Both sets of extremists abandon scientific evidence for wild faith, but are resolutely dogmatic, both don't believe in free thinking or free love. Both sets are aggressive in their belief, both are responsible for a great deal of hate in the world. Both groups perpetuate the evils of organised religion, & both push for war. What self-evident comparisons can we draw between the extreme religious right (especially in the USA) and extreme 'Muslims' throughout the wider world? Are both actually the same breed of thoughtless drone & a huge detriment to free thinkers throughout the world?
sort by best latest
Sid..you say it all so well!!!
Thanks! Wonderful if people of each faith worked first themselves to renounce violence, second, to help members of their own faith do so, and third to address others' violence? So I understand Jesus saying to remove the log from our own eye first.
One of the 99 names of Allah: Al-Badi,The Originator, The Incomparable; he who creates wonders in the universe WITHOUT ANY DESIGN. And you say Muslims and Christians worship the same Creator?
What about the Bush administration and how they turned the middle east upside down? What about the Swedish dude that just massacred 70 students? What about Wolfofitz? There are plenty of examples of Christian terrorists. Don't make me list them all
Bush did a great deal of public prayer when he invaded Iraq, yes. But ultimately, Islam is a religion based on and bred for war. By contrast, Christianity is based on hustling money--which sometimes leads to war.
Further to what JSChams has said, none of these people you mention were born-again Christians or did any of these things in the name of Christ.
None of those people were Christians. A Christian is a person who follows the teachings and example of Jesus Christ. None of those people did that. Really, it doesn't take too much brain power to see that!
But many other self-proclaimed Christians supported W's invasion of Iraq. It's a bit of a cop-out to say "no true Christian" would do that. (In fact, there's a logical fallacy called "No true Scotsman" that deals with this very argument.)
It's really quite easy...read the Gospels and see what Jesus did, if people say that they are Christians but don't act like HIM then if I were you I would disregard their claim. They are NOT followers of Jesus Christ and that is that.
Killing doctors who perform abortions, killing gays, attacking mosques, the KKK, Christian militia groups, anti-semetic attacks, bombing plan parenthood clinic etc etc Visit the Southern Law Poverty Center: http://www.splcenter.org/
The correlation is utter nonsense. It's like condeming technology for the unibomber because he wrote such anti-technology views in his manifesto. Or condeming animal rights supporters because ALF is one of the nations top domestic terrorist groups.
@Landmarkwealth- you are right. This is crazy! Comparing random people who use religion as an excuse for their actions vs. what the entire religion stands for. Amazing!
From this discussion, it would seem that is what is happening. But there is another option - genuine, loving, respectful dialog that opens the hearts of peoples of different faith to themselves, and to one another.
The problem is with the undefined nature of the "extremists" I have answered clarifying that problem.
Then why does my born again cousin send me crap about how all the gas stations in CT are owned by people from the middle east and how the Muslim brotherhood is taking over America? Same fear based hate propaganda fed to extremists around the world.
I'm guessing you are a 'Christian' Brie, and you feel a trifle rattled.....?
Yes, I am but that doesn't negate the fact that you seem to have an agenda here.
Yes I do have an agenda...and I'm proud to. By the way you have me banged to rights - I do hate. I hate injustice. I hate war. I hate hypocrisy. I hate the use of religion for dark purposes. Doesn't that mean I love justice, I love peace, etc?
True Islam isn't about hate or killing either Polly, Both sides please!
But your question implied that ALL born agains are extremist VS radical islamist. You lumped an entire group of people in one faith with a small segment of another faith that uses violence as a means of theological conversion to further your bias.
Indeed. While born-again extremists do exist, most born-again Christians /aren't/ extremists, just like most Muslims aren't extremists.
And as I've said before, extremists--of any faith--have a lot in common.
There are counterfeits in all things I suppose and the real thing should not be judged by those. Be more specific if you want answers to match up with your thoughts and ideas.
These are the same doctors who are feeding the populace of the United States poisonous pharmaceuticals? Oh, yes, very clever people.
Like the drugs that saved my fathers life when he had Hodgkins ??? Your statement shows a lack of understaning of what it takes to become a doctor. 8 years of school, 6 years of residency. It is easy to criticize until you need them.
On the contrary, landmarkwealth, after being misdiagnosed (as have been a far larger proportion than hitherto acknowledged), for 40 years, I know exactly what I'm talking about. I've celiac disease and every single doctor on three continents missed
what does that prove...What about the millions of lives Dr's have saved. You simply generalize everyone into one mistake, My brotherinlaw is a surgeoun and divison chief at a level 1 shock trauma center. He has saved more lives than most can imagine
Pharmaceutical companies created vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella. They created drugs to control cholesterol, antibiotics, biploar disorder and another to prevent epileptic seizures for many people. Do you want a world without medications.
Good point - but I think you meant either Sunni Muslims or Shi'ite Muslims. The Sufi Muslims are a small spiritual group that has no history of violence or extremism.
True. But Sufis are a small branch of Islam, like Born-Agains are a small branch of Christianity. Sunni-Shi'ite is roughly analogous to Catholic-Protestant. I didn't mean to imply that Sufis are violent; merely that Sufism is a smaller sect.
Check out Jesus Camp. Compare Apples with Apples. There are plenty of Christians who propose and act violently, and there are just as many Muslims who live peacefully.
Thank you Sophia.
Sometimes Christian's kill doctors...
There also various instances of members of PETA commiting violent bombings. So using you logic, it only makes sense to condem those who oppose animal abuse as fanatics since the proportionality is similar.
"Christians have a God that wants a person to choose to obey His laws."
Many 'Xians' try to legislatively force their idea of God's law on non-Xians. How is that different from Sharia? It isn't.
Most Xians aren't extremists. Neither are most Muslims.
Our entire nation is based on judaeo christian values referenced in our founding documents. That is the extent of any christian influence. However one of the two founding principles was freedom of religion, which is recognized by christians at large
"Our entire nation is based on judaeo christian values referenced in our founding documents."
Show me where God is referenced in the Constitution, then. You can't, because He isn't. "Founded by Christians" /= "founded on Christianity."
The delcaration of Independence..."Endowed by our creator"
Then you are confused, or willfully clouding the issue. Our government and laws are based on the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence, which was never intended to be a governing document.
Quote the right document.
I said founding documents...That is a primary founding document that layed out the principles of what our gov'ing documents are based upon. Go back and Read Adams...The founders were greatly influenced by faith, but did not wish to mandate it.
Influenced by faith, yes, and also enlightenment-era philosophy. They deliberately chose to found a secular republic, and included exactly zero references to any deity or scripture in the Constitution.
Xian nation = nonsense.
They were oppossed to any reference of a specific faith. However the premise of Endowed rights is that they are given by god so no gov't can take them away. That was the strong religious influence.
The Constitution says authority comes from the people, not from any supernatural source. The DofI seems to support your argument, but it's not what our republic is based on, so it really doesn't.
Authority comes from people and rights come from God. There is a difference between the two. You don't have to agree. But that was the premise behind our founding. Constitution just lays out what those rights are.
You're free to believe that rights come from God if you want to (that's part of the free exercise clause, which /is/ in the Constitution), but the FACT is, our Constitution and country are /secular/ because the founders wanted it that way.
The Federalist papers demonstrated how the Constitution was an extension of the principles of the Declaration of Independence. There are at least 5 references in the Declaration to GOD including that of Divine Providence.
And yet no acknowledgement of God's authority--or even His existence--in the Constitution. Did the founders bungle it, or did they deliberately found a secular state?
Sec govt not sec society. The point was that the principals of Indiv Liberty in the constitution were rooted in the believe that God gives you rights that can't be taken. So by observing the document, you observe the christian influence so many fear
Secular government is exactly right. Society/individuals are free to believe whatever they like, and behave accordingly. But when one sect co-opts government to impose its rules on others, that's not a secular government anymore, is it?
The reason for Sec Gov't was they were concerned about religious persecution from Gov't siding with any one view, which they lived through. I don't see that happening anywhere in Gov't. My point is they based our entire system on Christian Values.
You don't see people using government to impose the rules of their faith on those who aren't of that faith? Really? So what are the various anti-gay-marriage efforts?
Christianity was one of many influences. Enlightenment philosophy was another.
Most people who are against gay marriage do so because it defies the laws of biology, nature, human reproduction and Pro-creation. At the same time they support civil unions. If it was solely religious they'd oppose civil unions.
If it weren't a religious issue, they wouldn't have a problem with gay people getting married and calling it marriage. But since it IS a religious issue, they insist on not letting gays marry at all, or that we at least call it something else.
That's not true. I oppose it on a non-religious basis as an attmept to normalize abnormal behavior. I dont teach my kids to hate gays. I also dont teach them it is normal. It is a genetic outlyer. Most Americans believe in God butare not religious
There are a lot of other abnormal behaviors that don't hurt anyone. It's not normal to be a vegetarian or an astronaut, for example, but people do it. Should we forbid everything that's outside the mainstream? Or just the stuff that /you/ don't like?
Myself and many others are opposed to it on the basis that normalizing it means they can be parents. And I happen to believe that it is very unhealthy for kids to be placed in a non traditional home including single parents adopting.
On what basis? Personal antipathy?
No based on the need for both a father and mother figure influence in a childs life that each bring different benefits to the family dynamic.
Oh, so it's just on the general principle that different = bad. I see.
I happen to think there are many things a child needs and can only learn from a father or mother I am not asking you to agree with me. I am simply pointing out that not everything is some attempt at a religious conversion to satisfy religiousparanoia
Well, I do agree that paranoia isn't always religious in nature, so there's that.
nor is my opposition paranoia. I was raised by a single divorced dad for the first half of my childhood. The lack of a motherly influence affected relationships with women early on. I see no reason to intentionally place kids in that situation
A single, divorced dad is a very different situation from two dads who love each other as much as they love their kids. Would you rather have kids in stable, loving home for life, or in a series of foster ones until they turn 18?
There is no shortage of traditional families in the US adopting. All three adoptions in my family had to go out of the country because it was too expensive and beurocratic. There is no reason to place a child in anything other than a traditional home
Sure there is: there's a nontraditional home available that wants the child. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it can't ever work for someone who isn't you.
there are commune's that have loving people, that doesn't mean it's a proper environment for a child. You're free to disagree but the point is it's not about religion. And most of the country agrees as Gay marriage is rountinely voted down.
Fine: it's not about religion. It's also not about logic or science or reason. It's just about what you approve or disapprove of. You're not fooling anyone. You think it's icky, so you want to outlaw it. That's fine, but own it for what it is.
No it's what I believe is a healthy environment for a child...You're free to believe what you want. I will stick with the laws of biology that mother nature designed for human reproduction.
Laws of biology will prevent two people of the same sex from conceiving a child; they don't prevent them from raising the child. That's your bias at work, not any law of nature.
again you miss thepoint entirely. its about the environment. try to imagine how difficult adolecense was and how much harder it would be for a young heterosexual boy to grow up in a house with two homosexual fathers. But if your ok with it go for it.
Try to imagine a kid going through adolescence with no stable family at all. If you'd prefer condemning a kid to that instead of allowing him to have two loving and supportive dads, just to please yourself, well, that's pretty sick.
Weak argument, like I said there a more than enough "Traditional" families looking to adopt. We force them out of the country to do so because we made it too inexpensive and beurocratic
If there were "plenty" of "traditional" families looking to adopt, then there would be no kids in foster care: they'd all be adopted.
Admit that you just don't like the idea, and are willing to interfere in others' lives to satisfy your own vanity.
From that statement, I will assume your family hasn't been active in the adoption community. In my family 2 kids adopted from China and 1 from guatemala because it takes too long and is too expensive in the US system.
So, your family insisted on adopting infants, then? 'Cos there are a lot of non-infants in the foster care system, not being adopted. But better not let a gay couple adopt them; that might bother someone who has nothing to do with anybody concerned.
2 were infants one was not. It can cost as much as 50k in NY to adopt and take an enormous amount of time whether infants or not. I already explained my reasons. If you choose not to believe it that's your problem.
I believe you /think/ you're being rational, but there's a difference between being rational and rationalizing. You're rationalizing your prejudice against gay people. Lots of folks do that; it helps them feel good about themselves.
You can call it predjudice...i call it the best interest of a child. People living in communes are also very loving. But i don't think that would be an appropriate place to put a child. Maybe I am predjudice against having 15 mom's in a commune.
Call it what you want; you're only fooling yourself.
Yes...If someone disagrees with you there fooling themsevles
You're fooling yourself about your reasons for discriminating against gays. You're not fooling me. You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how invalid that opinion may be.
Your fooling yourself into believing it's discrimination. I am opposed to single parents adopting as well. yet I was once single. I guess i discriminate against myself.
Keep rationalizing if you like. It won't change that you're discriminating based on nothing more than your own prejudices.
No...based on the "Best" interest of a child.
It's fitting that you put the word best in quotes.
Correct, because that is the basis of my opposition.
No, correct because that's the accepted practice for showing that the word denotes something that's false or simulated.
I was simply quoting my earlier statement. Interesting talent you have in being able to identify someones true reason for what they believe. Can you also guess what number someone is thinking.
Your every statement on why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry has been dressing up your prejudice in pseudo-logic, to make something irrational and ugly seem rational and laudable. You're not bad at it, but it still didn't work.
It couldn't be because I genuinely believe it is unhealthy for kids to be adopted by gays, single people, those living a communal life or any other form of a non-traditonal family. It has to be predjudice against one group.
I'm sure you do genuinely believe that nonsense. But it's not supported by science in any way, and it's not rational. Mere genuine belief doesn't get you a free pass.
On the contrary, there was a study just released earlier this year that affirms my view. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/10/st...
One unpublished study, and one controversial study that contradicts 30 years of scholarship, and is endorsed by a guy from the Family Research Council, an anti-gay hate group.
Yes, the "evidence" is overwhelming....
Theyre were two sep studies cited in the article. You just said there was no science at all. In fact there is is such evidence that contradicts prior studies. Sounds like you read as much on this as you researched religous reference in our founding
I mentioned both studies in my post, which you'd know if you'd read it. Sounds like you're cherry-picking your data, just like you cherry-picked your nonsense about how the USA is based on Xian values.
Yes I cherry picked the multiple references to god written by christian founders. And the fact that the Federalist papers specifically represent this as the framework for the constituion. So the only studies that count must support your views.
Yes, the Christian founders who deliberately did not mention God in the Constitution. Are you just upset that I'm calling you on your prejudices?
You have the right to your beliefs, but I'm not going to let your nonsense pass without comment.
As I already explained, I said christian values were the basis, not mandated christian religion. If you read the Federalist papers you'd know that already.They were quite explicit in stating god given rights as the basis for our nations freedoms.
Except Xian values weren't the basis: if they were, the US would have a king, as ordained by God, which was the prevailing Xian doctrine at the time.
Xianity wasn't the only--or even the most important--influence on the framers.
John Adams June-1813 letter to Jefferson. "The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity" My thesis was on this subject. You could not be more wrong. Adams was a key author and founder
Really? Where'd you get your MA?
Undergrad Fordam MA was SBU in LI, You might also take note that madison derived the concept of 3 branches of govt from the bible.To yoursuggestion of predjudice. One of my best friends since HS is gay. My view doesnt mean I hate gays as you portray.
You don't hate your BF from HS, fine: I believe you. But you also don't trust him to be a parent because he's gay. Can you reconcile that?
Prejudice doesn't always mean hate.
He is a She, and she actually agrees with me. In fact she is excellent with kids.Yet she recognizes that her and her partner cant provide some of the guidance a child would need from a father.Her partner disagrees with me.Hence they have not adopted.
Piss Christ destroyed by Christian protesters:
as an afterthought I wanted to add that, it's really religion turned into a political entity which is possibly being discussed here
All the religious zealots responding to this question have just made it official for me... POOF!, I am now a Buddhist .. So now you can all tell me to go to hell for picking the perceived to be 'wrong team'... *rolls eyes*
Welcome aboard. I've been Buddhist since 1980. (I'm also Christian, Jewish & Hindu, & I bet I offended a few people by saying so, but joined good company, like Gandhi, too). We have our extremists as well: Tamil Tigers & poison gas on Tok
Agreed. A fanatic doesn't recognize he is one. :(
Go ahead and redefine them for me....
By the way I am not here to ask partial questions. I approach the forum with an opinion, clearly Larry, as is quite evident.
This is not intended to be a forum. There is a separate place for that. This is suppose to be a question and answer session and responses, being limited to a few characters make meaningful debate or discussion nearly impossible. This is a forum topic
Science invalidates the Christian Faith? Ridiculously stupid assertion. Science doesn't disprove God or Christ Jesus in any way. Christians do not cause misery to anybody. Christians created charity, hospitals, the university, science, and liberty.
The majority of Drs and a small majority of scientist are people of faith. And the Catholic church is the largest charity on the planet.
...and the Pope has the biggest golden house on the planet. Let's face it: Islam is based on power, war, and obedience. Christianity is based on hustling money in exchange for happiness.
Actually, science invalidates the bible. Also, there isn't one ounce of secular proof that Jesus existed. Also evolution invalidates the bible. Virtually all scientists are atheists for a reason. Doctors are stupid people. Look at American health.
Try reading the latest study by Rice university, 51 percent of scientist believe in GOD including the head of the Human Genome mapping. And Evolution is still an unproven theory. There is absolute proof jesus lived. Just not proof he was a messiah
Evolution is a theory in the same way that gravity is a theory. LandmarkWealth, please learn what the word "theory" means to a scientist.
On the contrary, gravity is a proven theory. Evolution is still missing the "Missing Link" And Evolution does not disprove God.
To characterize entire groups in one way is like saying that "All Chinese restaurants serve fatty food!" Life is not just anyone's black and white.
I've seen Jesus Camp the movie and the people who run it are modeling it muslim extremists, they are trying to build an army of Christian warriors. They can't wait to start a crusade. I see it as child abuse to brainwash children.
Excellent response and a great place to end it. I have been meaning to stop following it, but have failed to do so. I will in a moment. This has gone on long enough and as i said earlier should had been in the forum section. My personal opinion.