What Is The Difference Between a Christian Extremest and the Taliban?

just sayin!

therefore we must all adhere to their view RTFN.

Christianity and Islam are both Jewish heresies. I simply can't understand how so many people can be aware that it's all one big unhappy, back-stabbing bad-tempered family.


There is only one god in the monotheism game. The god of the dualist Persian, Zoroaster, adopted by the pagan Judaic tribes when the Persians freed them from slavery after stomping on Babylon, back in the day. He just won't go away.

Hopefully gods have lifespans- this one has lived far beyond his time.

Christians have better PR. It's amazing what they get away with.

the kind who reads Jesus' teachings and not some lunatic fringe as these freaks who rely on Old Testament Fire and Brimstone, it makes me sick. :puke:

Former Catholic here. I stopped going when I realized no one else was doing what Jesus said.

sometimes I wonder why. :(

I stopped talking to the male god, too. You don't need a god to be a good person, and we've surely proven that having one doesn't prevent assholishness.

But who can really claim they are good all the time? No one is all good which is why we need something greater than ourselves. Even atheists can find that though.

And lots of people could do without the interference of most churches.

Besides, what did we do when we were tribal? We didn't always need a "Big Brother" to keep us honest.

I was talking about an individual belief that there's something more to life than the human weakness we see daily.

I disagree with you, I think everyone needs hope that there is something better to strive for. It's not Big Brother but a desire to be better.

The "something" many atheists consider bigger than themselves is the "greater good". I'm one who thinks that way, it's why I have worked in politics over the years. Trying to improve the lot of the greater good in the hopes I will have done something to make the world a better place during my life.

Julie

Did I jusr defend organized religion? Madness. I go now.

But I tell people not to worry about the stuff out there, I tell them to focus on the miracle of life and all the amazing things we can do. I wonder if the Shamans/Holy People did the same?

I figure if you and I leave the Catholic church that's two less liberals trying to change church views.

Is there any person on earth who follows all of Jesus's teachings? I'm not judging anyone sitting in church until I'm perfect.

And it wasn't that hard. It confused me when people got angry at me for doing it, though.

so they infiltrate religions and distort them for personal gains while dragging a god through the mud with them.

else will burn in hell.

It is a dangerous practice. Their intolerance needs to be called out by everyone.

is actually actively seeking to send non-believers to hell, whereas extreme fundamentalist christians just talk about how fucked everyone else is going to be if they don't come around.

of how a certain group of fundie Christians have infiltrated the US Government and made much progress in using the most powerful military on earth for "crusades" in the ME.

I wonder how come it is that so many do not see how, in the big picture, the fundy Christians are toting Howitzers and their arch-enemies throw rocks. This fact is somehow overlooked and it's all "tsk, tsk, those Muslims and their schools and programs that encourage kids to hurt us". We send hundreds of thousands of soldiers, fighter jets, tanks, bom It's so blatant, so obvious, so unseen by so many.

Ah well, at least we can take comfort in the fact that our chocolate rations have been increased from 8 grams to 6. Oy.

Julie

:crazy:

When Little Boots had his Freudian slip way back when.

Thankfully the interests of the oil industry and the fundy Christians converge in the ME. Epic two-fer.

Julie

Extremists are extremists. Only cultural differences separate them, but not by much.

We all have different ideas on how you define an extremist except by actions they take. The Taliban are obvious extremists because they do extreme things.

It's harder to define who or what in our society constitutes Christian extremists.

Murder doctors.

Bomb health clinics.

Infiltrate political system in order to spread religious doctrine and make a Christian Nation.

Infiltrate judicial system in order to spread religious doctrine and make a Christian Nation.

Infiltrate educational system in order to spread religious doctrine and make a Christian Nation.

Infiltrate our military in order to spread religious doctrine and make a Christian Nation.

Intolerance of any who do not believe as they do.

Send kids to Jesus Camps to indoctrinate the young.


And the evangelists aren't even doing it because other countries are invading us or putting military bases on our soil or using up all our natural resources.

Sure bombing a clinic is definitely extremist but actions like "Infiltrate educational system in order to spread religious doctrine and make a Christian Nation." could then be used to say a child wearing a cross to school is a Christian extremist.


Send kids to Jesus Camps to indoctrinate the young.

So then sending kids to Catholic schools could be called Christian extremism?

You know, creationism? And attempting to force people of any religion to recite the pledge of allegiance, which did not have the word god in it when written.

And you didn't hear about Monica Goodling screening people she hired in the DOJ? And how there were almost 200 unqualified "lawyers" hired into the DOJ out of Robertson's religious "university" where they barely covered actual law.

And I guess you haven't seen the documentary Jesus Camp. It's not just bible study. They had a picture of Bush on a shrine at one camp.

Open your eyes, you'll see it. And while you're at it google the military and religion. There's a site dedicated to attempting to keep religion out of the military, that's how bad it's gotten.

The problem isn't religion or evangelicals, it's the mixing of politics and religion. So why not just say that rather than using broad terms that could define many decent Christians.

That's what started this whole thing. There is an extremely organized and active effort to turn this into a Christian nation and if you are not aware of that you are simply not paying attention. And if you are offended by the Christians being implicated in it you need not be if you are not one of those extremists.

Sheesh. :eyes:

Or do you want to say that we can't talk about racists then because that implicates all human beings. If you can't discern the difference then I can no longer help you.

Saying "white racist" for instance would link white people to racism. The term "Christian extremist" can be pretty brod especially when anti-Christian people also use it to attack all Christians.

In the name of love...

:rofl:

:rofl:

In White supremacy white doesn't refer to the adherents but what they consider superior.

:eyes: Now we know you're just joshing us. "White supremacist" does not infer that the people involved are white. :wtf:

Oh damn, I missed Clayton.

:rofl:

I'm saying that the word supremacist alone has no negative connotation and only becomes negative when you denote what the person finds supreme about themselves.

Good luck with your interpersonal relationships, you'll need it!

Perhaps you meant to reply to Mesteryo's 165?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4178523&mesg_id=4181226

Dave Chappelle, is that you?

You are much more patient than I.

Whether it's Jewish, Hindu, or Christian. How terrible of me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4178523&mesg_id=4180850
So, discussing fundamentalism is wrong, we are bad, because we use that word, fundamentalism. Being against fundamentalism, whether it be christian, or any other, therefore means we are prejudiced against anyone who is of that religion, not just the fundies. I don't like fundamentalist christians is interpreted you to mean I don't like any christians. Got it.

Are defined different by different people and I've seen anti-Christian bigots use it against even liberal Christians.

in the name of their God, I guess I am prejudiced, because I think they are wrong, evil, violent, and yes, I think they are extremists.

So, what's the special word meaning bigot that I get tagged with now? Can you give me one I can at least pronounce, because I'll own it as my own...proudly. Call me prejudiced, but I know I'm right.

If you want do defend Eric Rudolph and the other ones like him, go for it. He's still an extremists in the same category as the Taliban. I hear he is in prison now, finally. I mean I know y'all protected him and hid him out up there in the mountains for YEARS and YEARS and even wrote a folk song about him. God, y'all were so proud of him, weren't you? He's such a good little Christian, not an extremist at all. After all, he was just doing good Christian work. Hey, if you want to defend his actions, I could go on and on.

Funny though, I don't see any other Christians here on DU getting all defensive when we talk about that kind of extremism. You know...the bombing, mutilation, maiming, killing, shooting extremists... OMG, gasp! Could it be that they don't condone such actions like those Eric Rudolph took? Could it be that they do not Identify with extremist nutbags like you do? That's ok though. I'm just a bigot. Sure. I do wish you would go ahead and call me at least a Christian-o-phobe or something, so I can run with it. I mean really...I am an engineer. I need to get right on designing a patented Christian-o-phobe bullshit meter of some kind so we can detect when someone is defending bombers. It's only fair that we defend ourselves from someone who defends those types of actions.

I mean, let's face it: You have already openly stated that you can't see the difference between bombing people, shooting people, and sending a kid to Catholic school. Well, isn't that special. So, tell me. How did you make the leap from the bombing, killing, and maiming examples cited to Catholic school...Do you do this often? What other extreme leaps do you make? Do you also say that by being against cross burnings, I am somehow racist too? Maybe I should make a bullshit detector to detect that kind of leap in your mind (and others like you who defend murderers and say they are not extremists) too.

So, tell me:
Why won't you even acknowledge the bombing, shooting, and maiming and why do you put those types of actions in the same category as a kid wearing a cross pendant to school? I'm not sure anyone has said a single word about some kid wearing a cross...oh, except for you, that is. None of us made that leap. You did though.

bomb abortion clinics, shoot abortion doctors, hole up with enough ammo to blow us all to kingdom come, and torture gay people in various nefarious ways on the side would qualify right there with the Taliban...and they'd do worse if they could...right here in America.

nt

It seems a beheading would be quicker. But then I have actually given birth. :eyes:

Really? I wasn't aware that there are groups of fundamentalist christians wandering the countryside, impregnating women and disallowing abortions until they die from it.




I also didn't think that giving birth is 100% lethal. Beheading is, in case you didn't know that.

but they haven't recently blown up any ancient Buddhist monuments or burned down schools with the girls locked inside.

The Fundies you're referring to certainly aren't very Christian, but the Taliban are pure fucking scum

same shit different country/tactics.

Whereas the Taliban is a single entity, and does shoot and rape women as punishment for being raped in the first place.

Life in the United States is NOTHING like life under the Taliban. But that is not becasue the religious right is less extreme, but rather because our Constitution and laws place limits on what they can impose. Despite years of errosion, they are a long way from the type of control.

But, the Taliban is a warning of what life would be like if we every allowed the United States to become a Christian Theocracy. Given the absolute power that the religious right dominionists want, we could begin to resemble a Christain version Saudi Arabia.

I really don't think some of the posters here are aware of just how horrific life under radical muslim groups is, or aware of how few christians are actually heavy into forcing their beliefs/lifestyles on others.

so perhaps they were thinking of someone else.

:shrug:

Who said McVeigh was driven by Catholicism?

you are pretty relentless. :eyes:

You were using McVeigh as an example of a Christian using violence to promote a Christian agenda correct?

"Lou Michel: McVeigh is agnostic. He doesn't believe in God, but he won't rule out the possibility. I asked him, ‘What if there is a heaven and hell?’

He said that once he crosses over the line from life to death, if there is something on the other side, he will -- and this is using his military jargon – ‘adapt, improvise, and overcome.’ Death to him is all part of the adventure.”

http://www.cnn.com/COMMUNITY/transcripts/2001/04/04/michelherbeck/

He was a self-identified agnostic, not a Christian, and certainly not acting on any religious impulse much less a Christian one, and I'd appreciate it if you state a retraction of the claim.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,109478,00.html

TIME: Are you religious?

MCVEIGH: I was raised Catholic. I was confirmed Catholic (received the sacrament of confirmation). Through my military years, I sort of lost touch with the religion. I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs.

TIME: Do you believe in God?

MCVEIGH: I do believe in a God, yes. But that's as far as I want to discuss. If I get too detailed on some things that are personal like that, it gives people an easier way alienate themselves from me and that's all they are looking for now.


http://www.catholicity.com/mccloskey/mcveigh.html

Timothy McVeigh: Where Is He Now?

by Father John McCloskey

According to news reports, Timothy McVeigh, a lapsed Catholic, received the anointing of the sick, a Catholic sacrament, just minutes before his execution. Nevertheless, he died without expressing sorrow or apology to the relatives of the people for whose death he was responsible. A newspaper account quotes a relative of a victim as saying: "I don't think he gave himself to the Lord, I don't think he repented. Personally I think he is in hell."

Where does McVeigh's Catholicism fit in all this? According to a priest who dealt with him for more than a year, he had most likely not practiced his faith in a sacramental sense since high school. Presumably he had a minimal knowledge of his faith, as do so many Catholics of his age and background, and had received the initial sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and holy communion.

Somewhere along the line, clearly something went horribly wrong, and he made a series of choices that culminated in the horrific crime for which he paid the ultimate penalty of the law. But at the end, we know McVeigh was anointed. We may presume that he confessed his sins, since the anointing of the sick, assuming the person about to die is conscious, requires such a confession before the sacrament can be conferred.

If this is the case, and McVeigh's confession and contrition were sincere, he received Christ's pardon for all his sins, thus reopening the way to heaven. According to Catholic teaching, McVeigh faced his Lord and Savior for judgment immediately after his death. If he was indeed in a state of grace, he would be received into heaven or sent to an intermediate state called purgatory for a period of purification. There also he would be punished for past sins that, although repented, still needed to be atoned for.

http://www.rotten.com/library/history/racism/elohim-city/

<snip>
Elohim City

Set the Wayback Machine for the 1970s, when most of America was deeply involved with swinging, disco, Watergate and Shaft. All of that wasn't enough for a Canadian fellow named Robert Millar. Particularly the Shaft part.

As a young man, Millar had embarked on a religious quest to find himself after the Mennonite sect he grew up in turned out to be overly concerned with such pussy-ethics as pacifism and racial equality.

To counteract this influence, Millar sought out one of many "manly" variations on Christian Identity, a catch-all movement encompassing a motley collection of beliefs centered around the premise "white people good, black people and Jews bad." The usual justification for this is a cockeyed historical revisionism claiming that the lost Tribe of Israel was a band of white Aryan warriors.

Millar determined that rural Oklahoma was a good place for freak-religion hate-mongers to be left alone, so he set up a remote rural compound there in 1973 with about 20 relatives. (Hey, there's more than one way to keep the gene pool chlorinated).

He named the compound Elohim City, which means "City of God." The residents were relatively moderate as hate-mongering religious freaks go. Millar would occasionally make a half-hearted effort to convince people that being a white separatist was different from being a racist.



http://www.eyeonhate.com/mcveigh/mcveigh3.html

Elohim City and Timothy McVeigh

<snip>

Clearly, this is a religious community with a difference. Its members believe that government is the enemy, that America's secular, multicultural society is a present-day Gomorrah, and that Elohim City is a bunker in a great battle between the children of darkness (the Jews) and the children of light (the Aryan race). Elohim City became the subject of scrutiny in the last year when telephone records revealed thatTimothy McVeigh made calls to the rural enclave in the weeks prior to the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. More recently, however, it has been learned that Timothy McVeigh was heavily involved with the domestic terrorists who frequent Elohim City and who practice Christian Identity. But McVeigh's involvement is just one of a host of links that connect the increasingly violent activists of the racist far right to the doctrine which helps to inspire them. Christian Identity, which elevates white supremacy and separatism to a Godly ideal, is the ideological fuel that fires much of the activity of the racist far right.

By reinterpreting the biblical story of creation, practitioners of Christian Identity believe they have discovered a cosmic justification for modern-day racism. According to this reinterpretation, the origins of the Asian and African races lie in biblical "beasts of the fields" � beings of an order lower than humans, whose existence predates God's creation of Adam "in his own image." Adam was not the first man, but the first white man. As the Christian Identity version of the Creation story unfolds, the serpent, disguised as a white man, gets into the Garden of Eden and seduces Eve, who bears the devil � a son in the form of Cain. That's how the Jews get into the picture. Demonizing Jews has a lengthy history in Western culture, but for contemporary racists, Christian Identity provides the ultimate proof that Jews are indeed the "spawn of Satan." Their evidence is even more convincing than the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the faked 19th-century document which purported to be proof of a worldwide Jewis h conspiracy. Identity followers draw their antisemitism and racism from the Bible.

Although the connections are seldom made by the media, Christian Identity provides the ideological backbone of such groups as the Aryan Nations, which seeks to claim the western mountains as a white homeland; the Midwestern Posse Comitatus, a militant un derground which believes that the local sheriff is the highest legitimate elected official in the land; and Freemen groups like the one that held law enforcement authorities at bay in Montana in 1996. On a more practical level, Christian Identity enclaves provide a trail of safe havens for movement activists, stretching from Hayden Lake in northern Idaho to Elohim City on the Oklahoma/Arkansas border. When Posse leader Gordon Kahl � eventually killed i n a shootout with federal marshals in 1983 � was on the run, he found shelter with Christian Identity followers in Arkansas. When the FBI was closing in on the Order gang, which had robbed banks and murdered Denver talk show host Alan Berg in the mid-1980 s, its members sought refuge in Bull Shoals Lake, Arkansas, encampment of the Covenant, Sword & Arm of the Lord, a Christian Identity religious community. And 1996 court documents indicate that members of the Aryan Republic Army, a Midwest gang of bank robbers who vowed to use their loot to finance a white revolution and who McVeigh became involved with, had ties to Elohim City.

Given the extraordinary prominence of Christian Identity in defining racial ideology and its political expression on the far right, it is astounding how little serious attention has been paid to the subject by mainstream Christian denominations. It is, after all, the most deeply held beliefs of Christian theologians and clergy � and the doctrines of their religious orders � that have been seized and twisted by Christian Identity practitioners to justify their very "un-Christian" acts. And these religious leaders have both the moral authority and � by virtue of their familiarity with the Bible and with Christian doctrine � the expertise needed to fight back. Yet with few exceptions, the mainstream denominations have remained curiously silent in the face of these modern-day crusades.


now please put me on ignore if you don't want to play.

calling him a Christian terrorist to saying he was born to a Catholic family and agreed to receive last rites, and saying other nutjobs were Christians so...that's the same thing as him being a Christian?

Bull. If religious upbringing make a person religious for life, then a lot of atheists are going to be surprised to find out they're really believers. And if there's such a thing as religious-by-association, then same thing goes.

You can copy and paste all you'd like about people who are not McVeigh, but there's nothing showing that McVeigh was religious at the time of the attack, his waffling answer implicitly says he wasn't, much less that he acted violently based on religious belief. That he may or may not have returned to religion--his contradictory and qualifier-laden answers make it essentially impossible to say--is immaterial to whether he was a religious terrorist.

Same thing, different costume.

Not in 1000 AD before the advent of liberal democracy in upper Europe. Christianity did those things in an archaic time when everyone was doing it. Taliban does it counter to social mores accepted universally.

and we have to look forward now".

Additionally, the majority of muslims do not advocate what the taliban does, though they do nothing to stop it, so I guess that's a wash.

I'm saying we should all remember the past, learn from it, and not repeat it's mistakes. The Taliban won't do that.

muslims or any religion since it's all delusion, but the christians have never atoned for their innumerable sins, and continue to direct their members to behave in ways injurious to them and the world at large.

It's silly to broadly say Christians all haven't "atoned for the past", whatever that means. Nor do I see how I as a Christian am harming the world or myself. You're being pretty bigoted with these statements.

He said "the Christians", how does that not imply all Christians? It's like racists saying "the blacks", of course they mean as a whole.

The chickens crossed the road. All the chickens crossed the road. See the difference?

"The blacks" or "the Jews", or categorize a group of people of the same race or religion in a negative manner.

You are now changing your point. You make a point, get called on it, then change it. Wild.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3524808&mesg_id=3526813 (omg! you think all russians are agents and are bad!)


I got sucked back in, bye.

But the word agent doesn't involve a necessarily negative connotation. If I said "Russian commies" you'd have a point.

Just one of numerous examples available of the church hurting it's members and the rest of us.

Atone; 1. to make amends or reparation, as for an offense or a crime, or for an offender

But unlike the Taliban there aren't Catholic authorities killing and torturing people who use birth control. Women, even in my town which is 75% Catholic can get birth control without fear they will be killed.

Try that in Taliban controlled areas of Pakistan.

We've been there before and it looks like some are trying very hard to push us back there.

Bottom line, all these books are stories made up to explain the (then) inexplicable and more importantly to create a power base for the leaders. Any fools that take this shit literally are probably hopeless.

Catholics are perfectly free to use birth control in this country without fear of being killed, unlike in Afghanistan. Where are these Catholics who remotely advocate killing women for using birth control? Total straw man.

Sure there are Catholic women who don't use birth control due to their faith but isn't that their choice to make?

Otherwise they wouldn't be giving you so much hell for pointing out that life in America, where Catholics exist and have their own sets of rules/beliefs (and what the Catholic church has for life rules does not mean that all catholics follow those rules 100% or are excommunicated, that is silly) is vastly different than survival in Taliban-controlled parts of the world. There is no comparison, no matter how much anger you feel about the catholic church being anti-abortion or anti birth control, they are not in any way comparable to the taliban.

Christian Nation there will be plenty more to come.

is because the fad is over? "Christianity did those things in an archaic time when everyone was doing it." Whew! I'm glad I missed that trend. :eyes:

IMO they aren't "better" because they don't do these things; they just live in a superior military power and can afford to sit in armchairs and cheer. If the Muslim extremists had armies, they'd be better people? They resort to terrorism because they don't have a military that could fight the U.S. and western powers. If the fundies didn't have that kind of military, they might well turn to terrorism.

How does our military push evangelical Christian agenda?

And there's a big evangelical push with bible thumpers bullying people with religion.

So you can get some perspective. Nothing of the sort is happening, in fact sensitivity training is a part of the training that Military Police units give to other units bound for Iraq and Afghanistan. Don't just take my word for it though, go get some firsthand experience.

The extremist Christians here who don't resort to terrorism don't do it because they don't have to. In their perception, the U.S. military might, that of a "Christian nation" (their idea) is doing it for them. The military may not really be over there trying to force people to be Christians, but we're talking about the fundie nutcases. They think it is. They're as OK with attacking other people as the Taliban are. Or any terrorists for that matter.

Listen to some of them talk. We're over there to kill the Muslim enemies, in their view. The terrorists try to kill as many Westerners (Christians) as they can. Who is more successful at killing more people?

Does not make it so. You think that what some tiny group of loonies who believe the U.S. military is laying down supressive fire against non-believers feel makes reality? That is ridiculous! Some loonies believe the holocaust never happened, and still others believe that the attacks of 9/11 either did not happen or were orchestrated by the U.S. government, does their retarded beliefs make their retarded ideas true? Not in my book.

The reason western powers are actively engaging the taliban at all is because of a major terrorist attack orchestrated by a man that they are harboring and protecting. So you are saying if they had armies (which they do) they would not have needed to attack the U.S. in the first place, because they could fight back against us, despite the fact that we would have never had a reason to go there if it was not for that initial attack? I don't understand.


Unless you think the attacks of 9/11/2001 never happened, your statement makes little to no sense.

I do not think the Taliban allow any lipstick. Good on them for not killing 'trophies'.

:hi:

Not a bit of difference really other than words.

beating women in the streets for showing too much ankle.

But how about an overview:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/tcw/2004/sepoct/11.68.html

Spousal abuse in the name of god is a common occurrence- one I witnessed frequently when I was in the church's social circle.

Domestic abuse is the dark side of all marriage and relationship, not just Christians. Do Christians beat their wives more in your opinion?

Christianity offers the excuse of female inferiority(And inherent "weakness and sinfulness") and the requirement of obedience. This allows wife beaters and rapists a great deal of leeway to practice their hobby and almost no chance that they will be brought up on charges.

So tell me this has nothing to do with religion- especially when the religion refuses to deal with the problem...not unlike the Priests with the Alter Boys. You could just as easily say that Religious Polygamy has nothing to do with child rape- and you'd be just as wrong.

That women are inferior to men and are slaves to their husbands? Spousal abuse and rape aren't likely to be prosecuted in this country? That's just silly.

Who are these Christians who defend raping and abusing women? It's a huge straw man.

Then you change the subject to altar boys being abused in an attempt to blame religion for any ill of society you can find.

Next you'll tell me that Hell was well developed concept during the time of Jesus.

If you read the article, the defense of the behavior comes in the form of blanket silence and inaction regarding the issue- not unlike the Alter Boys(Did I hit a nerve, there, btw?)

The article covered all of this. Either your perception of the Christian religion is incorrect or you are hell bent on covering for their sins- Deliberately blind or deliberately lying. Either way, you are doing the religion a disservice. They need to start living in the 21st Century, or they need to dissolve.

Now you're talking about Christian doctrine on Hell...What's with that? Your problem seems to be with all of Christianity, not just violence used to promote Christianity.

I never said no Christian ever does anything bad I'm simply saying I think this "Christian extremists" who use violence to promote Christianity is a huge straw man used by people who just don't like Christian church dogma.

What does Christians need to start living in the 21st Century even mean?

Now we finally get to the heart of it- you don't like the idea that there are Christians that could be considered "Extremist Terrorists"

Guess what? There are people who bomb abortion clinics, people who infiltrate the justice system in the name of the bible, people who firebomb the houses of "heathens" and people who support "Holy War" against the 1 billion Muslims in the world. Your desire to dismiss that is irrelevant- it's a matter of public record, and the fact that the church tacitly supports such behavior does indeed make it "Christian Extremist."

The reason this is relevant to the 21st century is because such behavior fits better in the 16th century or earlier. Remember the Inquisition? The Witch Burnings? Church and State hand in glove?

Consider carefully the type of people you are defending and the victims you are spitting on when you promote lies such as you have.

Guess what? There are people who bomb abortion clinics, people who infiltrate the justice system in the name of the bible, people who firebomb the houses of "heathens" and people who support "Holy War" against the 1 billion Muslims in the world. Your desire to dismiss that is irrelevant- it's a matter of public record, and the fact that the church tacitly supports such behavior does indeed make it "Christian Extremist."

All of this has already been discussed on this thread. I didn't dismiss abortion clinic bombings but even that is an extremely rare occurrence unlike daily Taliban bombings, attacks, and killings. The last clinic bombing was over 10 years ago and women can walk the street here without fear that religious authorities will kill her for wearing makeup.

What Christian church advocates bombing clinics?

Forcing women to carry babies to term against their will, no matter the horrible circumstances concerning the pregnancy. So much more civilized! :eyes:

I don't think Evangelicals want to send out bands of men to force women to have babies the way the Taliban does with arbitrary religious law enforcement.

Also banning abortion may be too much govt. restriction of liberty but it's certainly not torture. Passing a restriction of liberty may be bad but it doesn't inflict pain on those affected.

And if this is torture than anyone who is "pro-life" would be advocating torturing women, which is silly to say.

If your profile is correct you are a man so you really have no idea WTF you are talking about.

What am I not understanding?

How does my being a man make me unable to judge what is torture? Unless you're saying pregnancy is torture.

Late-Term Abortion Saved These Women's Lives

Run Date: 10/28/04
By Molly M. Ginty
WeNews correspondent

As the so-called Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act enters the campaign-season debate, three women who have had third-trimester abortions are fighting to preserve access to a procedure that may have saved their lives.

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2046/context/archive



Tammy Watts and her daughter Savvy

(WOMENSENEWS)--Tammy Watts sat and seethed. Perched on the edge of her couch in Queen Creek, Ariz., she could barely contain her frustration as she watched the last two presidential debates.

When President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry discussed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, Watts clenched her fists.

When Bush used the term "partial-birth abortion" and called it a "brutal practice," she buried her head in her hands.

Unlike many American voters, Watts knows that "partial-birth abortion" does not exist. Coined by anti-choice activists, this term cannot be found in any medical dictionary. Its imprecision, according to defenders of choice, could target a whole host of procedures.

In political forums like the presidential debates, this catchphrase has worked its way into usage and is widely assumed to mean late-term abortions, that is, those occuring in the last three months. Though Bush calls these procedures "brutal," they maybe necessary to save the lives of women such as Watts, whose pregnancy entailed a rare complication.

"This ban threatens the lives of women who need emergency procedures," says Watts. "It's also so vaguely-worded that it could be used to outlaw any type of abortion."

Late-Term Abortions Save Women's Lives

If the ban were in place in 1995, Tammy Watts would likely be dead, she says.

In March of that year, Watts was in the eighth month of a much-wanted pregnancy and was eagerly anticipating the birth of her first child. During a routine ultrasound (the only way to detect abnormalities that require late-term abortion), she discovered her baby had Trisomy 13, a chromosomal abnormality that causes severe deformities and carries no hope of survival.

Because her baby was already dying and because this put her own life at stake, Watts had an intact dilation and extraction (D and X), the procedure that Bush condemns as "brutal."

"Losing my baby at the end of my pregnancy was agonizing," says Watts. "But the way the right deals with this issue makes it even worse. When I heard Bush mention 'partial birth abortion' during the debates, I thought 'How dare you stand there and tell flat-out lies?' There is no such thing as this procedure! Why won't the politicians listen to us?"

Watts and other women affected by this issue have tried to make legislators listen.

Even the most ardent pro-life person supports an exception to save the woman's life. So again banning abortion is too much govt. restriction of liberty but it's certainly not torture.

Not getting an abortion doesn't inflict torture but I agree it's too much govt. in a woman's life.

They don't. Let me repeat, no, even the most ardent pro-life person does NOT support exceptions to save the mother's life.


"Not getting an abortion doesn't inflict torture". Being unable to get the morning after pill after being raped ("oh we don't carry that, it is morally wrong"), being forced to carry a pregnancy to term and risk your life and health (yes, there are real health and life/death issues with even "normal" pregnancies), not being able to get an abortion because your parents have to be informed and your life and health may again be at risk, that isn't torture? Huh.

Negative consequences of bad laws isn't torture. Torture is the direct infliction of pain on a person.

is torture. Try it again, as all those scenarios fall within your "Torture is the direct infliction of pain on a person" definition.

In the example of a pregnant teen being abused by parents the torture isn't not being unable to get an abortion but the parental abuse. By your argument teen pregnancy would be torture then too because the girl is being abused as a consequence.

So, I take it you wouldn't have been able to see that slavery was torture either. I mean that was definitely a negative consequence of bad laws...and it was torture. Trust me. It was, or they wouldn't have tried to break the chains, escape to freedom, risked their lives to change the bad laws, etc.

It wasn't a negative consequence of bad laws, slavery itself was torturous and abusive.

Because the laws said they could.

The chicken or the egg. Slavery wasn't a negative consequence of bad law, it was torture itself. The law protected torture of people.

you have no business piping in on what you consider torture for child bearing women.

For one I was born with a disease that caused life long disability so please don't tell me my mother tortured herself.

But also I'm still not seeing how banning abortion is directly inflicting torture on women. You don't need to be a torture victim to judge what is torture or not.

NOT! Much more like a Puritan. When you can carry a child then we can talk.

Puritans were known for supporting legalized abortion right? Pregnant woman always say how carrying a pregnancy is torture. :eyes:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

in most cases does not torture women - it has a very restrictive set of rules for them, and some even end up getting executed for things we would be shocked at - but that's not torture.

A woman going through a pregnancy and giving birth where she doesn't want to could be torture, possibly. That's nine months. That's a lot of time. There's a big effect on the body for a long period of time. Mentally anyway, it could be torture. And when you think of it, that's what the pro-lifers are asking people to do, and asking the government to force.

This reply is truly shocking!!! You should do some reading if nothing else. :wow:

You're easily shocked, too.

... to defend one reprehensible POV because I have a more visceral hatred of the other one. I find that shockingly stupid in fact. :eyes:

Personally, I think the idea of being flogged in a village square because my brother and cousins raped me is torture. I also find the thought of never feeling the sun on my head from the time I'm 13 to my death because I'm forced, again by threat of flogging or worse, to swath my body in a big head to toe schmata should I wish to leave the house. There are many things that I would equate with torture before I would add forced childbirth to the list.

Who violate their restrictions. I'm unsure how anyone can deny that.

So then every time there is an execution, you have torture. We have the death penalty. Now you're making the OPs point.

One is quick and somewhat painless..while the other slow and very painful.

And some forms of torture may not necessarily involve Physical abuse. There is psychological abuse that can be deemed as torture.

You are right about that.

Except for the needle, though, it's hard to say any of them are better than another. In fact beheading is probably quicker and less painful than any of them, even the needle, and that's considered barbaric.

I do believe many of the cultural practices in parts of the middle east are barbaric. The treatment of women in Saudi Arabia and under the Taliban is.

So I would concede our society does not, via the government, play out the desires of far right Christian fundamentalists. Which you do have under the Taliban.

At least, no so far and hopefully not in the future. But it's not as if they aren't working towards it. We can only hope they have no success. The Taliban did, as women lived under a more liberal way before the Taliban came into power. Doctors and other professionals literally had to quit working when they'd been doing so for years. So it's a little more complex than just findiing ourselves to be superior. The reasons for going into fundamentalists mode so strongly are mixed up with the Western interference in their countries. If we were under attack from a truly threatening military, we might backlash with our culture, too and go back to earlier Christian limitations.

Inflicting too much pain so I don't see capital punishment as necessarily torture.

They are slaves.

They have zero free will, zero rights, they are treated worse then a farm animal.

:spray: I literally :rofl: at that one. Good one.

:)

or their insurance if they are lucky enough to have any

But they are a pretty isolated sect unlike Taliban controlling Afghanistan and a fourth of Pakistan. Also our govt. goes after FLDS all the time(even Utah state) and the LDS is active against them. Few in Afghanistan and Pakistan are active against Taliban.

warning of how bad things could get. But this does not mean we should be complacent here because, after all, it is horrible elsewhere.

As I said the LDS and Utah state will use and do use every resource they have going after FLDS.

They were just an example of one group.

Killing, rape of girls, forced marriage, and torture. How are you defining a Christian extremist?

same kinds of things as Moslems - and the right wing works towards, rather than away from these lifestyles, so it's not impossible for some Christian women to live under worse conditions than some Moslem women (there are Moslem countries that are more liberal).

I'm saying the term Christian extremism can easily be used as a broad stroke on all Christians.

And that kind of ruins all your arguments.

He uses phrases like Muslim terrorist and says unless a Muslim is a terrorist why should they object? They object rightfully because it links Muslims to terrorists. "Christian extremist" links Christians to extremism.

Do you object to saying "Muslim terrorist" or "black criminal"?

Oh wait, we can't. He's dead. Eight bullets, near decapitation after death, and two knives shoved deep in his chest; one was to attach the note justifying his murder.

Wonder who murdered him and what their motivation was?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director)

If she was anything like the Taliban she'd not be very accepting of her teenage daughter's pregnancy. The Taliban is more like Christian fundamentalists of the Middle Ages than the fundamentalists of today.

:shrug:

One thinks the bible is the be all and end all of human existence, the other thinks the same thing about the Qur'an.

Even the most Evangelical of Christians don't interpret the Bible as literally as Taliban takes the Koran. Evangelicals don't just use literal interpretation as source of faith.

Taliban does the Koran. They DO use literal interpretation as a source of faith. I am thinking you are funning us here. Either that or you have had a very secluded life.

Like stoning adulterous women. Yeah they interpret parts of the Bible literally but certainly not everything.

A real liberal would allow people to choose their life and beliefs and not go out of their way to mock some.

The truth is your just as much a bigot as the white souther man that will not vote for a black, a landlord that will not rent to a gay couple or a workplace that will not hire a woman

As a Christian you and your question is offensive to me. The only unprotected group in America are Christians ...but then the Bible warns us about that

If not, then what's your problem exactly with the OP?

That kink of bigotry has no place in the liberal movement.

Who decides exactly who is "extremist "?

Every one is thrown together.. think Christians are dumb? uninformed? hicks? We could do it by denomination ? Baptists anyone? Are Presbyterian safe? what about those nasty Catholics that led the crusades ? We could just wipe them all out right?

It's only about the Christian claim to somehow be inherently "better" than the Moslems, due to the existence of the Taliban and its barbaric practices. The opposite argument is that these Christians are not looking at the whole picture and shouldn't make that claim - they are capable of equally barbaric behavior under the right circumstances - and the circumstances are different in the Middle East than they are in the West.

I find the hypocrisy of so called "Christians" extremely offensive.

except that their reign of global terror lasted hundreds of years and was official policy of "mainstream" christianity and any christians that spoke out against it were tortured to death.

History to condemn Christians today?

What other groups do you hold responsible for the sins of their fathers?

If you're out in the world doing all that you can to help others, then good for you, and thank you.

Your church still thinks women are inferior and has ignored most of what your "savior" told them to do.

So basically you're insulting an entire religion based on the views of some people in the religion. The problem then isn't Christianity but people not following Christian teaching close enough.

believe, act, do as they do, but believe they are right in forcing others to do the same. Including harming and/or killing those who don't. A real liberal does not believe in harming others, but so long as someone's belief doesn't, it doesn't matter. Which is counter to the Fundamentalist way of life.

"The only unprotected group in America are Christians"? What the hell? No, change it to Fundamentalists and you'd be more correct, but even they have protections. Do you seriously believe "The only unprotected group in America are Christians"?

You would not like to have them all believe as you do? Or is that different?

You harm others with your mocking and bigotry. and who know what kook could read YOUR words and decide to act on them


The only group it is safe to mock, verbally abuse or physically ,have cartoons about and even a movie mocking their faith is the Christians.Try doing that with gays, women or African Americans and see how fast you are jumped on or even drawn into court..

Welcome to my buddy list.

...there are lots of websites dedicated to spreading hate about women, gay people and African Americans. A lot of it is spread by fundamentalists.

If you're referring to Religulous, that flick is pretty much equal opportunity and pokes fun at different religions. Did the movie Expelled bother you? :)

So tell me, how many christians have been lynched, or burned, or murdered, or sexually abused/brutalised in the past 100 years simply because they are christians?

There are people who would say Christians who believe Jesus rose from the dead are extremists. So they could easily lump them in with people who fit your narrower definition.

You're doing what Hannity does by saying "Islamic terrorists". Sure he says only Islamic people who happen be terrorists should be offended but what it really does is link Islam to terrorism.

Those who force their narrow views and impose impositions on others liberties, causing harm to others.

"Fundamentalist" in different ways. Your argument is with people who mix religion and politics so just say that rather than using blanket terms like Christian extremist.

those that involve heaven and/orsalvation...is an extremist group. Their beliefs usually involve STRICT adherence to THEIR rules, and extreme punishment for those that do not adhere to them.

Virtually all extremist groups can also fall under the description of Fundamentalist, since few of them would be considered Progressive.

and no one here has said that an extremist Christian is extremist by simply believing. It's the action...the violence.

There is the definition of extremist you were looking for, but for some reason, YOU cannot see that difference. Funny, the rest of us can see the difference and you cannot. Is there any certain reason you cannot pluck the beam out of your own eye when it comes to the extremism here in America?

Even by Americans. So instead of talking about these phantom "Christian extremists" please tell me who these Christian Americans using violence are.

Sure I'd call groups like KKK the closest to Taliban and view them as threatening but the thought of them controlling our country is absurd. The Taliban controlling an entire nation is more likely.

But then again, it's just a crappy fiction book.

Which Christians believe that literally?

:shrug:

:toast:

who won't vote for a black man? Are they a bigot too? Or does that only apply to the "souther" man?

And you say, "The only unprotected group in America are Christians..." Sooooo, when was the last time you were ever denied a marriage license, a job, a place to live, or were beaten or killed, based on the fact that you are a Christian? Oh, that's right. Y'all were the first people to get mentioned on Hate Crimes Laws, so you don't have to worry about such things. Oh, you are so persecuted. I don't know how you can stand the extreme oppression.

Except for the First Amendment and the fact that nearly our entire government is composed of them.

Of course, you probably mean that atheists and others are allowed to criticize Christians instead of being forced by law to not say anything, right?

:nopity:

Read up on the history of the Christian church and then come back to us when you're educated enough to participate in the discussion.

How about the one where they cut off the womans tongue for speaking out of turn.

If you think lipstick is the difference then you would likely be surprised to know that
a woman's man can have her lips cut off for wearing lipstick in the Taliban world.

just sayin'

torture, occupation, and many other things just as horrible as anything that has been done by the Taliban.

Just sayin'

I guess no one else wanted to say it?

:shrug:

Onward Christian Soldiers, indeed! March on, Talibornagains!

:applause:

:hug:

:loveya:

...taste like dumplings. Taliban is gamier. Good with a nice Chianti.:smoke:

As the U.S. slides into poverty their influence will increase as the Taliban's did in Afghanistan.

:think:

BLACK BOOTED BARBIE, THAT IS

One lot want to ban gay marriage, the other lot execute homsexuals.

One lot make rape victims pay for their own rape kits, the other lot ostracise and execute them.

One lot want to introduce prayer in schools, the other lot execute apostate and proselytisers from other religions.

Bad as the American Christian right is, it's not even *close* to being as bad as the Muslim right.

The other didn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones

Don

But leaving aside the question of whether Jim Jones was a Christian in any meaningful sense of the word, he was an isolated loony, not part of the main Christian far right.

All the things I listed are comparisons of approaches to life practiced by large numbers of people.

The muslim religion is a peaceful religion. The vast majority of people of that faith are not part of terrorist organizations or other groups.

:rofl:

And if the fundie christian defenders that are posting on this thread want to get people off their backs, why don't they try shutting the hell up about their religion?!

Because people are sick & tired of them pushing their crap & nobody wants to hear it! :argh:

As long as we don't mix religion and politics and are tolerant of other views. You should be showing religious people the tolerance you demand.

That is the definition. So, are you a fundie christian?

So I'm not going to repeat my basic argument again. I've seen the words Christian fundamentalist used against even liberal Christians. It's as slanderous of a term as "Zionist Jew".

It's a neutral term that denotes Christians who adhere to a short list of fundamental beliefs that stand in opposition to 20th century developments in Christian theology. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalism)

At least, that was the case back in the days when words had meanings.

He said Christian fundamentalists are Christians who mix religion and politics. The Wikipedia article defines it by religious belief not in how they approach politics.

By the wikipedia definition Christian fundamentalists could be progressives politically.

Poor logic and limited answering skills again.

M "why can't we talk about our religion? As long as we don't mix religion and politics and are tolerant of other views. You should be showing religious people the tolerance you demand"

Up "fundie christians do mix religion and politics and are intolerant of other views. That is the definition. So, are you a fundie christian?"

M " I'm not going to argue in circles...So I'm not going to repeat my basic argument again. I've seen the words Christian fundamentalist used against even liberal Christians. It's as slanderous of a term as "Zionist Jew"."


First, no answer to the question "are you a fundie christian". Secondly, poor logic. Here is a comparison. As long as cows don't wear fur, they are cold. Cows do wear fur and moo. Now, did I say animals that wear fur are cows? No. Read it again. And, answer the question.

Are you a fundie christian?

But no I'm not an evangelical Christian, I go to Catholic church but I'm more unitarian in views.