Now Do You See It, Republicans?

[BG42EDGE]

It is very difficult to take accusations of prejudice from you. You initial posts reflected political prejudice and disrespectful language. I was close to deck you for trolling several times. I chose to engage you and show you what kind of interaction I expect of members here, specially since your views are so different and I try to encourage diversity of opinions in the forum. May I know what academic training do you have in history, philosophy, or religious studies? The lingo I'm using is correct for the field. Status Quo doesn't doesn't equate correct. But revolutionary usually equates a political paradigm shift. As such, there are clear ideological motivations in it. That is not prejudice, that is the nature of the beast. We see this is all forms of Committed Literature.

I'm not sure that was an answer. It was mostly pretty vague.

But I did get this.

I was close to deck you for trolling several times.

I don't know what "deck" means, but I know a threat when I hear one.

I don't think we can have a realistic conversation with veiled threats in the mix.

But best of luck with your political discussions here......I'm sure you'll find better persons to talk with than me.

[Preacher Man]

Wait......what happened to...

So now you're saying that you were not saying what you seemed to be saying. When you quote the Koran you are talking about all Muslims.

Or are you just making rapid adjustments? Please explain what you actually think about Muslims relating to people of other faiths.

Again, this is difficult when you have stated very negative opinions about Christians. My posts are clear. Unlike you, I have treated Islam with respect and have not tried to judge all Muslims by the actions of the extremists. I have pointed out how the extremists separate themselves from the rest of Muslims by attacking and killing other Muslims and bombing mosques in violation to the Qur'an, and you recognized this. You have absolutely no right to expect respect if you don't give it, and you have been very disrespectful of America and Christianity. In spite of this, I will be respectful.

First, it is absolutely false that by quoting the Qur'an I'm talking about all Muslims. Like Christianity, Islam is divided in sub-groups who argue about the proper interpretation/application of particular verses. Sunni, Shia, and Sufi reach completely different emphasis. Then you have the sub-groups withing each one of those. Then you have the American version promoted through The Nation of Islam. Then you have the regional versions that incorporate folk elements into the practice of Islam, what in ethnographycal studies we call "Popular Islam." This is a phenomenon observable in all religions. So don't even pretend that quoting form the Qur'an implies criticism of all Muslims, that is unless you believe that all Muslims purposely target and kill other Muslims and bomb and destroy mosques simply because they do not follow their preferred version of Islam. Or that all Muslims believe that their religious chastity requires the circumcision of girls. Every religion has extremists, those who do not represent the full message of their parent religion. Pointing out where they derive their positions from their sacred text is not an indictment on the religion as a whole.

Now, answer me this. Is the sword (coercion, Jihad, holy War) an acceptable means of spreading the Muslim Faith? Yes or no? Did I misrepresent the content or meaning of surah 9:5? Yes or no? Do Muslims extremists emphasize surah 9:5 over other verses that call for tolerance and respect for the "People of The Book" like surah 29:46? Yes or no?

Islam is a beautiful religion with great traditions and art. It has the only sacred text to specifically demands from its followers tolerance toward other religions. The culture that develop from it gave the world great philosophy and mathematics. For centuries Muslims, Christian, and Jew could peacefully coexist in Muslim cities. But from its inception it also made clear that coercion (the sword) is an acceptable means for conversion. It also united financial, political, and religious power under one banner. These elements have allowed Islam to be used (or misused?) by those who seek political power. It's theology is rich, but sets God as a distant, unreachable God with whom man can't have a direct, personal relationship. This results in undeveloped concepts of forgiveness and hope. It is a beautiful religion, but I don't agree with it. If I did I would be a Muslim. I do respect it.

Now, you have spoken of Christianity in negative terms. What do you think of Christianity?

[Preacher Man]

I'm not sure that was an answer. It was mostly pretty vague.

But I did get this.



I don't know what "deck" means, but I know a threat when I hear one.

I don't think we can have a realistic conversation with veiled threats in the mix.

But best of luck with your political discussions here......I'm sure you'll find better persons to talk with than me.

It means you refrain myself from giving you an infraction.

[Preacher Man]

I expect them to obey the rules, just like I do.

I have not implied, I have stated clearly a number of things that America has done wrong.

I have the right to ignore those who break the rules......and I am.

Sure is nice.

You chose to express those opinions in a way that was not geared to foment communication. If people feel you are attacking what they hold dear, they will not react well.

[Preacher Man]

That's news! Never heard of that going on.

Can you provide a link that tells about the activities of these Muslim missionaries?

http://www.kurdishaspect.com/doc110208AM.html

See also:
Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad (1993). The Muslims of America. Oxford University Press, USA

There are two other sources that right now I can't remember. I'll provide those Monday.

[Preacher Man]

That was many years before our invasion and involved small numbers of people.....not really comparable.

What about Baghdad? Much different story.

I was never comparing this with the invasion. Your point was that Iraq was internally peaceful until the invasion. That is not true.

[Preacher Man]

No, what I've said was that Christians come into a nation that is perfectly fine and doesn't need them.

Then they push their religion and cause unnatural divisions between people that often end in anger and violence.

They exacerbate pre-existing hostilities in groups that may already have differences and thus complicate relations between people.

They destroy healthy customs, religions and ways that have worked for the entire history of those nations and chaos results.

All of them sooner or later (and usually sooner) demand money. Some demand a tenth of the "convert's" income.

If you read, for example, "King Leopold's Ghost" (the story of the Belgian Congo) you will see that missionaries stood by and watched horrible massacres and atrocities and often sided with the killers......and then formed congregations of the survivors........comforting them and ...... also passing a collection plate.

This is why stronger nations who can't be oppressed (China, Russia and others) have kicked the Christians out or greatly curtailed their subversive activities......and the smaller, weaker ones probably wish the Christians would never have come, but can't do anything about it.

We haven't really discussed contemporary Christianity at all, and it's a fascinating thing. The new missionaries are performers, healers and they work amazing miracles.....even raise people from the dead right on T.V.

Most of them never leave this country and they are incredibly rich.

And they are all Republicans......imagine that.

I suppose we could go into Jim and Tammi Fay, Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggart, Creflo Dollar, the televangelist healers, the materialistic "Prosperity" pastors, the homosexual bashers, the Right-Wing political churches, the big money, the big mansions, the limousines......naw, I don't think we want to go there.

And the old-fashioned ordinary churches seem to be slowly dying off as people flock to these new exciting ones.

That's too sad to even talk about.

I'm sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. You pick and choose particular examples without actually verifying if they represent the majority of Christians. You have mentioned a number of true individuals and events, but chose to see them as representative of the whole of Christianity. They are not. How can you demand respect for your believes if you choose to make a caricature of other's beliefs? When was the last time you visited a church or read a Christian book, or talked with an ordained minister?

[Preacher Man]

Oh, no......I've spent far, far too much time with Baptists.



I asked a question and you're avoiding it by saying no one gets killed........

Ok, I was trying to be nice, but we can put it into your spiritual terms if you insist......Are you saying that the people who don't "Bow Their Head" to your God won't be.......sent to hell to be tortured forever when your God comes back on that pale horse?

They can just say, "Nope, not interested," and go their happy way?

Of course they are going to hell. According to Islam, they are too. The difference is that Christians do not kill those who refuse to convert, nor do they use violence as a means for conversion, which is the point I've been making from the beginning. This is why respect does nothing for the Muslim extremist.

Edited to add: Most religions have a an idea of reward/punishment whether it is heaven and hell, heaven and annihilism, karma, or nirvana and samsara. These concepts are nothing new nor negative into themselves. Even when seen from a materialistic sociological perspective, these concepts come to represent metaphors for the human need for an ethical system and their desire for justice and the correction of perceived personal and social injustices.

[Preacher Man]

I'm not sure that was an answer. It was mostly pretty vague.

Actually it was not vague at all. Revolutionary history and literature is Committed Literature. As such its intent is not to present facts but to analyze the facts through the lens of ideology.

But I did get this.

I don't know what "deck" means, but I know a threat when I hear one.

I don't think we can have a realistic conversation with veiled threats in the mix.

But best of luck with your political discussions here......I'm sure you'll find better persons to talk with than me.

That was no threat, that is a statement of fact. I refrain from giving you an infraction for trolling. I chose to engage you instead and show you by example what I expect of posters here. If you want to leave, that is up to you. You are welcome to return, but I hope that now you haver an idea of what is expected on posters in this subforum. If you really believe I was threatening you, you are more than welcome to report me. I do suspect you know what I meant. You can't be a member here for almost 3 years with 5k posts and not know what that means.

[timcsaw]

Preacher Man, you have the patience of Job. Though it may have been in vain, that was a stellar attempt.

[timcsaw]

Russia never could have accomplished what they did without U.S. aid. Russians drove Studebaker trucks, flew Airacobra planes and used U.S. tanks. They ate American food and fired American ammunition. They were sent finished products and raw materials. Russians ate Spam.

You would think that a "career" U.S.A.F. Historian (Enlisted 3H0X1 Career Field) would know something about that wouldn't you?

[Tixx]

I honestly don't think our interests as Americans are at the heart of much our government does. Simply follow the dollars and the truth quickly reveals itself. Those with the control and wealth will always have their lifestyles sustained regardless.

[BG42EDGE]

I do suspect you know what I meant. You can't be a member here for almost 3 years with 5k posts and not know what that means.

I wouldn't lie to you. If you search the forum where I usually post, you'll find that word is never used......unless it's referring to the deck of an old battleship that was salvaged to make knife handles.

Anyway, I'll tie up a few loose ends and then leave. Not fair to leave so many of your questions unanswered. But I have to hit the yard sales now.

[Preacher Man]

I wouldn't lie to you. If you search the forum where I usually post, you'll find that word is never used......unless it's referring to the deck of an old battleship that was salvaged to make knife handles.

In that case, I should have been clear. Apologies for not using the right terms.

Anyway, I'll tie up a few loose ends and then leave. Not fair to leave so many of your questions unanswered. But I have to hit the yard sales now.

That is your prerogative, but I prefer you stay and participate in the discussions. I want to encourage diversity in points of view. Read the rules, present your views in a way that is respectful of others, encourages communication and intelligent discussion, and avoids ideological prejudice (cherry-picked rants from one side of the ideological spectrum).

[BG42EDGE]

Well, I will mull that over.

See, the actual listed rules are a bit different from your rules and your rules are very subjective--the main one seems to be, if I make somebody mad, I'm out.

What I say is not going to break the listed rules, but still tends to make people mad because it's the truth and the truth makes them feel guilty and uncomfortable.

So, I'll see what I can do. First I want to try to answer some of your questions that I've failed to get to......appears I've missed a few and gotten way behind.

[Preacher Man]

Preacher Man, you have the patience of Job. Though it may have been in vain, that was a stellar attempt.

Thank you. Hopefully it was not in vain.

[Preacher Man]

Well, I will mull that over.

See, the actual listed rules are a bit different from your rules and your rules are very subjective--the main one seems to be, if I make somebody mad, I'm out.

What I say is not going to break the listed rules, but still tends to make people mad because it's the truth and the truth makes them feel guilty and uncomfortable.

So, I'll see what I can do. First I want to try to answer some of your questions that I've failed to get to......appears I've missed a few and gotten way behind.

Hope you choose to stay. Read the rules carefully and skim the threads. Look at the corrections and directions other moderations and I make.

From the rules:

In any event, talking about sensitive subjects requires an extra helping of courtesy and respect; otherwise it turns into a flame.

Occasionally, a person will join the forum with the express purpose of stirring up hate and anger; or, perceiving this as a forum with a conservative majority, defecating in the conservative meeting place.

With that in mind, some of the things that the Political Forum shouldn't be are

1. A place to attack someone for holding whatever view as long as they can at least marginally defend that view.
2. A forum that becomes a soapbox. Where one's views are of paramount importance at all times no matter what. Redundancy is not very charming in polite political discourse.
3. A Forum that is dominated by one view and one language. Dialectics are nice, however they do tend to make the uninformed not participate in any meaningful manner.
4. a place to launch Ad Hominium attacks. Make your point and support it. To name a particular politician or policy over and over again in a prejoriative way is False Redunancy, it merely accomplish slander, not informing the the Forum.

Rational and productive discussion of controversial topics require a higher level of behavior than discussion of some other topics. We are not discussing whether to use the smooth side of the leather or the rough side for stropping - we are discussing topics that lead to fights or worse if they get out of control. I liken this to driving a race car at 200 mph - we need to trust the others 100% - we compete but we rely on each other to allow us to do so.

When discussing politics or religion, it is difficult for someone not to get mad, but there is a difference between been told the truth and presenting a one-sided rant. In other words, there are ways and there are ways. Your views are your own, and you should defend your position, but you choose the way and language by which you make your case. If you cherry-pick parts of a posts to answer what is convenient to your position and ignore what is inconvenient to your position, that is not communication, that is ranting. If you present one ideology or political party as evil and the other as good, that means you do not recognize the diversity between each party/ideology. That makes the statement trolling and rant, not communication.

In the past we had "flame wars," and we hadn't have one in a long time. Moderators have been working hard to keep it that way, and that means posters need to be conscious, considerate, and respectful in the way they present their case.

[eyeeatingfish]

Of course, 9/11 was not about drawing pictures of Mohammad......it was about America's support for the Israeli genocide against the Palestinians.

By the way, the last genocide where we intervened was Christians massacring Muslims in Kosovo.

Israel is not engaging in genocide against the Palestinians. Israel has treated a very hostile group within its own lands a lot more fairly than most would expect. Many on the Palestine spread false propoganda to make Israel look bad. Remember that famous video of a Palestinian man and child that were killed in crossfire? Turns out it was all faked just to make Israel look bad.

Israel is an ally and we support her as such. I don't like when America significantly interferes in foreign politics, but supporting our ally is not comparable to that.
There are situations where America made enemies it should not have, where it was really not justified, but helping Israel is not one of them.

[BG42EDGE]

Israel has treated a very hostile group within its own lands a lot more fairly than most would expect.

Let us get back to reality--Israel HAS no land. That was the whole point of the British Government (at gunpoint) forcing them into lands that were already owned and occupied by others. Britain had NO authority (other than guns) to divide up lands half a world away as though they owned them. In the end, the Zionists just took the land they wanted by force and Britain stepped aside (quite happy to just wash their hands of the whole matter).

As far as the treatment of the Palestinians......it is well documented. They were killed, imprisoned, dragged out of their own homes and kicked out of the country and forced to live in refugee camps. The ones that stayed are now fenced into concentration camps, unable to move freely or even visit relatives that live 100 feet away due to the fences. They are denied food, water, medical care, education, and they are gradually being removed because Israeli officials are able to charge them with infractions, kick them out and take or bulldoze their homes at their whim.

You must understand that the information you get from American media is totally prejudiced against the Palestinians and almost totally false. You have to go to the internet and Al Jazeera before you can get some truth.

As to Israel being an ally of America.......no, Israel is a burden that we can't get rid of, but as our own economy fails, it's not likely that we will keep giving them billions of dollars in gifts to keep them going.

[jdm61]

I have been out of town for a couple of days and REALLY don't feel like reading 9 pages of BG42. Did someone already point out that the $3 trillion allegedlly spent on 11 years of war is about the same as the deficits that Obama ran up in his first two budgets.?