What are the obvious comparisons between Born Again Christians & Extreme Muslims

1. 54

   Joe Cookposted 11 years ago

   What are the obvious comparisons between Born Again Christians & Extreme Muslims?
   
   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?

   replyreport
2. 85

   James A Watkinsposted 11 years ago

   They are opposites. A born again Christian is full of love, joy, and peace. He only wants to do good to his neighbor, to serve his fellow man, and to serve God. A Muslim extremist wants to kill everybody who doesn't agree with him. Example the riots over some video hardly anybody has ever seen. Notice you do not see any killings over "Piss Christ," as sacrilegious as it is.  Christians love science and technology, which by themselves are neutral. They only object to the use of science by Satanists to delude people that there is no God.  The greatest evils that ever appeared in this world have been atheists—Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot—over 100 million dead souls. Free love would violate God's moral law, true. But it never brings happiness anyway so why fight for it unless you have a heart of darkness that hates the light. Some people object to God expecting something out of human beings morally.  But perhaps we should not give in to every urge, every base desire; maybe we should reach for something higher than bestiality. You can't find a more beautiful person than Jesus.

   replyreport
   1. 64

      peanutroasterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
3. 60

   Brie Hoffmanposted 11 years ago

   Wow, the way you formed your question ...YOU sound like YOU are full of hate!

   replyreport
   1. 54

      Joe Cookposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I'm guessing you are a 'Christian' Brie, and you feel a trifle rattled.....?

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Brie Hoffmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, I am but that doesn't negate the fact that you seem to have an agenda here.

      replyreport
   3. 54

      Joe Cookposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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?

      replyreport
4. 67

   Mazzy Boleroposted 11 years ago

   While both can annoy others by their self-righteousness and belief in their own moral superiority, so far the born-again Christians aren't committing terrorist acts, as far as I know.

   replyreport
   1. 54

      Joe Cookposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Old Empresarioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   3. 67

      Mazzy Boleroposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   4. 60

      Brie Hoffmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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!

      replyreport
   5. 73

      Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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.)

      replyreport
   6. 60

      Brie Hoffmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   7. 64

      peanutroasterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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/

      replyreport
   8. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   9. 84

      Skarletposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      @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!

      replyreport
5. 67

   LandmarkWealthposted 11 years ago

   This question shows a great misunderstanding of theology and what people of faith stand for.  The implication seems that those of faith are somehow ignorant or not "Free Thinking" as you stated.  You might want to do some homework on this topic.  More than 70% of Doctors in the United States surveyed stated that they believe in God.  A large number of them belong to organized religions, while some are simply more spiritual. 
   
   Several years ago Elaine Howard Ecklund of Rice University completed a study on the topic of faith among scientist from the most elite universities in the nation.  While there were more Atheist in the scientific community when compared to the general population, they where still not in the majority.  More than 50% of the scientist surveyed believed in God.  Again not all of them belonged to organized religions, yet many, I believe between 20-30% did.  Among them were Dr. Collins, the scientist who headed the project to map the human genome.  He in fact is more of an evangelical christian.  In reality it is evangelicals more so then "Born Again" christians that feel it is their responsibility to spread their faith to non-christians.
   
   The point is simply that I would hardly classify a man who is smart enough to map the human genome as lacking in the ability to "think freely".  Nor would I say that of people of many other faiths that make up the community of medical doctors.  In fact I would argue that these are the most educated free thinkers in the world.  That doesn't make them correct in their faith.  Perhaps the Atheist are all correct.  We'll all find out eventually.  But ones committment to faith is by no means a sign of ignorance. In fact the ignorance lies in the lack of understanding of those who are committed to faith.  I find that most such suggestions come from those that haven't stepped inside of a house of worship in decades, if ever.  Yet they proclaim to understand what ones faith means to them.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      These are the same doctors who are feeding the populace of the United States poisonous pharmaceuticals? Oh, yes, very clever people.

      replyreport
   2. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   3. 0

      Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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

      replyreport
   4. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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

      replyreport
   5. 0

      Larry Wallposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
6. 71

   mythbusterposted 11 years ago

   This is a topic that I feel can only further entrench stereotypes of two already demonized groups of people.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Old Empresarioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Agreed

      replyreport
   2. 85

      SidKempposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   3. 63

      Perspycaciousposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The problem is with the undefined nature of the "extremists" I have answered clarifying that problem.

      replyreport
7. 0

   Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years ago

   I think both see themselves as superior to each other - the first because they were the 'last' word given to them by God, and the Christians because at the end of Revelations, it says that no man can add anything to these words, so there can be no further revelations from God and anything that comes after the Christian word must, therefore, be false. That said, both sets of people see themselves as god chosen and superior to the rest of humanity, and both see themselves with a God given humanity to convert others.
   
   There is one difference, though. Christians do not see themselves as using violent means to convert whereas the Wahhabi sect of Islam does.
   
   If you google or youtube 'Jesus Camp,' you find the violent war like equivalent of Christianity for the Wahhabi. sect of Islam.
   
   Both sets see their 'scriptures' as the word of God. Both sets have taken a step back from science because science invalidates their belief system. Both sets truly believe themselves to be righteous people and that they will find ample reward in their next lives.
   
   Both sets cause tremendous misery to the people of the world.
   
   Very sad.

   replyreport
   1. 85

      James A Watkinsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   2. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   3. 0

      Old Empresarioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      ...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.

      replyreport
   4. 0

      Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   5. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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

      replyreport
   6. 69

      PewterPigeonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Evolution is a theory in the same way that gravity is a theory. LandmarkWealth, please learn what the word "theory" means to a scientist.

      replyreport
   7. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      On the contrary, gravity is a proven theory.  Evolution is still missing the "Missing Link"  And Evolution does not disprove God.

      replyreport
   8. 63

      Perspycaciousposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   9. 64

      peanutroasterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
8. 0

   Old Empresarioposted 11 years ago

   Well, the Born Agains don't suppress the individual rights of women. Also, churches are viewed by Christians as sanctuaries of peace in which anyone can walk in anytime for prayer or assistance. Weapons are prohibited within a church. By contrast, the Mosque is a small walled fortress with minarets and towers. None but Moslems may enter to pray according to a strict obeisant ritual. Weapons are allowed inside a Mosque. Born-Again Christians have a prescribed and deliberate method by which they evangelize, which is not terribly invasive. Islamic religious leaders blast prayer-time over Mosque’s speakers for all to hear. Most importantly, whether they know it or not, 21st-Century Christians are by-products of the Renaissance, the Protestant Reformation, and the Enlightenment. Christians today generally accept and appreciate the past and have no desire to destroy ancient icons, artwork, pagan statues (that might be valuable), or buildings. Extreme Islam is still bent on destroying a cultural past, ripping down statues, and burning works of art. New extreme Christianity is somewhat cynical in itself, where sex and money and things to be enjoyed. Christians want like to follow traditional Jewish laws where only men and women copulate, criminals are punished, and pregnant women have babies. There are a lot of Christian men with homosexual inclinations, which creates the homophobic extremism in Christianity. Islam is based on stern obedience and power. Women get nothing out of the religion. A true cynic might look at Christianity and see that the liturgy and culture of it all is ultimately centered on money: how to cheat people out of it in exchange for making them feel happy and content. That’s sort of a harmless concept on the surface. Islam is warrior-like in nature with its prayer methods where men line up in military formations, all doing the same thing. Its roots may go back to uniting the Saracen tribes to conquer Rome and Persia for the Theocratic Caliph.

   replyreport
9. 85

   SidKempposted 11 years ago

   Hi Joe - "Born again" may be too broad a term for what you are trying to say. There are many "born again" Christians who are neither extreme nor fundamentalist.
   
   Yet there is something in what you say. There is an important book, "Accounting for Fundamentalisms" by Martin E. Marty and the Fundamentalism Project. It's well over 500 pages, and hard to summarize here.
   
   The key is that all the world religions (Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity) have fundamentalist, extremist sects who lose the piece and joy of their faith. And these sects have parallel historical sources. So the creation of fundamentalism is a human sociological and historical fact, not a religious or spiritual truth. And it is not about rejection of science, as there have been religious fundamentalisms long before science was invented, and there are now some scientific fundamentalists, as well.
   
   I affirm the beauty, purity, and wonder found within each faith. And it is important to remember that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all worship the same Creator. However, groups we call sects can fall into hatred and fear and get stuck. And so fundamentalisms are formed.

   replyreport
   1. 53

      whonunuwhoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Sid..you say it all so well!!!

      replyreport
   2. 85

      SidKempposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   3. 80

      Judah's Daughterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      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?

      replyreport
10. 73

    Jeff Berndtposted 11 years ago

    You're making the mistake of assuming that a born-again Christian is necessarily "extremist."
    
    Any religious extremist is going to have a lot in common with the extremists in another religion. But saying that born-again Christians are all extremists is like saying that all Sufi Muslims are extremists. It just ain't so.

    replyreport
    1. 85

       SidKempposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
    2. 73

       Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
11. 53

    whonunuwhoposted 11 years ago

    Are you questioning that Christians are not all born again, for that is our belief, that when we accept the Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, we are all born again and then to become Baptized in this further supports our commitments? If you are referring to some individuals who seem to take the opportunity to take advantage of the faith of others and promote the obsessive and seemingly compulsive notion that we will be saved if we donate everything we own and have, to a special enterprise, then I see some reason to poke a little fun, as you may be  trying to do in your question. The extremists in any form of religion, go beyond the precepts set and malign any that are so done.The ones that do this show a disservice to all forms of religion, because they claim that they alone represent the truth..which is a lie.

    replyreport
12. 67

    CriticalMessageposted 11 years ago

    The only ones who can not see their fanaticism are the fanatics themselves.

    replyreport
    1. 67

       CriticalMessageposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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*

       replyreport
    2. 85

       SidKempposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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

       replyreport
    3. 0

       Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Agreed. A fanatic doesn't recognize he is one.

       replyreport
13. 80

    Electro-Denizenposted 11 years ago

    Fascinating topic... both are different... and yet the antagonism between the two, is only possible if there IS some kind of resonance going on...

    replyreport
    1. 80

       Electro-Denizenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       as an afterthought I wanted to add that, it's really religion turned into a political entity which is possibly being discussed here

       replyreport
14. 57

    republicagainposted 11 years ago

    You do propose an interesting question here are my thoughts on it . . .
    Muslims yell Allah Akbar as they kill their fellow soldiers who never had a chance to fight back. 
    Christians stand on street corners with signs that support unborn life who can not fight back. 
    Muslims are told by their book to kill infidels and unbelievers. 
    Christians are told by their book to pray for their enemies. 
    Muslims promote Sharia law that dictates every aspect of a persons life. 
    Christians have a God that wants a person to choose to obey His laws.
    Yes I see the obvious diff . . . I mean similarities between Muslims and Christians,

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
    2. 54

       Joe Cookposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Thank you Sophia.

       replyreport
    3. 79

       Uninvited Writerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Sometimes Christian's kill doctors...

       replyreport
    4. 67

       LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
    5. 73

       Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       "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.

       replyreport
    6. 67

       LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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

       replyreport
    7. 73

       Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       "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."

       replyreport
    8. 67

       LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       The delcaration of Independence..."Endowed by our creator"

       replyreport
    9. 73

       Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
    10. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    11. 73

        Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    12. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    13. 73

        Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    14. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    15. 73

        Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    16. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    17. 73

        Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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?

        replyreport
    18. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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

        replyreport
    19. 73

        Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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?

        replyreport
    20. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    21. 73

        Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    22. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    23. 73

        Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    24. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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

        replyreport
    25. 73

        Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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?

        replyreport
    26. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    27. 73

        Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        On what basis? Personal antipathy?

        replyreport
    28. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    29. 73

        Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Oh, so it's just on the general principle that different = bad. I see.

        replyreport
    30. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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

        replyreport
    31. 73

        Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Well, I do agree that paranoia isn't always religious in nature, so there's that.

        replyreport
    32. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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

        replyreport
    33. 73

        Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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?

        replyreport
    34. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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

        replyreport
    35. 73

        Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    36. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    37. 73

        Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    38. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    39. 73

        Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    40. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    41. 73

        Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    42. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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

        replyreport
    43. 73

        Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    44. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    45. 73

        Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    46. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    47. 73

        Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    48. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    49. 73

        Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Call it what you want; you're only fooling yourself.

        replyreport
    50. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Yes...If someone disagrees with you there fooling themsevles

        replyreport
    51. 73

        Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    52. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    53. 73

        Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Keep rationalizing if you like. It won't change that you're discriminating based on nothing more than your own prejudices.

        replyreport
    54. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        No...based on the "Best" interest of a child.

        replyreport
    55. 73

        Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        It's fitting that you put the word best in quotes.

        replyreport
    56. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Correct, because that is the basis of my opposition.

        replyreport
    57. 73

        Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        No, correct because that's the accepted practice for showing that the word denotes something that's false or simulated.

        replyreport
    58. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    59. 73

        Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    60. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    61. 73

        Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    62. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        On the contrary, there was a study just released earlier this year that affirms my view.   http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … m-dad-fam/

        replyreport
    63. 73

        Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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....

        replyreport
    64. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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

        replyreport
    65. 73

        Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    66. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    67. 73

        Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    68. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    69. 73

        Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    70. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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

        replyreport
    71. 73

        Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Really? Where'd you get your MA?

        replyreport
    72. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
    73. 73

        Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        LI=Long Island?
        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.

        replyreport
    74. 67

        LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        replyreport
15. 64

    peanutroasterposted 11 years ago

    Both think that they have found the "one", "true" religion.  Both use fear to control their followers.  Both preach intolerance.  Both find passages in ancient texts to prove their points or views rather than science, observation or common sense. Both blame others for their own weaknesses and situations.  Both pretend to have higher morals than others.  Both seek to control what goes on in people's bedrooms.  Both pretend that homosexuality doesn't exist in their religion.  Both desire push towards theocracy where their religion rules the land.  Both use god as an excuse for their intolerance and hate against those who don't follow their teachings.  Both seek to brainwash their children by controlling education or keeping their children from being free thinkers.  I could go on and on.

    replyreport
    1. 64

       peanutroasterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Piss Christ destroyed by Christian protesters:
       http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ap … protesters

       replyreport
16. 79

    ssafferyposted 11 years ago

    Don't ask me! I'm wondering if static electricity is the equivalent of the devil for Scientologists'. Just the notion of that idea, pioneered by me of course, makes me laugh really hard!

    replyreport
17. 79

    jose7polancoposted 11 years ago

    Extremist muslims the world believes they are violent and born again christians are believed not to hurt anyone but to seek peace with one another,
    Do not stereotype those two religions, their point is to seek God and happiness, just because some muslims are blamed for terrorist attacks does not means there is always one awaiting for you on the next corner to explode a bond, and not just because they are born again christians do not means they will believe anything you say just because you claim God told you that.
    
    Every one, even in those religion, is different. Some are violent, some are honest and men of peace.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Larry Wallposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
18. 63

    Perspycaciousposted 11 years ago

    "Born again" is also a phrase in the Holy Bible which Christians revere.  As a result, all Christians may be termed "born again [as] Christians".  You will need, in reference to  your term "Born Again Christians," to clarify which specific group or groups of Christians you are referring to as being "responsible for a great deal of hate in the world."  As for "extreme Muslims" the same might be true.  Are you combining extreme Sunis and extreme Shiites?  Are you referring only to terrorist extremists among those groups, Wahabis as a group?  Etc.  Without clarification of your terms, it makes little sense to respond with an answer before clarification.

    replyreport
19. 60

    Xenonlitposted 11 years ago

    They are power and money hungry opportunists. They are psychopaths who pervert religious law, faith and belief. They anger God and they blaspheme by following the ways of other Gods and fallen angels.
    
    Their followers will not be better off.

    replyreport
20. 0

    Larry Wallposted 11 years ago

    Joe Cook:
    As a former news reporter, I can promise you one thing--you will never be accused of asking an impartial question.  You question sets forth information that is subjective and inaccurately groups people, which amounts to asking a leading question, which by nature seeks a certain answer and not necessarily an objective or accurate answer.
    
    For the record, I wish you would define "born again Christians" and "extreme Muslims."

    replyreport
    1. 54

       Joe Cookposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Go ahead and redefine them for me....

       replyreport
    2. 54

       Joe Cookposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       By the way I am not here to ask partial questions. I approach the forum with an opinion, clearly Larry, as is quite evident.

       replyreport
    3. 0

       Larry Wallposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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

       replyreport
21. 67

    Admiral Murrahposted 11 years ago

    Extremists groups, whether religious or political share many common traits and techniques. They use many common ways of forcing their agenda onto others and shutting out any open or fair discussions which would be considered threatening. read more

    replyreport
22. 84

    Skarletposted 11 years ago

    There are none really. Born again Christians for the most part want to be good, and see good being done in the world. This can irritate people who are not of the same mindset and therefore people will often have a misplaced, negative attitude towards Christians. A Christians job is to deliver good news.
    
    The good news is that Christ died for your sins and resurrected proving his power over life and death.
    
    The job of the extreme Muslims is to convince you to convert or die.
    
    The born again Christian says to love your enemies.
    
    The extreme Muslim says anyone who is not a Muslim is an infidel and must be killed.
    
    That is two big ones,
    But, one that many women find particularly different between the two is that Muslim women have to wear an uncomfortable sac and be dowsed with acid if they try to learn things outside of what their husband wants.
    
    If a Christian woman commits adultery she is advised to repent.
    
    If a Muslim woman commits adultery she is raped and stoned to death.
    
    A born again Christian will give you the freedom to leave the faith if you wish. They will encourage you not to, but its your choice.
    
    Two very different religions.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Brie Hoffmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Amen Sister!

       replyreport
23. 58

    lostdogrwdposted 11 years ago

    that they both religion of man way of severing God instead of God way for there no love for one another.

    replyreport
24. 80

    Judah's Daughterposted 11 years ago

    I'll keep this short and sweet.  Born-again Christians follow Jesus (Isa, according to Islam); Muslims follow Muhammad.  Jesus and Muhammad spoke radically different messages and set radically different examples.  Born-again Christians honor Jesus and don't 'believe' in Muhammad.  Muslims believe in both Jesus (Isa) and Muhammad, yet honor Muhammad above Jesus, for when their Mahdi comes ('Guided One' or 'Redeemer'), Isa will pray behind him.  If anyone compares Muslim (Qur'an) and Christian (Bible) escatology, they are the perfect antithesis of each other.

    replyreport
25. 61

    Pollyannalanaposted 11 years ago

    True Christians do not harbor hate and they know that Christianity and Christ is for all who want it. All. Hate nor killing has nothing to do with Christ. Christ's word teaches love and the mission of Christians on this earth is to show that love and welcome others in. It is other religions and those of satan who want to do away with the Christ in Christian...and it can't be done. Many lump other religions into Christianity but without Christ, they are not Christian, which should be obvious.

    replyreport
    1. 54

       Joe Cookposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       True Islam isn't about hate or killing either Polly, Both sides please!

       replyreport
    2. 67

       LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
    3. 73

       Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport
    4. 61

       Pollyannalanaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       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.

       replyreport