Do liberals realize how asinine it is to compare the actual Taliban to the Christian Right?

[Pogo]

Christianity has a cruel and violent history. Just imagine if Christians once again had the power they wish for to dominate and govern America and our way of life. Secular sanity must prevail - the way the founders intended.

Nonsense. Thanks to Christianity, we have democracy, prosperity, relative peace, and education.

Bullshit. We are governed by a "Godless" Constitution.

Yeah, right. On ignore you go, obviously you're a know-nothing retard with nothing to say.

This may be a new USMB feature I haven't heard about, but I don't believe it's possible to put the United States Constitution on "Ignore". Though indeed many have tried, and still do.

 

[koshergrl]

The Taliban is a STATE that pushes a religious agenda.

As I said. The only time we have trouble is when the STATE gets involved. Capice?

They were a government at one time. We invaded and kicked them out of official power. They still have shadow governors and stuff, but they're not actually in control of much more than a small religious army, the backwater regions, and the drug trade.

Whatever. Both you and I know that's horseshit. Islam is not just a religion.

 

[koshergrl]

Christianity has a cruel and violent history. Just imagine if Christians once again had the power they wish for to dominate and govern America and our way of life. Secular sanity must prevail - the way the founders intended.

Nonsense. Thanks to Christianity, we have democracy, prosperity, relative peace, and education.

Bullshit. We are governed by a "Godless" Constitution.

Yeah, right. On ignore you go, obviously you're a know-nothing retard with nothing to say.

This may be a new USMB feature I haven't heard about, but I don't believe it's possible to put the United States Constitution on "Ignore". Though indeed many have tried, and still do.

Psst..pretending to be stupid makes you look...stupid.

 

[Pogo]

Any religion is potentially dangerous if its believers are sufficiently motivated. They'll do anything in God's name, because God will promise them heavenly paradise.

No. The only time religion is *dangerous* is when the state interjects itself into matters of faith.

Obviously that's not true; you don't need a State to be dangerous. It may help if your State is complicit in hanging black people or burning women as witches, but it's not actually required. Eric Rudolph didn't need the State to help him blow up abortion clinics and a lesbian bar. Scott Roeder didn't need State assistance to walk into a church and gun down Dr. Tiller. Just as Islamofanatics didn't need the State to burst into Charlie Hebdo. Etc etc etc.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Whatever. Both you and I know that's horseshit. Islam is not just a religion.

I know it's not just a religion. The Taliban and Islam aren't synonymous. The Taliban are a religious-political sect of Deobandi Islam which seeks to return to its former status as the government of Afghanistan. They are not a state entity at the present time. They will be when Pogo's peeps finally get their way and withdraw all US forces allowing them (the Taliban*) to topple the newly elected government and resume their former role.

*clarified for the benefit of the reading impaired

 

[koshergrl]

Any religion is potentially dangerous if its believers are sufficiently motivated. They'll do anything in God's name, because God will promise them heavenly paradise.

No. The only time religion is *dangerous* is when the state interjects itself into matters of faith.

Obviously that's not true; you don't need a State to be dangerous. It may help if your State is complicit in hanging black people or burning women as witches, but it's not actually required. Eric Rudolph didn't need the State to help him blow up abortion clinics and a lesbian bar. Scott Roeder didn't need State assistance to walk into a church and gun down Dr. Tiller. Just as Islamofanatics didn't need the State to burst into Charlie Hebdo. Etc etc etc.

Wow, you are delusional.

The ONLY time religion poses a threat to mankind is when yahoos like you start to try to restrict (certain or all) religion.

 

[Pogo]

Christianity has a cruel and violent history. Just imagine if Christians once again had the power they wish for to dominate and govern America and our way of life. Secular sanity must prevail - the way the founders intended.

Nonsense. Thanks to Christianity, we have democracy, prosperity, relative peace, and education.

Bullshit. We are governed by a "Godless" Constitution.

Yeah, right. On ignore you go, obviously you're a know-nothing retard with nothing to say.

This may be a new USMB feature I haven't heard about, but I don't believe it's possible to put the United States Constitution on "Ignore". Though indeed many have tried, and still do.

Psst..pretending to be stupid makes you look...stupid.

Stunning revelation. May I suggest you try clever instead. I get a lot of mileage out of it.

 

[koshergrl]

Nonsense. Thanks to Christianity, we have democracy, prosperity, relative peace, and education.

Bullshit. We are governed by a "Godless" Constitution.

Yeah, right. On ignore you go, obviously you're a know-nothing retard with nothing to say.

This may be a new USMB feature I haven't heard about, but I don't believe it's possible to put the United States Constitution on "Ignore". Though indeed many have tried, and still do.

Psst..pretending to be stupid makes you look...stupid.

Stunning revelation. May I suggest you try clever instead. I get a lot of mileage out of it.

No, you just think you do. Which also makes you look stupid.

 

[Pogo]

Any religion is potentially dangerous if its believers are sufficiently motivated. They'll do anything in God's name, because God will promise them heavenly paradise.

No. The only time religion is *dangerous* is when the state interjects itself into matters of faith.

Obviously that's not true; you don't need a State to be dangerous. It may help if your State is complicit in hanging black people or burning women as witches, but it's not actually required. Eric Rudolph didn't need the State to help him blow up abortion clinics and a lesbian bar. Scott Roeder didn't need State assistance to walk into a church and gun down Dr. Tiller. Just as Islamofanatics didn't need the State to burst into Charlie Hebdo. Etc etc etc.

Wow, you are delusional.

The ONLY time religion poses a threat to mankind is when yahoos like you start to try to restrict (certain or all) religion.

Ah, so Scott Roeder, Eric Rudolph, the Inquisition, the Charlie Hebdo Gang, none of them were "a threat".

Good to know. Stand down from yellow alert.

 

[koshergrl]

Any religion is potentially dangerous if its believers are sufficiently motivated. They'll do anything in God's name, because God will promise them heavenly paradise.

No. The only time religion is *dangerous* is when the state interjects itself into matters of faith.

Obviously that's not true; you don't need a State to be dangerous. It may help if your State is complicit in hanging black people or burning women as witches, but it's not actually required. Eric Rudolph didn't need the State to help him blow up abortion clinics and a lesbian bar. Scott Roeder didn't need State assistance to walk into a church and gun down Dr. Tiller. Just as Islamofanatics didn't need the State to burst into Charlie Hebdo. Etc etc etc.

Wow, you are delusional.

The ONLY time religion poses a threat to mankind is when yahoos like you start to try to restrict (certain or all) religion.

Ah, so Scott Roeder, Eric Rudolph, the Inquisition, the Charlie Hebdo Gang, none of them were "a threat".

Good to know. Stand down from yellow alert.

You really want me to cite the atheist state death numbers? The tens of millions who have been killed by your friends in the name of eliminating *evil* religion?

 

[Pogo]

Any religion is potentially dangerous if its believers are sufficiently motivated. They'll do anything in God's name, because God will promise them heavenly paradise.

No. The only time religion is *dangerous* is when the state interjects itself into matters of faith.

Obviously that's not true; you don't need a State to be dangerous. It may help if your State is complicit in hanging black people or burning women as witches, but it's not actually required. Eric Rudolph didn't need the State to help him blow up abortion clinics and a lesbian bar. Scott Roeder didn't need State assistance to walk into a church and gun down Dr. Tiller. Just as Islamofanatics didn't need the State to burst into Charlie Hebdo. Etc etc etc.

Wow, you are delusional.

The ONLY time religion poses a threat to mankind is when yahoos like you start to try to restrict (certain or all) religion.

Ah, so Scott Roeder, Eric Rudolph, the Inquisition, the Charlie Hebdo Gang, none of them were "a threat".

Good to know. Stand down from yellow alert.

You really want me to cite the atheist state death numbers? The tens of millions who have been killed by your friends in the name of eliminating *evil* religion?

Sorry -- can't help with that...

​

But get back to us when you find a sweet spot.

 

[Yarddog]

Any religion is potentially dangerous if its believers are sufficiently motivated. They'll do anything in God's name, because God will promise them heavenly paradise.

No. The only time religion is *dangerous* is when the state interjects itself into matters of faith.

Obviously that's not true; you don't need a State to be dangerous. It may help if your State is complicit in hanging black people or burning women as witches, but it's not actually required. Eric Rudolph didn't need the State to help him blow up abortion clinics and a lesbian bar. Scott Roeder didn't need State assistance to walk into a church and gun down Dr. Tiller. Just as Islamofanatics didn't need the State to burst into Charlie Hebdo. Etc etc etc.

Those were wacked out individuals. They are nothing close to ISIS you Liberals on this thread are behaving like idiots in order to exercize your hatred for Christians. that must be it, because theres no other rational reason I can see. Im not a southerner, maybe you guys are? and have a better feel for what happened in the South , But as I see it that was about racism, and lingering anger over the civil war, Not about Christianity. You can argue that point. But lets look at whats happening today instead of going back to the 1920s or the 1800s,

ISIS is currently waging a war on civilization, Christians send aid workers to other countries and run charitable organizations. I know your hatred runs so deep, none of that matters to you.

 

[Pogo]

Any religion is potentially dangerous if its believers are sufficiently motivated. They'll do anything in God's name, because God will promise them heavenly paradise.

No. The only time religion is *dangerous* is when the state interjects itself into matters of faith.

Obviously that's not true; you don't need a State to be dangerous. It may help if your State is complicit in hanging black people or burning women as witches, but it's not actually required. Eric Rudolph didn't need the State to help him blow up abortion clinics and a lesbian bar. Scott Roeder didn't need State assistance to walk into a church and gun down Dr. Tiller. Just as Islamofanatics didn't need the State to burst into Charlie Hebdo. Etc etc etc.

Those were wacked out individuals. They are nothing close to ISIS you Liberals on this thread are behaving like idiots in order to exercize your hatred for Christians. that must be it, because theres no other rational reason I can see. Im not a southerner, maybe you guys are? and have a better feel for what happened in the South , But as I see it that was about racism, and lingering anger over the civil war, Not about Christianity. You can argue that point. But lets look at whats happening today instead of going back to the 1920s or the 1800s,

ISIS is currently waging a war on civilization, Christians send aid workers to other countries and run charitable organizations. I know your hatred runs so deep, none of that matters to you.

Yeah I know, I know, when "they" do it it's all about evil religion, when "we" do it it's "wacked-out individuals". Having it both ways: Priceless. Sorry, this is as old as the hills.

Has nothing to do with "hating" or "supporting" any religion; it has to do with simple logic. Double standard in this case, and self-delusion. You are correct about the motivations in the South; it's a political/cultural background. It's always a political/cultural background. Religion is used as a convenient crutch, first to justify brutality, then to blanket-condemn it.

Religion in itself doesn't do a goddam thing. It's those who use it as a tool -- either way -- who do.
The point here is that if you choose a standard for one, then you apply it to all. This "it's different when we do it" crapola is just...

 

[koshergrl]

Any religion is potentially dangerous if its believers are sufficiently motivated. They'll do anything in God's name, because God will promise them heavenly paradise.

No. The only time religion is *dangerous* is when the state interjects itself into matters of faith.

Obviously that's not true; you don't need a State to be dangerous. It may help if your State is complicit in hanging black people or burning women as witches, but it's not actually required. Eric Rudolph didn't need the State to help him blow up abortion clinics and a lesbian bar. Scott Roeder didn't need State assistance to walk into a church and gun down Dr. Tiller. Just as Islamofanatics didn't need the State to burst into Charlie Hebdo. Etc etc etc.

Those were wacked out individuals. They are nothing close to ISIS you Liberals on this thread are behaving like idiots in order to exercize your hatred for Christians. that must be it, because theres no other rational reason I can see. Im not a southerner, maybe you guys are? and have a better feel for what happened in the South , But as I see it that was about racism, and lingering anger over the civil war, Not about Christianity. You can argue that point. But lets look at whats happening today instead of going back to the 1920s or the 1800s,

ISIS is currently waging a war on civilization, Christians send aid workers to other countries and run charitable organizations. I know your hatred runs so deep, none of that matters to you.

Yeah I know, I know, when "they" do it it's all about evil religion, when "we" do it it's "wacked-out individuals". Having it both ways: Priceless. Sorry, this is as old as the hills.

Has nothing to do with "hating" or "supporting" any religion; it has to do with simple logic. Double standard in this case, and self-delusion. You are correct about the motivations in the South; it's a political/cultural background. It's always a political/cultural background. Religion is used as a convenient crutch, first to justify brutality, then to blanket-condemn it.

Religion in itself doesn't do a goddam thing. It's those who use it as a tool -- either way -- who do.
The point here is that if you choose a standard for one, then you apply it to all. This "it's different when we do it" crapola is just...

I take it you are unable to count, or comprehend scale.

 

[BlueGin]

I'm not defending the CR here in the least. Have at them all you want. I really don't care about that. What I care about is how eager liberals are to belittle the oppression of the Afghan people and compare the group doing it to Westboro Baptist protesting funerals or Pat Robertson saying stupid shit on tv. There is no comparison. The CR makes a habit of alienating rhetoric and introducing unconstitutional legislation. The Taliban makes a habit of planting IEDs by the roads and strapping explosives onto children. The CR makes dumb comments about birth control being a Satanic plot. The Taliban murders midwives for giving women birth control. The CR keeps the death penalty around. The Taliban stone rape victims to death for committing adultery against their future husbands. There really just isn't a comparison here. If you still think the Taliban are harmless crazies no different than our televangelists, then I'd be more than happy to get you a plane ticket to Kabul. You can see for yourself before the brainwashed fifteen year old kid screams "ALLAH AKHBAR" and takes out the fifteen foot radius around you.

No they don't... Exactly because they are asinine .

 

[Pogo]

Any religion is potentially dangerous if its believers are sufficiently motivated. They'll do anything in God's name, because God will promise them heavenly paradise.

No. The only time religion is *dangerous* is when the state interjects itself into matters of faith.

Obviously that's not true; you don't need a State to be dangerous. It may help if your State is complicit in hanging black people or burning women as witches, but it's not actually required. Eric Rudolph didn't need the State to help him blow up abortion clinics and a lesbian bar. Scott Roeder didn't need State assistance to walk into a church and gun down Dr. Tiller. Just as Islamofanatics didn't need the State to burst into Charlie Hebdo. Etc etc etc.

Those were wacked out individuals. They are nothing close to ISIS you Liberals on this thread are behaving like idiots in order to exercize your hatred for Christians. that must be it, because theres no other rational reason I can see. Im not a southerner, maybe you guys are? and have a better feel for what happened in the South , But as I see it that was about racism, and lingering anger over the civil war, Not about Christianity. You can argue that point. But lets look at whats happening today instead of going back to the 1920s or the 1800s,

ISIS is currently waging a war on civilization, Christians send aid workers to other countries and run charitable organizations. I know your hatred runs so deep, none of that matters to you.

Yeah I know, I know, when "they" do it it's all about evil religion, when "we" do it it's "wacked-out individuals". Having it both ways: Priceless. Sorry, this is as old as the hills.

Has nothing to do with "hating" or "supporting" any religion; it has to do with simple logic. Double standard in this case, and self-delusion. You are correct about the motivations in the South; it's a political/cultural background. It's always a political/cultural background. Religion is used as a convenient crutch, first to justify brutality, then to blanket-condemn it.

Religion in itself doesn't do a goddam thing. It's those who use it as a tool -- either way -- who do.
The point here is that if you choose a standard for one, then you apply it to all. This "it's different when we do it" crapola is just...

I take it you are unable to count, or comprehend scale.

Ah, so there's a threshold. A quota, as it were, where each religion gets a specified handicap of allowed barbarism. Stay under the line and you're OK.

I love it. The Affirmative Action of Theology.

 

[Jarhead]

Question.....

First, let me say that I fought tooth and nail against Obama not using the term Islamic Terrorists until I had a debate with someone on here...and that poster made me realize something....

So now the question....

If Obama used the term Islamic Terrorists....would it not be appropriate to call someone who bombs an abortion clinic a Christian Terrorist?

After all, most people who are willing to bomb a clinic, are guided by their deep religious belief that abortion is murder, and murder is a serious religious sin.

Jump in!

 

[Pogo]

Question.....

First, let me say that I fought tooth and nail against Obama not using the term Islamic Terrorists until I had a debate with someone on here...and that poster made me realize something....

So now the question....

If Obama used the term Islamic Terrorists....would it not be appropriate to call someone who bombs an abortion clinic a Christian Terrorist?

After all, most people who are willing to bomb a clinic, are guided by their deep religious belief that abortion is murder, and murder is a serious religious sin.

Jump in!

Of course it is. That would be the dreaded C-word: consistent.

But why melt down over whether somebody uses or doesn't use the adjective you like? Seems kinda petty.
Better we should concern ourselves with actions than semantics.

 

[Jarhead]

Question.....

First, let me say that I fought tooth and nail against Obama not using the term Islamic Terrorists until I had a debate with someone on here...and that poster made me realize something....

So now the question....

If Obama used the term Islamic Terrorists....would it not be appropriate to call someone who bombs an abortion clinic a Christian Terrorist?

After all, most people who are willing to bomb a clinic, are guided by their deep religious belief that abortion is murder, and murder is a serious religious sin.

Jump in!

Of course it is. That would be the dreaded C-word: consistent.

But why melt down over whether somebody uses or doesn't use the adjective you like? Seems kinda petty.
Better we should concern ourselves with actions than semantics.

Just to point something out to you....

That argument is a flawed argument......the part where you said....."Better we should concern ourselves with actions than semantics"

It was a talking point put out by the administration, but it holds no water and you, Pogo, are much to intelligent poster to fall for it....

It is flawed for two reasons....

1) One does not prevent you from doing the other
2) It actually takes more energy to NOT call it something that the rest of the world is calling it....and the truth is, by not calling it what the rest of the world calls it actually gave reason for the "semantics"

 

[Yarddog]

Any religion is potentially dangerous if its believers are sufficiently motivated. They'll do anything in God's name, because God will promise them heavenly paradise.

No. The only time religion is *dangerous* is when the state interjects itself into matters of faith.

Obviously that's not true; you don't need a State to be dangerous. It may help if your State is complicit in hanging black people or burning women as witches, but it's not actually required. Eric Rudolph didn't need the State to help him blow up abortion clinics and a lesbian bar. Scott Roeder didn't need State assistance to walk into a church and gun down Dr. Tiller. Just as Islamofanatics didn't need the State to burst into Charlie Hebdo. Etc etc etc.

Those were wacked out individuals. They are nothing close to ISIS you Liberals on this thread are behaving like idiots in order to exercize your hatred for Christians. that must be it, because theres no other rational reason I can see. Im not a southerner, maybe you guys are? and have a better feel for what happened in the South , But as I see it that was about racism, and lingering anger over the civil war, Not about Christianity. You can argue that point. But lets look at whats happening today instead of going back to the 1920s or the 1800s,

ISIS is currently waging a war on civilization, Christians send aid workers to other countries and run charitable organizations. I know your hatred runs so deep, none of that matters to you.

Yeah I know, I know, when "they" do it it's all about evil religion, when "we" do it it's "wacked-out individuals". Having it both ways: Priceless. Sorry, this is as old as the hills.

Has nothing to do with "hating" or "supporting" any religion; it has to do with simple logic. Double standard in this case, and self-delusion. You are correct about the motivations in the South; it's a political/cultural background. It's always a political/cultural background. Religion is used as a convenient crutch, first to justify brutality, then to blanket-condemn it.

Religion in itself doesn't do a goddam thing. It's those who use it as a tool -- either way -- who do.
The point here is that if you choose a standard for one, then you apply it to all. This "it's different when we do it" crapola is just...

Which ever way you twist words around, comparing Christians to the ISIS or the Taliban is ludicris, If you wanted to compare religion for religion, (Christianity to Islam),
then you have a basis to debate on. Comparing Christians to ISIS is like comparing ISLAM to a specific radical Christian movement. Christian groups are building orphanages and Hospitals. ISIS and the Taliban blow them up , or burn them down.

The Taliban and ISIS are not a few wacked out individuals, they are dangerous organized movements of which we have nothing here in the US.