Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Comparing Christianity to Islam
#41
Makes sense honestly. They lasted till Nicholas, so it sort of worked.

Nicholas, now there's another man whose autobiography I read. Seemed like a guy not made for leadership, but, a decent gentleman. His wife seems to have been a nut though. Bad enough stuff happened under him, too.
Reply
#42
Link doesn't work Michael. S5
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#43
try now
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#44
Actually, I kind of liked Ivan the Terrible. He reminds me of what Tait will look like when he gets old and cranky_er. S13

[Image: ivan-iv-9350679-1-4021.jpeg]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#45
Tait the Terrible? S13
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#46
Tait the Tremendous sounds better.

That drawing of Ivan is funny. Whoever drew it must have been paid to make Ivan out to look like a rascal, looking out the corner of his eyes like that.

Check out Ivan. Metropolitan Phillip sounds like John the Baptist to me. Just the opposite of the Metropolitan during Stalin's reign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_the_Terrible
Reply
#47
Being killed by a sociopath does not automatically makes one a saint... but we really do not know enough about Philip to judge.

There were a couple of movies about Ivan made recently, one "real" movie and a miniseries (16 episodes, full bio) the latter was fairly good (and did treat Philip positively). The movie (Tsar, 2009) can be found on youtube (below) with subs but the subs seem awful (I did not see the movie but the reviews were good). The miniseries is also on the web but I did not find subs for it.





again, this may be impossible to watch, so irritating are the subs done by automatic translation...otoh, the movie specifically deals with Philip.
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#48
This interesting article from last month highlights the reason why Islam cannot be reformed, as I have stated numerous times before. This original article is in the German publication "Die Welt", and translation is a bit difficult. But what it states basically is that:

A Modern Islam Is Not Possible"

[Image: Hay-Festival-Alhambra-Day-two.jpg]
"I personally deserve nothing, only the poetry" - says the militant poet Adunis Asbar, better known as Adonis

Some of what he states:

Adonis: I mean that aArabs are no more a creative force. Islam does not contribute to the intellectual life, and allows for no discussion. He(Arabs) produces no thought, no art, no science, no vision that could change the world. This repetition is the sign of its end. Arab culture will continue to exist, but they will not make the world a better place for humans.

Adonis: I am pleased that the religious see me as an enemy. I am a radical enemy of culture and of institutionalized religion that is imposed upon a whole society.


Here's the original English article on this poet: WORLD’S GREATEST ARABIC POET SAYS “ISLAM CAN’T BE MODERNIZED”……. And he too has been saying this for years as well. Islam cannot be changed, or modernized, as with Christianity, because it's main thesis is conquest and violence.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#49
Islam can't be essentially reformed because the Koran can't be changed and there is no interpretive problem the bible has due to various books being documented in different eras under different social/theological constructs.

They see it as literally "God's Word" like we see Christ. It says what it says and Mohammad is who he was, they know what the guy was about.

The nice Muslim simply considers the tough part of Koran as "stuff people don't do anymore". Then, they are freaked out when some of their neighbors DO that stuff anymore.
Reply
#50
Best reply is the first comment posted on the english version:

Quote:This is the crux of the matter: If there is modernity then it is not Islam. Modernizing is a betrayal of the foundations of Islam. Adonis is so correct, just as Solzhenitsyn was correct about the Soviet system and its inherent and irredeemable faults. I tell others that banning Islam from the planet is the only way to go, It should be done for the future generations who could then see women and children treated as human beings with rights and not just as chattel. Islam prevents all the people in Sharia countries from advancing in a spiritual and material sense, more so in the spiritual way. Islam is based on carnality, period.
Reply
#51
"Banning Islam". Don't think we can do that.

Seriously, the only alternative to what we have now is their conversion to either atheism or Christianity. That religion is so vulnerable most Muslims don't realize it yet because it has never faced a serious dialectic challenge from learned people.

Those who can think will think and leave it behind( some of the best Christian missionaries are former Muslims) and those who won't think will stick with a dying religion. It's already happening, that's one reason the culture is becoming so reactive.

It will be around for several more centuries, but, I think the seeds of it's destruction are planted already.
Reply
#52
(03-11-2016, 08:20 PM)Palladin Wrote: "Banning Islam". Don't think we can do that.

We did it in Japan. We outlawed their martial religion and forced their Emperor to admit he was not a god. Why not Islam? We just need to look at it as a political ideology - not just a religious one.
Reply
#53
(03-13-2016, 12:37 AM)WmLambert Wrote:
(03-11-2016, 08:20 PM)Palladin Wrote: "Banning Islam". Don't think we can do that.

We did it in Japan. We outlawed their martial religion and forced their Emperor to admit he was not a god. Why not Islam? We just need to look at it as a political ideology - not just a religious one.

Now, how to outlaw autocracy. That's the question. This particular autocracy is much more insidious than the others.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#54
William,

I disagree with how you characterized the Japan exercise.

All MacArthur did was to outlaw the nexus between Hachiman and the Japanese state. They continued to worship Hachiman and the current PM has publicly worshipped at his shrine recently, so the "outlawing" was very temporary. By this time in the next generation, Japanese are going to be right back to the super aggressive "we're superior to everyone else cause our gods say so" mentality that drove them in 1935.

Further, we had just obliterated Japan such that not one piece of flak or 1 interceptor met the Enola Gay on her mission to Hiroshima. We could do that in 1946.

Who do you desire to outlaw Islam and do you not understand the results would help Islam?

You think a Muslim would just say, "well, ole William says so, so there's that, I will convert to atheism now"!
Reply
#55
(03-13-2016, 02:28 AM)John L Wrote: ...Now, how to outlaw autocracy. That's the question.

That's simple. You outlaw autocracy with war. Bigger swords is the only way evil despots have been overthrown.

Many people say war is not ever an answer. If they do, they line up behind Obama and his apologists. The only way not to use the sword is to have a big enough force to cause the bad guys to step down in self-preservation. The idea of an overwhelming military is to prevent all future wars.

I don't care if some say we have no responsibility or right to intrude into foreign internal affairs. We have the right to defend the innocent because we can, and no one else can. Such a decision can be thuggery, itself, so only a Republic built on laws can attempt such a thing. There will always be argument about doing so, but that is part of the system that is better than any other.

Some say we can't afford doing so - but that is itself moot. If we can't afford it we shouldn't do it. Perhaps seizing oil fields and treasury is an answer - but that also is moot. If we can do it and it is right, then the only answer is deciding who decides. There is really no doubt that it may be the only right thing to do. That is the risk of having the power. I would rather it be our country with that power than any other.
Reply
#56
(03-13-2016, 11:03 AM)Palladin Wrote: William,

I disagree with how you characterized the Japan exercise.

All MacArthur did was to outlaw the nexus between Hachiman and the Japanese state. They continued to worship Hachiman and the current PM has publicly worshipped at his shrine recently, so the "outlawing" was very temporary. By this time in the next generation, Japanese are going to be right back to the super aggressive "we're superior to everyone else cause our gods say so" mentality that drove them in 1935.

Further, we had just obliterated Japan such that not one piece of flak or 1 interceptor met the Enola Gay on her mission to Hiroshima. We could do that in 1946.

Who do you desire to outlaw Islam and do you not understand the results would help Islam?

You think a Muslim would just say, "well, ole William says so, so there's that, I will convert to atheism now"!

Japan's surrender

[auote="Doug Long"]MARQUIS KOICHI KIDO: (LORD KEEPER OF THE PRIVY SEAL) and the ATOMIC BOMBING OF JAPAN

Marquis Koichi Kido was the Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal for Japanese emperor Hirohito during World War II. While not a member of the government, Kido was Hirohito's closest advisor. He was also the liaison between Hirohito and the government.

By 1945 Kido knew that Japan could not win the war. But to overtly work for peace meant risking reprisals by the Japanese military. Three events moved Kido to action for peace:
  • Japan's lack of fighting power against the massive Allied fighting power.
  • Kido's belief that Japan would face destruction if Germany, Japan's only remaining ally, surrendered. On May 8, 1945 Germany surrendered.
  • On June 8, 1945 the Japanese Army pushed the government into approving "The Fundamental Policy To Be Followed Henceforth in the Conduct of the War". This made it Japan's official policy to "prosecute the war to the bitter end". (Robert Butow, Japan's Decision To Surrender, pg. 99-100 note 69).

The militaristic "Fundamental Policy" was the final straw that led Kido to conclude that "some sort of drastic measure would have to be taken" to end the war. (U.S. Army, Far East Command, Statements of Japanese Officials on World War II, Kido, no. 61476, National Archives - hereafter referred to as Statements).

Later on the day of the "Fundamental Policy" decision, Kido wrote a peace plan to describe his "drastic measure". The most drastic part was his call to "petition for Imperial intervention" for peace (from Kido's diary in International Military Tribunal for the Far East, Record of Proceedings, 1946-1948, pg. 31149, Library of Congress - hereafter referred to as IMTFE). Altho Japanese policy was enacted in the emperor's name, the emperor did not dictate government policy. But Kido desperately needed a counter-weight to the Japanese Army.

Kido's plan was "to ask the Soviet Union, which maintains neutrality with Japan, to mediate between Japan and the Allies". Japan's minimum peace terms were "security of the Imperial family and vindication of the national polity", referring to the continuance of the emperor system, which Japan believed to be of divine origin. (from Kido's diary in IMTFE, pg. 31148-31150).

After getting Emperor Hirohito's go-ahead for the peace plan, Kido gathered support for it from Prime Minister Suzuki, Navy Minister Yonai (the head of the Navy), and Foreign Minister Togo. Disorganized until now, the Japanese peace movement was coming out of the closet.

While Togo pressed government leaders and the emperor to seek peace, Kido met with the emperor and requested that he "directly express his desire for accelerating the peace" to the Japanese government (Statements, Kido, no. 61476). The emperor took Kido's advice, and on June 22, 1945 Hirohito asked the government to "end the war as quickly as possible". (Statements, Togo, no. 50304; Statements, Toyoda, no. 61340; see also Butow, pg. 118-120; Leon Sigal, Fighting To a Finish, pg. 235).

But Russia was already preparing to join the war against Japan in return for territory, as part of a deal with the Allies. Russia had no interest in helping Japan end the war before she could enter it and gain her reward.

Japan was waiting for Russia to respond to their request for negotiations before making any moves. They hoped for a reply around August 6 or 7. Instead, on August 6th an atomic bomb was dropped on the population of Hiroshima. And on the night of August 8th, Russia declared war on Japan (IMTFE, pg. 31,172).

During this time Kido continued to discuss the need for peace with the emperor and members of the government. On August 12th he steered Prime Minister Suzuki back to favoring surrender when Suzuki wavered (IMTFE, pg. 31,184 - 31,186).

Kido's final effort for peace was probably also his most harrowing. On the morning of August 14th he received word that U.S. planes were dropping leaflets on Japan containing the U.S. and Japanese peace proposals. Fearing a backlash by the Japanese military, Kido rushed to advise the emperor, in Kido's words, "to command the government without further loss of time to go through the formalities for terminating the war". The emperor agreed and sent Kido to make arrangements with Suzuki for the government to meet. The government surrendered that day at the emperor's request (IMTFE, pg. 31,189 - 31,190; Statements, Kido, no. 61541; see also Butow, pg. 205-209, Sigal, pg. 267-271).[/quote]

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-histo...e-religion

On this day, General Douglas MacArthur, in his capacity as Supreme Commander of Allied Powers in the Pacific, brings an end to Shintoism as Japan’s established religion. The Shinto system included the belief that the emperor, in this case Hirohito, was divine.

On September 2, 1945 aboard the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay, MacArthur signed the instrument of Japanese surrender on behalf of the victorious Allies. Before the economic and political reforms the Allies devised for Japan’s future could be enacted, however, the country had to be demilitarized. Step one in the plan to reform Japan entailed the demobilization of Japan’s armed forces, and the return of all troops from abroad. Japan had had a long history of its foreign policy being dominated by the military, as evidenced by Prime Minister Fumimaro Konoye’s failed attempts to reform his government and being virtually pushed out of power by career army officer Hideki Tojo.

Step two was the dismantling of Shintoism as the Japanese national religion. Allied powers believed that serious democratic reforms, and a constitutional form of government, could not be put into place as long as the Japanese people looked to an emperor as their ultimate authority. Hirohito was forced to renounce his divine status, and his powers were severely limited—he was reduced to little more than a figurehead. And not merely religion, but even compulsory courses on ethics—the power to influence the Japanese population’s traditional religious and moral duties—were wrenched from state control as part of a larger decentralization of all power.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinto_Directive

The Shinto Directive was an order issued to the Japanese government by Occupation authorities to abolish state support for the Shinto religion. This unofficial "State Shinto" was thought by Allies to have been a major contributor to Japan's nationalistic and militant culture that led to World War II. The purpose of the directive was ostensibly based in ideas of freedom of religion and separation of church and state.
History[edit]

After the Second World War during the Occupation of Japan by the United States Military it was generally understood by Allied students of Japanese culture and religion that Shinto in the form it took leading up to and during the war was social propaganda and was used as a tool of ultra-nationalism and a disguise for militarism.[citation needed] However, even though this support of Shinto was defined as non-religious propaganda[by whom?], in the Allied schools it was being taught as religious in nature. Thus, it was US policy regarding post-surrender Japan to abolish "State Shinto," which was not and never had been a formal Imperial policy. The directive, SCAPIN 448, was drafted by the US Military’s expert on Japanese culture and religion, Lieut. William K. Bunce, U.S.N.R.[1] and was issued on December 15, 1945 with the full title of "Abolition of Governmental Sponsorship, Support, Perpetuation, Control, and Dissemination of State Shinto (Kokka Shinto, Jinja Shinto)".[2] There were two translations given for the term "State Shinto": the first ("Kokka Shinto") was a neologism, and the second ("Jinja Shinto") referred to Shinto shrines, which up until 1945 had been secular wards of the state.[citation needed]
According to the directive, State Shinto was to be stripped of public support and of its "ultra-nationalistic and militaristic" trappings. With the severing of its traditional state patronage the Shinto establishment required privatization, and to that end any Shinto entity that had been dependent on public funding but not actually part of the secular administrative structure was to be assimilated either into what the directive calls "Sect Shinto" with no special privileges above the other popular faiths, or to be reformed, with conditions stipulating complete and permanent loss of government support, as "Shrine Shinto," which was to be supported by voluntary private donation only.[non-primary source needed]

As such no public funds whatsoever could be used to support Shinto shrines or priests in any manner, nor any other entities that were at all associated with the Shinto religion. Public officials whose duties were in any way directly connected to Shinto religion were immediately to be terminated from office and their positions extinguished. Under the directive, Japan's Emperor could no longer report on public matters to his ancestors in official visits to the shrines. Instead, he was permitted to worship only non-officially and as a private individual, as were all government officials permitted to do.

Any educational material considered to convey "Shinto doctrine" was to be categorically censored out of school textbooks, along with any content that at all suggested any positive effects of or justification for any of Japan's military actions in past wars. Public officials alike were forbidden any mention of anything that could be construed as being in any way religious, let alone Shinto, while performing duties in their official capacities. This was meant to stop the propagation of supposed "militaristic and ultranationalistic ideology" in particular, which was especially proscribed if conveyed in connection with Shinto or any other creed.

These three alleged doctrines were specifically banned: (1) that the Emperor is superior to other rulers because he is descended of the sun goddess Amaterasu; (2) that the Japanese people are inherently superior to other peoples by their special ancestry or heritage, or (3) that the Japanese islands are spiritually superior to other lands, being specially blessed by the goddess Amaterasu.

As a result of the directive, a stream of instructions from the government were issued covering a wide range of prohibitions concerning Japanese culture and rites.[citation needed] Pupils at state schools and children of pre-school age were prohibited from being taken on field trips to religious institutions; local town committees were prohibited from fundraising for shrines; groundbreaking (jichinsai) and roof-raising rites (j?t?sai) were not to be performed for public buildings; state and public bodies were prohibited from conducting funerals and rites of propitiation for the war dead; and the removal and/or erection of commemorative sites to the war dead were regulated by the directive. However, the directive was lenient towards imperial court rites.
Initially, the directive was rigidly applied. This led to numerous complaints and grievances from local people.[who?] In 1949, halfway through the occupation, the directive came to be applied with greater discretion. Typical of this leniency was the approval granted to state funerals which entailed religious rites, such as those of Matsudaira Tsuneo of the Upper House (Shint?-style) and of Shidehara Kij?r? of the Lower House (Buddhist).[3]

Legacy[edit]
The Directive had a dramatic impact on postwar Japanese policy. Although it was only enforced by the Americans, many of the changes it made became a part of a revised postwar legal interpretation of "separation of church and state." The only notable reversion, besides the Occupation-era approval of state funerals, was a 1965 Supreme Court decision approving of jichinsai and j?t?sai for public buildings.[4]
Shinto remains one of the most popular religions in Japan. Some[who?] want to restore Shinto as a state religion to counter juvenile rebellion against traditional ways of life. This includes Shinz? Abe, the prime minister of Japan, who is a proponent of the re-institution of state-Shintoism and the imperial worship. [5][unreliable source?][6] In 2013, he visited Yasukuni Shrine, which drew criticism from the United States.[7]

References[edit]

1 GHQ of the Allied Powers (1960). Translations and Official Documents: The Shinto Directive, Contemporary Religions in Japan 1 (2), 85-89
2 http://eos.kokugakuin.ac.jp/modules/xwor...tryID=1109
3 Carl F. Goodman, The Rule of Law in Japan (Fredrick, MD: Kluwer Law International, 2008), 76-78
4 http://disputedpast.com/news/japan-aboli...te-shinto/
5 http://japanfocus.org/-David-McNeill/4047
6 http://news.yahoo.com/japanese-prime-min...40271.html

--------------------------------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...03499.html

William Bunce, 100; Demilitarized Japanese Institutions After War

By Patricia Sullivan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 14, 2008

William Kenneth Bunce, 100, who as a Navy officer in 1945 wrote the directive that disestablished Shinto as the state religion of Japan, died of chronic pneumonia July 23 at Heron Point retirement community in Chestertown, Md.

Dr. Bunce's job during the post-World War II occupation of Japan was the demilitarization of Japanese institutions, religion and culture.
Shinto, a 1,500-year-old polytheistic religion, had become a militaristic and ultra-nationalistic dogma under the direction of the government, which wrote the church rituals. Students were required to study Shinto in school, the state supported its 50,000 shrines, and the emperor would periodically travel to shrines to discuss public affairs with his long-dead ancestors.

Dr. Bunce's directive, prepared under the orders of the Allied commander in chief, Gen. Douglas MacArthur, banned the doctrine that the emperor was descended from the sun and that he, the Japanese people and the Japanese islands were superior to all others. The Shinto religion, stripped of its nationalism, was allowed to continue, and believers could worship privately.

"The Bunce directive skirted dangerously close to violating religious liberty," Time magazine said in its Dec. 24, 1945, issue. "But it had long been agreed among most students of Japan that Shinto in its modern form was a tool and a disguise for militarism. . . . It was the first official U.S. attempt to draw the fine line between genuinely religious doctrine and social propaganda."

The New York Times agreed. With "the elimination of state Shinto, General MacArthur has laid the axe to the root of the last great pillars which held up the imperial system by force, custom and persuasion," reporter Lindesay Parrott wrote Dec. 23, 1945.

Dr. Bunce, who later was a Foreign Service officer, came to the task with a background in Japan. A native of Gallipolis, Ohio, who graduated from Otterbein College in Westerville, Ohio, he received a master's degree in history from Ohio State University in 1933.

He became an English teacher and lecturer at Matsuyama Kotogakko, a government junior college in Japan, during the 1930s. He left after three years to complete a doctorate in history at Ohio State, then returned to Otterbein to chair the history department and become dean of the faculty.

When he joined the Naval Reserve in 1943, Dr. Bunce studied international law, military government and the governments, economies and cultures of Southeast Asia, receiving a master's degree from Columbia University.

In 1944, Dr. Bunce was made officer in charge of the Area Studies Division at the Naval School of Military Government at Princeton University, then was assigned to Monterey, Calif., and Manila to help plan for the occupation of Japan.

In Tokyo, he was chief of the Religious and Cultural Resources Division at the general headquarters of the supreme allied command. He represented the command and Japan at three UNESCO general conferences and helped advise the UNESCO director general on programs for Japan.

He received the Legion of Merit for his work in Japan.
After the occupation ended, Dr. Bunce joined the staff of the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo and the old U.S. Information Service. For the next 19 years, he was a diplomat, serving as counselor in public affairs at embassies in India and Korea, as well as stints in Washington. He retired in 1971.
______________________________________________________

It's been done before. It can be done successfully again.
______________________________________________________

BTW… Since ancient times Hachiman was worshiped by peasants as the god of agriculture and by fishermen who hoped he would fill their nets with much fish. In Shinto, he became identified by legend as the Emperor Ōjin, son of Empress Jingū, from the 3rd–4th century of the Common Era. Such a deity may be worshiped - but the Samurai were forbidden to call the Emperor a god by his own decree - so Shinto could no longer be a rallying cry.
Reply
#57
(03-13-2016, 11:15 AM)WmLambert Wrote:
(03-13-2016, 02:28 AM)John L Wrote: ...Now, how to outlaw autocracy. That's the question.

That's simple. You outlaw autocracy with war. Bigger swords is the only way evil despots have been overthrown.

Perhaps you are a bit too quick to make war? Perhaps your love of Statism is rearing its head again?

Christianity is doing a magnificent job of changing hearts and growing. To my thinking that is the best way to defeat Islam, through love, and real peace. Islam cannot stand up to Christianity, and must rely on "top down" force to accomplish this. Christianity is "bottom up" and on an individual basis.

Don't get me wrong, I believe adamantly in the g-d given right to self-defense, but defense on an individual basis. Its how our Founders envisioned the Second Amendment. Each individual had the Liberty to bear arms for the defense of their welfare AND their Liberties. Sure, they can gather and act as a group, but the power originates from the Individual first.

And this brings up the conflict between war(top down) and law enforcement(bottom up). War should be legislated before being declared, and it should be against states that commit crimes. We have not had a formally approved "legislated war" since WWII, and I have complained about this many times here on Jane.

If we are going to go to war against ISIS, which has declared itself a caliphate, then we should do this legally. Otherwise, this should be treated as criminal behavior.

If a country, through Islam, commits crimes against such things as genuine dissent or thought, such as the Saudis, Iranians, or others, they should be punished for their actions by formal shunning, economic punishment, and other non-violent means, with war being a last resort. Ostracizing a country economically has vast impact on the country being ostracized. And only war, approved legislatively, should be allowed. Going to war, as Junior did, is not the way to do it. And I have also stated this many times before, so this is not new to everyone here.

Muslims, who mistreat, or murder others, such as Christians for being Christians, should be treated as criminal behavior, and punishable as such. If the country where the crime is being committed refused to enforce this, they should be excluded from interaction with other countries.

My late minister, in Knoxville, used to wear a large button which stated, "Why must we kill people, who kill people, to prove that killing people is wrong?" For years, I have suggested that murderers should be incarcerated, and allowed to have their belts, eating utensils, and other objects that could be used to harm themselves. If anyone is going to kill them, let it be themselves who do the act. I have never changed my thinking on this.

Just as Christianity defeated Rome's pagan religion, it will also defeat Islam, and not through the sword, but the Word. It works every time it is tried, even if force is used against it. In fact, the more force, the faster the defeat. And those who use that force, should be treated as criminals. The more force we use to enforce this, the harder it is to defeat it. A concept can only be defeated by another concept. You have to go to the root cause of the crimes, not commit the same thing one's self. Isn't that how Christianity is supposed to work Bill?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#58
William,

No one disagrees we did that. It no longer applies to them and there is no analogy to Islam. You would make a terrible lawyer.

The Islamic people aren't in the same situation,but, if you want to outlaw Islam, do it. Tell us the results. Any other religions you want to outlaw?

John,

The "statism" comment is interesting. We cons have supported the state over the constitution a lot ourselves as a group, I used to hate William O. Douglas because he at times held the state back.

If the state is real important and war is a part of how a large state does business, any reasonable citizen should be very reluctant to support the use of force. Out of all our conflicts, only a few meet any decent standard of morality.
Reply
#59
You're both talking philosophy. I was referring to autocracy. I guess if a line of a hundred Islamists stand on a beach and behead Christians that are different from them, in the long run, religions will eventually run their course and in the far distant future, beheadings may stop. In the short run, you stop beheadings by stopping the Islamists. You stop them by physically preventing such atrocities.

Face it. Such scum of the Earth do what they do because they think they are exempt from laws and they face no consequences. They best trick is to stop them and teach them that their own faith tells them not to do what they do. You stop them in such a way they know they can't get away with such actions. ...Probably best if their own people stop them - but if they don't - then not stopping them when we can is wrong.
Reply
#60
How would you outlaw Islam anyway, how do you execute that thought?

Then, how do you avoid outlawing all humanity because all of our groups have perped evil before?
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Issac Newton, Apocalypse 2060: The Final Battle Between Christianity And Islam WarBicycle 1 594 01-03-2013, 08:21 AM
Last Post: WarBicycle
  Comparing Radical Islam to the Beast scpg02 6 1,186 01-05-2009, 12:17 AM
Last Post: Palladin

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)