Fuck you, Assup! Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer
He is exactly right- are you saying Christians never committed atrocities? Keep in mind during the Crusades- Christians were slaughtering muslims wherever they found them- children, women,old, etc-it wasn't like Christians were just slaughtering Muslim soldiers. You can't justify it by saying they were responding to the Islamic Jihad- that would be the equivalent of American solders killing any muslim in sight in response to 9-11.I think you need to go back and read. The most violent religion???? The Egyptians were a pretty violent bunch before the Hebrews came along. So were the Babylonians and the Hittites. Can't leave out the Assyrians and their special chariots. You say that those are not religions...every city had it's own religion in those days and it is part of the root of Islam. Of course the Hebrews kicked ass (then and now) after they left Egypt. Finally we get to the Christians but so many to chose from. I guess we can go after the Catholics but the Protestants could do some damage, but you know what? That was hundreds of years ago. We dealing with the now and who is king? Why the muslims, followed by the communists, and finally the environmentalists. (how many dead in Africa following the DDT ban?)
Here's a quote from this Christian site: http://markhumphrys.com/christianity.killings.html
Killings for Christianity
The Church started killing unbelievers as early as the 4th century. The killing (often with torture) of heretics, church splinter groups, dissenters, atheists, agnostics, deists, pagans, infidels and unbelievers was supported by almost all mainstream Christian theology for over a thousand years, starting with the intolerant St. Augustine (died 430 AD).
The article goes on to mention another true statement: Much (but not all) of Christianity's killing is in the past. Christianity had a long run as the world's most violent religion. But I think it is clear that the world's most violent religion is now Islam.
I also will agree that Islam right now is by far the most violent religion, but what Obama said is correct- Christianity has a past that is not so great- so when Christians point fingers at Muslims as if Christianity has been this peaceful religion throughout history it's clearly wrong.
Didn't the founders and many of the early Presidents own and/or support slavery? Originally Posted by wellendowed1911
what Obama said is correct- Christianity has a past that is not so great- so when Christians point fingers at Muslims as if Christianity has been this peaceful religion throughout history it's clearly wrong.Anyone who defends Muslim atrocities this way is nothing but a worthless dung heap and a gold mine for Islamic propaganda.
Didn't the founders and many of the early Presidents own and/or support slavery? Originally Posted by wellendowed1911
All religion breeds violence. Christianity has become corporate. It's now more of a big business. It still has its violent extremists, but admittedly, Muslims are breeding the most violent extremists at the moment. I have to agree partially with Obama. We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with the lunatic fringe of Islam. I don't know why he shies away from the term "radical Islam". Mainstream Christians understand there is a lunatic fringe, like Westboro Baptist and the militant anti-abortion nuts. Those terms do not reflect the underlying religion. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy+1000000 The reason I heard that White House don't want to use "Radical Islam" or radical muslims is because it incites and empowers ISIS. They(ISIS) like to be called those names for propaganda - the White House wants to not even acknowledge that they are even muslims- almost as if they are outcast- every time they are referred to as muslims it plays right into ISIS's hands.
It doesn't. Just as the atrocities committed by the Czar does not excuse Stalin. Nor the atrocities of plantation owners excuse or justify what some blacks do today.And you would be the ignorant fool for trying to impose your 21st century values on a 17th century society, Old-THUMPER.
But the fact that years or generations have passed does not excuse the atrocities that happened before.
They are all wrong. Originally Posted by Old-T
+1000000 The reason I heard that White House don't want to use "Radical Islam" or radical muslims is because it incites and empowers ISIS. They(ISIS) like to be called those names for propaganda - the White House wants to not even acknowledge that they are even muslims- almost as if they are outcast- every time they are referred to as muslims it plays right into ISIS's hands. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911
That is novel; I haven't heard the WH make this argument. I would love to see Jan Psaki or Josh Earnest spin this to the American public.It was pointed out when Obama referred to Muslim atrocities in the speech he didn't use the world "muslim" but rather "religion" or "religious."
Let's see how it plays in Peoria. Originally Posted by Whirlaway
+1000000 The reason I heard that White House don't want to use "Radical Islam" or radical muslims is because it incites and empowers ISIS. They(ISIS) like to be called those names for propaganda - the White House wants to not even acknowledge that they are even muslims- almost as if they are outcast- every time they are referred to as muslims it plays right into ISIS's hands. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911Good point. If only we hadn't used the term "Nazis" WWII wouldn't have happened. Smert thinkin'. From now on, I won't honor "Nazis" by calling them "Nazis", I'll call them "Democratic Socialists."