the worst of the lot!?