Who Would Have Thought? Shocker!

[DeadCanDance]

Syria, regarding citizens:

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78863.htm

Egypt:

http://www.state.gov/outofdate/bgn/e/10845.htm

Lebanon, is in danger of being taken over by Hizbollah, if the legitimate government threatens their areas of dominance. You know that, the UN knows that, most importantly both Syria and Iran know that.

I agree that some fundamentalist islamists pose a problem. Bush’s war in Iraq has certainly further radicalized parts of the Muslim world. That’s not just me saying that - it’s the CIA and our intelligence services reporting that.

What I’m saying is that we have to stop treating all Muslims as enemies. I don’t want to be enemies of all Muslims, and it certainly doesn’t serve the interests of the U.S. to deem them all enemies.

Not even all conservative or fundamentalist muslims are necessarily enemies of the U.S. I don’t like their Sharia Law, but screw it. It’s not my country; if that’s what some small minority of them want. Some of them are Theocrats, but they don’t all necessarily have the intent to attack Kansas City. I'd rather worry about the muslims who intend real harm to americans, than worry about whether every single muslim conservative who wants sharia courts.

We also have to be intelligent about this. Not even all fundamentalist Muslim terrorist groups share the same goals, nor are they necessarily all huge threats to the United States. Case in point: you mentioned Hezbollah. Now, Hezbollah is a problem for Israel. Hezbollah was formed to resist Israeli policies in Lebanon - not to plot attacks on Boise, Idaho. Israel can defend itself, though. I'm not worred about that. Hezbollah is more of a regional problem for Israel. Lebanese Hezbollah has not attacked or killed an American citizen in well over two decades. And the only time they did attack Americans is when we deployed our soldiers to Lebanon. Having our soldiers on their soil, pissed them off. That’s just a fact, not a judgment.

So, I’m saying we can’t lump all fundamentalist muslims, or radical Islamic groups in the same category, as our sworn blood enemies. We have to be intelligent and informed about dealing with them.

 

[Annie]

I agree that some fundamentalist islamists pose a problem. Bush’s war in Iraq has certainly further radicalized parts of the Muslim world. That’s not just me saying that - it’s the CIA and our intelligence services reporting that.

What I’m saying is that we have to stop treating all Muslims as enemies. I don’t want to be enemies of all Muslims, and it certainly doesn’t serve the interests of the U.S. to deem them all enemies.

Not even all conservative or fundamentalist muslims are necessarily enemies of the U.S. I don’t like their Sharia Law, but screw it. It’s not my country; if that’s what some small minority of them want. Some of them are Theocrats, but they don’t all necessarily have the intent to attack Kansas City. I'd rather worry about the muslims who intend real harm to americans, than worry about whether every single muslim conservative who wants sharia courts.

We also have to be intelligent about this. Not even all fundamentalist Muslim terrorist groups share the same goals, nor are they necessarily all huge threats to the United States. Case in point: you mentioned Hezbollah. Now, Hezbollah is a problem for Israel. Hezbollah was formed to resist Israeli policies in Lebanon - not to plot attacks on Boise, Idaho. Israel can defend itself, though. I'm not worred about that. Hezbollah is more of a regional problem for Israel. Lebanese Hezbollah has not attacked or killed an American citizen in well over two decades. And the only time they did attack Americans is when we deployed our soldiers to Lebanon. Having our soldiers on their soil, pissed them off. That’s just a fact, not a judgment.

So, I’m saying we can’t lump all fundamentalist muslims, or radical Islamic groups in the same category, as our sworn blood enemies. We have to be intelligent and informed about dealing with them.

I don't think most Westerners perceived Islam as a problem, prior to more study being given to it. Seriously, it seems the more one reads the more radical it appears. It doesn't help that there are now so many documented cases of Islamic leaders saying one thing for the 'press', then another in mosques and on Arab media outlets. This is not just true in the ME, but in particular Britain, where the government has been monitoring the mosques and appearances.

It seems it's not so much the West that sees Islam as a problem, as many Islamics truly have declared war on the West. Contrary to what is considered conventional wisdom, not just in Islamic lands, but jihad begins where they have a significant percentage of the population, which is quite what the Koran details.

 

[Alucard]

The freedom to practice ones own religion WITHOUT federal government interference was the original intent, for the separation of Church and state.

massachusetts for many years had a ''state religion'' that was dictated i believe? But they finally gave it up or was forced to...by the SC???

i will see what i can find on this and post it, when i do.

care

Thats pretty close...

Our founding fathers intentions for the seperation of church and state were simple....

It was to ensure that the Government could not choose or create a religion and force us to follow it...

That was it... nothing more ...

It has since been distorted and mutilated by the liberal left...

My credentials on the matter were personal life expieriences with the case below. It was during this time when I was introduced to, and left, the REAL immoral hypocritical and what I now consider anti-American democratic party...

http://www.becketfund.org/index.php/case/7.html

 

[Gunny]

I'm not unaware at all...

Your just a little confused about your history.

Give me an example of any society from that time period that did'nt have a darkside of brutal treatment and torture?

And give me some evidence that the Catholic Church ( Pope/vatican)ever promoted abuse.

What does the seperation of church and state really guarantee?

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

 

[Alucard]

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

I see no evidence of the Pope or Vatican endorsing torture... Or murder...

 

[Gunny]

The freedom to practice ones own religion WITHOUT federal government interference was the original intent, for the separation of Church and state.

massachusetts for many years had a ''state religion'' that was dictated i believe? But they finally gave it up or was forced to...by the SC???

i will see what i can find on this and post it, when i do.

care

The "intent" is pretty clearly stated.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ."

IMO, it has been taken WAY beyond its intent by the secular progressives.

Nowhere does it say there cannot be religion in government. It says no law shall be passed establishing a religion.

The FF's did not want an all-powerful single church controlling the US government as it had Europe. A good majority of the original colonsits were religious outcasts from England/Europe and they were determined to not recreate the same environment from which they had escaped.

 

[Annie]

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

Well I don't put a huge amount of trust in Wikis, but since the Spanish Inquisition is generally considered the most brutal, seems it was more governmental than church sponsored:

Spanish Inquisition
Representation of an Auto de fe, (1475).Many artistic representations depict torture and the burning at the stake as occurring during the auto da fe. Actually, burning at the stake usually occurred after, not during the ceremonies.
Representation of an Auto de fe, (1475).
Many artistic representations depict torture and the burning at the stake as occurring during the auto da fe. Actually, burning at the stake usually occurred after, not during the ceremonies.

Main article: Spanish Inquisition

The Spanish Inquisition was set up by King Ferdinand of Aragon and Queen Isabella of Castile in 1478 with the forced approval of Pope Sixtus IV. In contrast to the previous Inquisition, it operated completely under royal authority, though staffed by secular clergy and orders, and independently of the Holy See. It aimed primarily at converts from Judaism and Islam (who were still residing in Spain after the end of the Moor control of Spain), who were suspected of either continuing to adhere to their old religion (often after having been converted under duress) or having fallen back into it, and later at Protestants; in Sicily and Southern Italy, which were under Spanish rule, it targeted Greek Orthodox Christians. After religious disputes waned in the 17th century, the Spanish Inquisition more and more developed into a secret police against internal threats to the state.

The Spanish Inquisition would subsequently be employed in certain Spanish colonies such as Peru and Mexico. The Spanish Inquisition continued in the Americas until Mexican Independence and was not abolished in Europe until 1834.

In the public imagination, the Spanish Inquisition continues as a proverbial example of religious persecution. Some scholars however have opined that the numbers of the Spanish Inquisition's victims may have been exaggerated,[citation needed] that the Inquisition is one of the features of a Black Legend.[citation needed] Also, some argue that the Spanish Inquisition was responsible in part for averting in Spain the kind of religious wars that plagued France and Germany.[citation needed] Similar arguments are made about averting witch trials in Spain. Whereas tens of thousands of women were executed for witchcraft throughout northern Europe, fewer than 60 (only 6 documented cases) were executed in Spain throughout the whole period of the Inquisition.[citation needed]

[edit]

 

[Gunny]

I agree that some fundamentalist islamists pose a problem. Bush’s war in Iraq has certainly further radicalized parts of the Muslim world. That’s not just me saying that - it’s the CIA and our intelligence services reporting that.

What I’m saying is that we have to stop treating all Muslims as enemies. I don’t want to be enemies of all Muslims, and it certainly doesn’t serve the interests of the U.S. to deem them all enemies.

Not even all conservative or fundamentalist muslims are necessarily enemies of the U.S. I don’t like their Sharia Law, but screw it. It’s not my country; if that’s what some small minority of them want. Some of them are Theocrats, but they don’t all necessarily have the intent to attack Kansas City. I'd rather worry about the muslims who intend real harm to americans, than worry about whether every single muslim conservative who wants sharia courts.

We also have to be intelligent about this. Not even all fundamentalist Muslim terrorist groups share the same goals, nor are they necessarily all huge threats to the United States. Case in point: you mentioned Hezbollah. Now, Hezbollah is a problem for Israel. Hezbollah was formed to resist Israeli policies in Lebanon - not to plot attacks on Boise, Idaho. Israel can defend itself, though. I'm not worred about that. Hezbollah is more of a regional problem for Israel. Lebanese Hezbollah has not attacked or killed an American citizen in well over two decades. And the only time they did attack Americans is when we deployed our soldiers to Lebanon. Having our soldiers on their soil, pissed them off. That’s just a fact, not a judgment.

So, I’m saying we can’t lump all fundamentalist muslims, or radical Islamic groups in the same category, as our sworn blood enemies. We have to be intelligent and informed about dealing with them.

And how do you propose to separate the wheat from the chaff in instances such as Iran where the revolutionary fundamentalists are also the government?

In principle, I would say you are correct. You cannot blame each and every Muslim for what the criminals are doing. At the same time, the only way to really identify those who fall into the latter category is AFTER they commit the crime.

Our own ideals in this regard are our greatest weakness.

 

[Gunny]

Well I don't put a huge amount of trust in Wikis, but since the Spanish Inquisition is generally considered the most brutal, seems it was more governmental than church sponsored:

I use wikipedia when it's something simple that can't be screwed up; otherwise, I'll seek other sources. The governments then operated in fear of the church.

While you could be correct as to who actually carried out the inquisitions, the fact remains that the premise of the inquistions was "heresy," as defined by the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Annie]

I use wikipedia when it's something simple that can't be screwed up; otherwise, I'll seek other sources. The governments then operated in fear of the church.

While you could be correct as to who actually carried out the inquisitions, the fact remains that the premise of the inquistions was "heresy," as defined by the Roman Catholic Church.

Forced conversions and recantations of native's beliefs are not what would normally be considered 'heresies', rather that was something the monarchs decided was in their best interests to further looting. They used the Church as their 'gun.'

 

[Gunny]

Forced conversions and recantations of native's beliefs are not what would normally be considered 'heresies', rather that was something the monarchs decided was in their best interests to further looting. They used the Church as their 'gun.'

LOL ... I forgot you're a Catholic.

I'm not disagreeing with you. BUT, it WAS done in the name of Christianity; regardless who did it for what reasons. I'm sure the clergy that actually carried out the deeds weren't doing it for loot; rather, a belief that what they were doing was right.

 

[Annie]

LOL ... I forgot you're a Catholic.

I'm not disagreeing with you. BUT, it WAS done in the name of Christianity; regardless who did it for what reasons. I'm sure the clergy that actually carried out the deeds weren't doing it for loot; rather, a belief that what they were doing was right.

Actually anyone who persecuted others, whether for the monarchy or Church would have to be delusional to think it right.

 

[Gunny]

Actually anyone who persecuted others, whether for the monarchy or Church would have to be delusional to think it right.

Judging it by today's standards and our cultural idealism, you're absolutely right.

But you really only have to go no further than the ME to see religious fanatics of a different flavor doing the same thing. People could be pretty brutal back in the day, and human life was a lot cheaper.

 

[Annie]

Judging it by today's standards and our cultural idealism, you're absolutely right.

But you really only have to go no further than the ME to see religious fanatics of a different flavor doing the same thing. People could be pretty brutal back in the day, and human life was a lot cheaper.

The Church did many things wrong, having 3 popes at one time, being one of them. Using Church money building up riches in Rome another. Truth is both the Crusades and Inquisitions do not appear to be all we were taught.

 

[Gunny]

The Church did many things wrong, having 3 popes at one time, being one of them. Using Church money building up riches in Rome another. Truth is both the Crusades and Inquisitions do not appear to be all we were taught.

I only really was taught the basics on both. I imagine Catholics would probably have a more extensive version of history since those events involved the Catholic Church.

 

[Annie]

I only really was taught the basics on both. I imagine Catholics would probably have a more extensive version of history since those events involved the Catholic Church.

I don't think the Crusades and Inquistions are so much 'Catholic things', I've never heard them discussed in Church. However, what we were taught in history classes, appear to have been revisionist, probably for over 80 years, at least. It's only reading the classical writers and post-9/11 dissertations that seems the truth or nearer truth has been coming out.

 

[DeadCanDance]

And how do you propose to separate the wheat from the chaff in instances such as Iran where the revolutionary fundamentalists are also the government?

In principle, I would say you are correct. You cannot blame each and every Muslim for what the criminals are doing. At the same time, the only way to really identify those who fall into the latter category is AFTER they commit the crime.

Our own ideals in this regard are our greatest weakness.

We have a pretty good idea, of which muslim groups and fanatics constitute a threat to the United States. The information is out there. You can't lump them all in the same category. You can't lump hezbollah and al qaeda in the same group, for the reasons noted above. Nor can you automatically lump a dude who runs a sharia court in Aceh, Indonesia, in the same group as al qaeda, or other international jihadists.


We could waste a whole lot of time worrying about ALL conservative or theocratic islamists, if we wanted too. That would be an ineffective and wasteful way to protect the country.

 

[Gunny]

We have a pretty good idea, of which muslim groups and fanatics constitute a threat to the United States. The information is out there. You can't lump them all in the same category. You can't lump hezbollah and al qaeda in the same group, for the reasons noted above. Nor can you automatically lump a dude who runs a sharia court in Aceh, Indonesia, in the same group as al qaeda, or other international jihadists.


We could waste a whole lot of time worrying about ALL conservative or theocratic islamists, if we wanted too. That would be an ineffective and wasteful way to protect the country.

Or we could worry about ALL politically correct secular progressives if we wanted to.

The falw in your theory is that anonymity is one of the key aspects of terrorism. We may be able to vaguely identify the group -- actually they identify themselves by taking credit for their crimes -- but there is no way we could identify each and every operative.

 

[DeadCanDance]

I don't think most Westerners perceived Islam as a problem, prior to more study being given to it. Seriously, it seems the more one reads the more radical it appears. It doesn't help that there are now so many documented cases of Islamic leaders saying one thing for the 'press', then another in mosques and on Arab media outlets. This is not just true in the ME, but in particular Britain, where the government has been monitoring the mosques and appearances.

It seems it's not so much the West that sees Islam as a problem, as many Islamics truly have declared war on the West. Contrary to what is considered conventional wisdom, not just in Islamic lands, but jihad begins where they have a significant percentage of the population, which is quite what the Koran details.

It seems it's not so much the West that sees Islam as a problem,


I disagree. The europeans are very savy at fighting terrorism. More savy than us, truthfully. They've been fighting terrorist groups in their own countries for decades.

If you read the international news at all, you will constantly see reports of French, German, Spanish, or Dutch intelligence services rounding up and arresting suspected al qaeda cells and plotters. I would guess they've arrested hundreds over the past 6 years. Far more, than the United States has arrested or uncovered in our own country.

I hate to say it, but the europeans are more sophisticated than bush at fighting terrorists. Not only do they have more experience, but they are able to hone in on, and focus on catching the real bad guys - as opposed to running around like chickens with their heads cut off and assuming that all conservative muslims pose a threat of terrorism.

Finally, europeans, in many ways, are more xenophobic and intolerant of muslims, than our great nation is. Don't fool yourself - they aren't touchy-feely tree huggers who want to sing kumbaya with muslims. Europeans can be extremely intolerant and bigoted. They don't have our culture's sense of tolerance on religion and ethnicity.

 

[Annie]

We have a pretty good idea, of which muslim groups and fanatics constitute a threat to the United States. The information is out there. You can't lump them all in the same category. You can't lump hezbollah and al qaeda in the same group, for the reasons noted above. Nor can you automatically lump a dude who runs a sharia court in Aceh, Indonesia, in the same group as al qaeda, or other international jihadists.


We could waste a whole lot of time worrying about ALL conservative or theocratic islamists, if we wanted too. That would be an ineffective and wasteful way to protect the country.

Ok, what happens with progressives too often in my experience, when their data is called out, is spin it to another level. I said from the beginning that the radical version is on the upswing and Sharia is creeping. Now you admit to creeping, but say that's the final. Disingenuous.