"Paris under attack" Topic

tbeard. I should have specified, the problem isn't say muslims but muslim fundamentalism.

Moderate or non devout Muslims shouldn't be damned by association.

Do you really see no difference between an "abstinence pledge" and a legal/religious system that treats women as property and that specifically endorses beating them, genital mutilation, etc.?

***Imitating other posters*** But, but, but…

Blackhorse--

Gotta agree with you. I have a BS* in history and about a third of the way to PhD before selling out and going to law school. At no point were the musings of George Takei a topic of instruction.

*I always thought that was an apt abbreviation…

tbeard

Willlucv--

Fair point about moderate/non devout Muslims. I have some points you might want to consider, but first, would you please answer the hypothetical question I posed above? To repeat--

Assume hypothetically that a religion -- Bobism -- clearly commands its adherents to murder (say) homosexuals.

Assume then that Bobists murder homosexuals and claim to be following their religion's commandments.

In this hypothetical case, isn't it reasonable to condemn Bobism as intolerant and violent? If not, why not?

Not that long ago I was involved in security work. On a lecture about bomb threats a Special Branch officer asked who we thought the biggest sender of bombs through the mail was. We suggested various Irish groups, then various Islamic groups. The answer turned out was animal rights groups. Do not hear calls for them to be nuked.

We are not helping the problem by declaring a large section of population as a something evil.

Neither do we solve the problem by automatically giving up rights.

I think this thread shows how difficult it is going to be to solve this issue.

The answer is not simple, but neither is the question.

These are not the first terrorist attacks, in my life I have seen Christian groups, Right Wing groups, Left Wing group, Animals Rights groups, Prolife groups, as well as Moslem groups all use violence. If I have missed some sorry not showing support just forgot.

So please rational discussion helps, finger pointing does not

As a Jew I'm glad to see that apparently we can have our testament back.

Gunnerphil--

Assuming you're talking to me*, I guess I need to point out that I've made no statements about what should be done to Muslims or anyone else for that matter. i have merely questioned the confident assertion that the Paris attacks have nothing to do with Islam. I've also challenged the moral eqvalence arguments being made.

So far, the response (such as it is) has been to call me a bigot and misrepresent what I've said.

Determining whether the attacks have anything to do with Islam is NOT the same as determining what to do about it. A point I wish my friend Geoff would've understood.

*Yes, it's all about me :D

Rtjebadia-- I didn't know that it had been taken from you. But all's well that ends well, I suppose.

Visceral Impact Studios--

The US is not a "Christian" nation as its Constitution forbids the government from establishing a religion. Our Supreme Court has interpreted this to provide extremely robust protections for all faiths. Protections that are notably absent in self-identified Muslim nations, by the way.

I also find your reasoning weak. You seem to be arguing that because Christians are imperfect, they cannot criticize any other ideology. This seems absurd to me. And I wonder if you've really considered the implications of such a position:

"Christians cannot criticize racism because some Christians were racists." Or because some Christians are adulterers.

"Christians cannot criticize homophobia because some Christians are homophobes."

Seriously?

Or did I misunderstand your argument?

No, that's not what I meant at all. I agree that despite Christians being imperfect that they can still critique others. Totally agree with you there.

All I'm saying is that if we Christians who don't espouse terrorism don't want to be painted with the same brush as those Christians who revel in violence and greed then let's not do the same to Muslims.

Here in the US polls show that evangelicals support the torture of terrorism SUSPECTS by a large majority. Within our political class we have leaders who loudly proclaim there Christian faith and then use it to justify horrific deeds.

I don't want to be lumped together with them as a Christian so let's extend the same courtesy to Muslims who don't want to be lumped together with ISIS.

Unfortunately, that's what's happening here in the US with echos of 1930s Germany. We have communities rejecting mosques purely out of religious bigotry. We have a major presidential candidate declaring the a Muslim should not be president despite that idea being total contrary to the constitution and the ideals of our founding fathers (see Treaty of Tripoli).

So fine, criticize ISIS' brand of Muslim ideology. Just don't lump all Muslims in with ISIS if we Christians don't want to be lumped together with our own crazies.

BTW…to Geoff's point above, there is one instance in the New Testament in which Jesus appears to command violence against unbelievers. It's Luke 19:27. It's a parable in which Jesus uses a king and his followers as stand-ins for himself and disciples. At the end of the day, if the king's followers aren't enthusiastic and effective enough in doing the king's bidding Jesus says that they should be brought before the king and killed. It was used to justify lots of violence against heretics and non-believers.

I've found that, as a seminarian, we learned lots of things that "civilians" never read. Here's another: God loves disciples with male pattern baldness. He event sent a bear to maul to death a bunch of children teasing one of his prophets about his baldness! :-) It's in the OT.

Visceral Studios--

That appears to be a misrepresentation of Luke 19:27. In my translation (NIV) it looks to me like the KING in the story is the one endorsing violence, not Jesus. But since I have a seminarian as a law partner, I'll ask his opinion.

In any case, this single scripture (with a questionable interpretation) contradicts the overwhelming weight of Christ's commands, which were things like turning the other cheek, forgiving those who wrong you, praying for your enemies, etc. Commands that are NOT in the Koran or Hadiths.

And like Geoff, you seem insistent on putting words in my mouth. I've lumped no one in with anyone else. I've challenged the confident assertion that the attacks had nothing to do with religion and questioned whether believers in a violent ideology should get a pass merely because they claim to not believe the violent bits. I've challenged the moral equivalence assertions that have been made. And finally, I've pointed out that my reading of the Koran and Hadiths -- in their entirety -- confirms that they are filled with exhortations to kill and/or enslave infidels, homosexuals, and pagans and endorse the complete subjugation of women.

No one has rebutted any of this. The responses are "you're a bigot" and "don't blame all Muslims for the acts of a few" (which I haven't done). And of course, no real facts or convincing logical arguments to support this assertion.

Since I can't seem to get an answer from anyone else, I'll ask you -- should a member of the Nazi party get a pass merely because he claims to not support the murder of Jews?

Does a member of the Ku Klux Klan get a pass merely because he claims to not support lynching blacks (and has never actually lynched anyone)?

Care to actually answer these questions?

Visceral --

Another question. Would you not agree that there is a profound moral difference between an ideology that prohibits the murder of (say) homosexuals and one that commands the murder of homosexuals? Even if a few adherents of the first faith violate the rules and murder homosexuals?

A point to consider for those who confidently proclaim that ISIS is not following the teachings of Islam…

"ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has a PhD in Islamic theology from Islamic U of Baghdad. What are your credentials?"

More accurately, why should your confident assertion automatically be believed over the assertions of a credentialed expert?

Understand what I'm asking here … why should you be believed over him? Particularly if it is obvious that you haven't even read the Koran and Hadiths.

Remember the phrase "Seldom correct but seldom in doubt."

I've challenged the confident assertion that the attacks had nothing to do with religion

You have interpreted in a way that suits you. They have claimed that the attacks are actually in direct response to the French attacks on [ISIS bases in] Syria. I'm not aware that Islam has claimed responsibility and, while I would prefer the religious leaders to condemn attacks on civilians (which they can actually do within keeping of the writings) at the very least they have not condoned them.

What I actually said was that Muslims in general need to be seen to public ally distance themselves from the violent actions of individuals, claiming to do so in the name of their religion.

…questioned whether believers in a violent ideology should get a pass merely because they claim to not believe the violent bits

Implied threat against all Muslims, on the basis that they follow an ideology that you have identified as violent? Are not judged by our actions? Shouldn't the teachings of Christainity grant them exactly that?? Or do we conveniently ignore the Old Testament and its violent tendencies because the New Testament sounds better?

Tim, is that really a fair reading of my post?

And do you really see no difference between an "abstinence pledge" and a legal/religious system that treats women as property and that specifically endorses beating them, genital mutilation, etc.?

Really?

Which system would you prefer your daughter or mother to live in?

I find fundamentalists of any creed rather worrying to be honest.

Tbeard.

No mate not you in particular but the general call for attacks on Moslems.

I am not clever enough or educated enough to argue comparative religion.

I am trying to say emotive things like that need to be removed from the argument.

The solution will involve violence, that I am sure of. While I have no trouble with that, should not be celebrated.

My point has been constantly let us fight the enemy not each other. Let us define who is enemy in clear and simple terms.

I listed lots of terror group, did not include them all.

Seems to me sometimes that Agnostics are only peaceful people. There was no Agnostic militia in Lebanon, never heard of Agnostic fundamentalist.

Terrorism has been around along time. I do not blame all Moslems for this attack, I do not blame all Christians for Hyde Park or Warren Point, I do not blame all Jews for King David Hotel.

Right now I agree Islam seems to have more than it's fair sha re of mutters. But not that long ago seemed to be Irish Catholics before that well some other group.

Geoff, again you are not accurately representing what I said. Nor are your inferences reasonable.

As for the Old Testament, well, as a Christian, the New Testament is the biblical authority. Because, you know, it's the NEW Testament. And while my particular denomination considers the Old Testament not to be binding, every mainstream Christian denomination that I'm aware of believes that the New Testament rules trump the Old Testament rules. So when Christ tells us to love our enemies, turn the other cheek, forgive those who wrong us, etc., those commands trump contra provisions in the Old Testament.

So, as a Christian, I'm most interested in the places where Jesus tells us to kill infidels, enslave them, enslave and rape women, murder homosexuals, etc. Funny, I don't seem able to find them.

In any case, I think that you and I are done here. I doubt I'll respond to you any further since you seem to persistently misunderstand what I'm saying.

Well Tim, it appears that you and I are likely done as well. Your posts clearly demonstrate the strength and depth of your arguments, so I don't really see any reason to continue.

It's a parable that Jesus himself used to teach a story or emphasize his message. You either view the Bible as simply words ordinary men wrote or you believe as it states in the NT that all scripture is breathed out from the mouth of God. Obviously we share different point of views on Scripture and its ultimate origin, and I am willing to respectfully asecpt that. I enjoyed the dialogue and respect the brief conversation we just had.

Gunnerphil--

Yes, indiscriminate calls for violence against large groups are seldom a good idea, and I'm certainly not calling for that.

However, I think that we've seen the complete lack of substance in the stridently assertions by some that a terrorist attack carried out by self-identified Muslims, that they claim is commanded by their faith, and which such commandments do appear throughout the Koran and Hadiths, HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION.

Yeah right.

We also see the disengenuousness of these folks when they refuse to answer a simple question -- should we give Ku Klux Klansmen a pass if they claim that they really don't hate blacks?

Or their unwillingness to acknowledge that there's a difference between a faith that prohibits murdering homosexuals and one that commands the murder of homosexuals, even if some followers of the first faith disobey the prohibition.

The Catholics that fired at you were violating the plain commands of Jesus.

I don't think that Christianity can be fairly blamed for acts that VIOLATE its tenets,

My reading of the Koran and Hadiths lead me to reluctantly conclude that the Paris terrorists were following the plain commands of their Prophet. <shrug> The sources are freely available; I encourage everyone to read them and make up their own minds. If I am correct, then I submit its a little premature to confidently proclaim that these incessant attacks by self-identified Muslim terrorists have nothing to do with Islam.

I am concerned however, that if the European elites don't get over their bizarre conviction that anyone who attacks the West is automatically justified, the masses will take matters into their own hands. And I doubt that ends well for the Muslims in Europe. The American wannabes have the same bizarre religious conviction (that anyone attacking the West is automatically justified); we have far fewer Muslims, so the problem isn't likely to be as bad. Also, we are a heavily armed society, so vigilantism is more complicated here.

I agree with your closing statements, at least the end of it

DavidWhitt--

Oh, please don't think I dismissed your argument. I am an expert in a number of things, but theology isn't one of them. The passage seems ambiguous to me and, given your explanation, at odds with the rest of Christ's teachings. I really intend to discuss this passage with my law partner (who does hold a master's degree in divinity). If he agrees with you then that will persuade me, I think.

Tbeard1999

I think the problem is that in wanting to seem nice kind and fair leaders have forgotten something of their own people

I find it sad that as an intelligent group we looked for what divides us not brings us together.

If I seemed down on Christian or made cheap shot hey I am sorry. Some of beset beset friend arr Christian.

Thanks again for kind thoughts for my family

Gunnerphil--

I've had the pleasure of knowing and being very close to a number of combat veterans. 3 great uncles were infantry/combat engineer in WW2. 1 uncle was an infantryman in Korea. A very close friend was a Navy Corpsman in Vietnam in 1967-68. 2 clients who served in WW2 and 3 that served in Vietnam. Knowing those men has been one of the genuine pleasures and honors of my life.

One thing that I learned from these men is that responsible adults need to see things as they are, not as they wish they were. If they delude themselves, people die. And that is moral cowardice. I'd suspect that your experience is similar.

*IF* there is a problem inherent in the core tenets of Islam, then I suggest that we need to be honest about it.

Strident and groundless claims that these attacks have nothing to do with religion do nothing to solve the problem *if* those attacks actually do have something to do with Islam.

Worse, while they apparently give the proponent a cheap sense of self-righteousness, such dogmatic assertions will make the ultimate resolution of the problem far more costly in lives (particularly Muslim lives).

As I said to Geoff -- I don't think you can win a war by pretending that the enemy is not your enemy. Or ignoring relevant evidence that someone is your enemy.

Nor do I see any moral virtue in refusing to face facts, particularly when such refusal is motivated by a desire for cheap sanctimony,

And as noted earlier, identifying a problem is entirely different from solving the problem.

I think you can start them by assuming that someone who actually is not your enemy is your enemy though

Ty…
While I agree with most of your position, I would like to correct one issue. Islam doesn't need a Reformation. Martin Luther and the protest movement he started wasn't about modernizing or making Christianity more inclusive. It was a call to a return to fundamentalism. A return to the faith of the church of the 1st century. A return to the teachings of Christ and the apostles without the trappings of Greek thought that had been incorporated into and as the Protestants believed, perverted the Roman Church. Lest Catholics be offended by this… I suggest reading some of your Pope Emeritus' works. He warns of exactly the same thing.

So, in short a Reformation for Islam is ISIS.

Islam doesn't need a Reformation. It needs something else.

Joe Collins

Oh Lordy-lord! Where to begin?

To those citing the Koran and the Bible I remind you all that the definition of a fundamentalist is someone who takes a religious text quite literally and refuses to interpret what is being read in the light of other religious text which is equally valid. The Koran (which I too have read but only in English and French translations) and the Bible (OT and NT) are full of contradictory statements, some promoting violence and some condemning it. The important thing to remember is that we are all thinking beings given the good fortune to have and to use reason.

Islam is a religion of violence, as is Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Judaism, Roman Paganism,…. All religions have a bloody trail behind them eventually, due to the failings and weaknesses of the people who choose to follow that religion. It's not the religion, it's the people which pervert the religion to their own ends who must be condemned. It is the terrorists of ISIL and the not the people of the Islamic world who are responsible for these horrendous deaths in France. Muslims are no more responsible than the folks on TMP are responsible for the deaths of innocent by-stander Muslims who are killed in drone strikes and air attacks. The deranged minds of ISIL operatives see such senseless and atrocious civilian death as their warped version of "collateral damage" in their war on Western values and Western hegemony and they discount the wicked murders they commit as a necessary act of war. In that way they are no different from some people of the West who are willing to kill innocents in order to get a high value target. So please, blame the people who order and carry out the attacks and not their neighbours or associates. And before the cries of moral equivalence come out again, I am not excusing ISIL. They are guilty for the crimes which they have committed both at "home" and abroad and must face the consequences of what they have done if possible. However, when I read what amounts to fundamentalist interpretations of the Koran being spouted and calls for more violence against the Muslim world I can't help but see Secular Fundamentalism gearing up for another round of atrocities to keep the cycle of violence going.

Violence is power. The West knows this and ISIL knows this. But what both sides seem to have forgotten is that violence is not the only sort of power. ISIL, as has been pointed out above, wants to trigger a Western backlash, an intervention to legitimize its distorted world view that Islam must be at war with the non-Islamic world (Dar el Harb [the house of War]). The West will play into ISIL's hands if it moves quickly and clumsily into a new and likely an equally doomed round of military intervention. The West must develop new tactics and new methods of attacking fundamentalism and add these to its inventory of ways of dealing with the atrocities of terrorists and their backers. You cannot bomb or missile-strike hate from the hearts of people who hate you. You cannot convince a hostile world view of the superiority of you viewpoint with stealthy violence and denials of your own responsibility for your violence. Treat these attacks as the criminal criminal acts which they are. Punish the people who carried out, planned and supported these crimes directly. Mr. Hollande is very wrong in saying that this is an act of war against France because non-state actors cannot declare war and cannot be treated as if they were a state. The deaths in Paris were a foul criminal atrocity, not a military one and the response should be a criminal route (with military and special operations support only if needed and as a last resort).

The unwillingness of some Western leaders to deal with such terrorism may not be denial as much as convenience. Such atrocities as Paris allow states to claim greater powers and erode or remove the rights of the citizenry. Such attacks are a boon for security and arms manufacturers and if war is declared a windfall for military contractors and military supports industries. This gives our states the power to confiscate more of the citizens' wealth and transfer it to interests the state is beholden to. In a rather sinister way I wonder if there is not a grotesque symbiosis between our "elites" and 'interests' and the maniacs of ISIL. This is only speculation, but the older I grow, the more firmly I suspect it may be true.

Finally I would ask that we here all calm down and stop fighting with each other. The enemy is terrorism in general and ISIL in particular, and not each other.

Rod Robertson.

I was so terribly upset at hearing this. May all those killed in the name of Daesh rest in peace. And may the murdering terrorists suffer in the fires of Hades.

It has been said by many so many times before and again last night in the media, etc. … The average moslem, their religious and secular leadership needs to stop their barbaric lunatic fringe brethren. From tainting their religion and committing such heinous acts.

They may have to be pushed to do this … as it seems their divided factions can't seem to get it done. And as we all know the islamo-fascists terrorist jihadi kills more moslems than the West/non-moslem.

The West may have to be a bit more draconian in handling this situation. The French and others in the West, may have to be less circumspect when dealing with some radicalized moslems in their own countries. Some are calling for a moratorium on allowing molsems into their countries, etc. … I all seems like something out of a sci-fi alternate reality movie.

The West has a lot of serious thinking and decisions to make. This situation can't continue to go on. As I said, the non-islamists non-radicalized molsems of the world really have to take the lead in stopping their own fanatical jihadi brothers. From letting this medieval madness go on.

I am so frustrated that the world leaders of all types, East, West, Christian, molsem, etc., just can't figure out what has to be done. Again, may God Bless the innocents murdered by these very misguided religiously inspired butchers. And if there is an after life, may these mad men and all those like them suffer eternally …

Thank you for last paragraph Rod.

Again I will say terrorist win if we attack each other.

Theology on a thread about 120+ people killed and 300+ wounded. Great. But i forgot, they're only axis of weasel's dead. Sorry for this interruption, you can go on with "my beliefs are the best".

Joe -- point taken. I used the term "Reformation" overly loosely to mean the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation and the slow realization after the Thirty Years' War that mixing church and state is a bad idea and that Christians should attempt to coexist with each other.* My point was that these notions were squarely within the teachings of Christ. So maybe I should've used the term "Modernization".

Islam, on the other hand, does not endorse a separation of church and state. Muhammad was both absolute secular ruler AND God's Prophet. Worse, there is no real mechanism for words of the prophet to be moderated. Every branch of Islam holds that Muhammad's words are perfect for all time. To change those words is to commit apostasy, which is punishable by death.

Ironically, mass literacy is a big part of the problem. Muslim rulers can no longer moderate the words of the Prophet by fiat (as the Ottoman rulers often did). Nowadays, everyone can read the Koran and Hadiths for themselves and any attempt by a ruler to moderate the prophet's words will invite rebellion from the masses.

An interesting aside -- most Christian religious wars were between Christian sects. Most Muslim religious wars were between Muslims and members of other faiths.

Rod -- given that Europe and America have the worst political class in history, I can't dismiss your collusion theory. I do hope you're wrong, though. I believe that the political class will more willingly give up their cherished anti-Western beliefs than their power.

If so, this means that the resolution of this problem will a new wave of European nationalism and xenophobia. And boy, wasn't that fun that last time.

I should add that I believe that the masses will take matters into their own hands if their political elites refuse to do so. Despite cheap jokes about effete Europeans, I think that they will be fearsome foes when they finally have enough. If we don't honestly face the problem, this turns out very badly, especially for the Muslims.

Religion = ideology … and is/can be a very powerful motivator. Regardless of the validity of the dogma, etc. … Whatever such individuals that commit such heinous crimes believe in … Satan, Mars, Baal, Nurgle, etc., etc. … It matters little, it must be stopped !

Ty,

The OT says specifically that homosexuals are to be killed, just like the Koran. And lots of right wing politicians love citing the OT and even enjoy posting the 10 commandments in our public spaces. You retort that you believe that the OT has no bearing on modern Christian beliefs and practices and that we should look only to the NT. The guys who assembled the bible would say otherwise.*

Ok, fine. Then you must be a pacifist who has given all of his earthly wealth to the poor since that's what Jesus commanded. He also taught that if someone strikes you to let him hit you again (ie no "Stand Your Ground" laws) and Christains shouldn't file police reports when robbed since they should actually hand over their other goods (according to the NT).

This is why the bible is a really bad source for public policy. It leads to A La Carte morality. Most western Christians would never consider implementing Jesus' teachings on greed and violence so those get dismissed. But when it comes to using the bible to support their personal biases they're all for it (today we even have the Prosperity Gospel to justify obscene greed).

So for the record, there are nutty Christians and nutty Muslims who use their sacred texts to justify greed, violence, and bigotry when it suits them. And it's wrong to paint all members of a given faith with the same brush, whether Christian or Muslim. And yes, fundamental parts of Christian ideology are used to treat other human beings terribly, including non-whites, women, non-Christians, and homosexuals.

*The bible is also a terrible source for logic or history…the NT and OT contains many contradictions, mistakes, and other oddities. Paul seems to indicate that Jesus never lived on Earth and, like the Greek and Egyptian gods, inhabited another plane. The Jesus story also appears based on earlier stories. There were lots of different deities who were born of a virgin, died nailed to a tree, raised a guy named Lazerus from the dead, etc. It's quite likely that Paul simply started the religion based on other, older stories. As one scholar put it, if you examine all early Christian texts we're to believe that Jesus lived, did amazing things that Romand and Jewish authorities failed to record, everyone forgot about him for many decades, and then suddenly a few people remebered. It doesn't make sense.

The gospels contradict one another and there many, many gospels. Christians murdered one another as they refined which books were to be accepted. Some who never accepted the bible that was eventually agreed upon still exist to this day. Protestants and Catholics still can't agree on basic issues and murder one another in the name of God. The Christians who monitor sites in the Holy Land get in physical altercations over access to them.

To assert that christian ideology doesn't result in greed, violence, and human misery is just bonkers.

Visceral --

Every Christian denomination that I am aware of considers the New Testament to have precedence over the Old Testament. Therefore, it is disengenuous to try to hold Christians to OT provisions that contradict the NT.

You cannot square murdering homosexuals with Christ's plain commands. And no Western nation today does that. The Prophet, however, was quite clear -- "kill he who is doing it and he who it is being done to" as I recall. And I am not aware of *any* self-identified Muslim state that does not have extraordinarily harsh punishments (including death) for homosexuality.

So, an attempt to equate the two seems woefully unsupported by the evidence. Or logic.

However, I offer you a chance to redeem your argument. Please tell me what self-identified Muslim country you would want a gay family member to live in rather than living in the US or Canada or the UK or France…

The same is true of the treatment of women. While the NT tells women to obey their husbands, it also imposes a duty for husbands to love their wives as Christ did the church. That kind of love absolutely forcloses any mistreatment (and also imposes an absolute requirement that a husband be willing to die for his wife). By contrast, the Koran and Hadiths contain elaborate rules for abusing women and wives. These rules (again) are the norm in most self-identified Muslim nations.

Same question -- which self-identified Muslim country would you prefer your mother, sister or daughter to live in rather than the US/UK/France?

Now, as it happens, I agree that one cannot operate a government according to the strictures of the NT. Uh, that's probably why Jesus explicitly acknowledges secular governance -- give to Caesar what is Caesar's. I'd think a seminarian (?) would get that.

Islam contains no such separation. Now, were you the one who claimed to be a seminarian, or have I lost situational awareness on that point?

Actually my sister does live in one, and says she feels safer there than here

An interesting news report -- it appears that at least one of the attackers was a Syrian "refugee" who arrived in Greece last month.

Yes, I suspect that this will have some serious implications for the Syrian "refugees" flooding into Europe. If the story holds true, of course.

We may even get a chance to see if Europe's political class is actually going to do something. As I've said, I expect the common people of Europe to take matters into their own hands if their politicians don't act. And that ain't good, folks.

Deash said they'd be sending the operatives with the moslim exodus heading to Europe. Again tightening up the borders again, may be in order.

Ty,

The "norm" among right wing American Christians is just as scary as the "norm" among right wing Muslims as it pertains to the treatment of women, homosexuals, and violence. Religion does that to people, even otherwise good people.

It is the "Christian" south here in the US that "Stand Your Ground" laws are enacted by Christians. These Christians believe it right to kill others even if merely "feeling threatened".

It is here in states which most identify with Christianity that the death penalty is most popular with Christians (which makes no sense since these are the same people who believe government can't do anything right but they think that no innocent people are executed…you can reverse an incorrect IRS penalty but you can't reverse an imposed death penalty which tells you how much they value earthly wealth over human life).

It was a US Christian general who declared to the Muslim world that "My god is bigger than your god."

And in Virginia recently, Christians tried to enact legislation forcing doctors to rape women with an internal ultrasound device when seeking an abortion. Rape is rape whether it's an ISIS militant raping a girl forced to marry him or a Christian doctor armed with an ultrasound device.

Jesus said, "They shall know you by your acts". On that basis I would say that both right wing Christians (and even many other Christians of other political leanings)and right wing Muslims are cut from the same cloth with respect to ideology. Your comments in this thread prove that. And as one who doesn't share their views I wouldn't want to lumped together with such "Christians" just as the vast, vast majority of Muslims don't want to be lumped together with ISIS.

BTW…your comment on the gospels vs public policy proves my point. When Jesus' teachings prove inconvenient to the greedy and violent they're discounted. But when used to justify maltreatment of others then one is doing God's work. ISIS takes the same approach.

Visceral -- you have refused to answer my questions, presumably because they would force you to admit inconvenient facts. I have little patience for such tactics, so we're done unless you choose to answer my questions. And frankly, I don't think that a rational assessment of the facts comes close to supporting your apparent assertion that the US Southern states are as bad as a typical self-identified Muslim nation. I can't stop you from making these kinds of arguments, but I certainly don't have to engage with it. Your posts make the strength and depth of your reasoning quite clear, so I'll bid you adieu,

TY,

Forgot to answer your question re: homosexuals and safety.

Thanks to the secular left, I would agree with you that homosexuals are now safer in places like the US and western/northern Europe.

But they still face extraordinary hostility and discrimination from the Christian and Muslim right all across the globe, whether in the US, Europe, or middle east.

Glad we can agree on something. I just never thought of you as being a member of the secular left and opposed to the Christian right. ;-)

Viceral -- since you did answer one of my questions, I'll assume your agreement that the US/Europe is a far better place for women as well.

I'd submit that this pretty much puts paid to your previous attempt to invoke the Old Testament to prove that somehow Christianity is as bad as Islam.

I think what I find most perplexing is the apparent lack of perspective from folks that make your type of arguments. Because homosexuals were denied marriage in some places in the US, you try to then argue/imply that this is somehow just as bad as being murdered for being gay. Seriously? Or because the OT calls for death to homosexuals, this somehow makes Christianity as bad as Islam, despite the fact that this OT law is not applicable to Christians. Sorry but that just a *little* bit of a stretch, I think.

I don't think I'd let myself make such unsupported and unreasonable arguments. Anyhow, I've had all the fun I can take -- and I am supremely uninterested in a debate about the flaws of the US southern states -- so I bid you adieu.

Guys

The religious "he said, she said" and "my god's bigger than your god (and by extension their god" is all very well but, with the best will in the world… so what?

The "religion" involved in this may be important only in as far as deducing what motivates which bunch, but – other than that – I really don't think it has any bearing on either the current situation (in or out of Paris) or deducing a plan of what could – or should – be done about the pickle the West (and – as I said before – Russia) is currently in.

Oh and – purely as an aside and I honestly can't stress this enough – personally I really don't care.

As local boy "Fanch du Leon" said:

Theology on a thread about 120+ people killed and 300+ wounded. Great. But i forgot, they're only axis of weasel's dead. Sorry for this interruption, you can go on with "my beliefs are the best".

What can the West/NATO and Russia DO:

That is the big question, surely..

John T

John --

The West can be honest with itself about the nature of the threat it is facing. And *that* is what we've been cussing and discussing. The debate -- which I would think would be obvious to you -- is whether Islam itself is a problem or whether the violence is due to a small group of fanatics that have distorted Islamic doctrine. This seems highly relevant to the thread's topic and to your question.

Therefore, your condescending dismissal is unappreciated and poorly targeted.

And since Fanch's comment made little sense (to me at least), there wasn't much to say about it.

Kyoteblue --

I disagree in the strongest terms with your solution because I believe it has a fatal flaw -- it assumes that we can somehow be nice enough to them to make them stop attacking us. I'll assume that you agree that winning their hearts and minds shouldn't include surrender, adoption of Sharia, etc.

History is replete with enemies who hearts and minds could not be won over without surrendering to them. How were the Allies supposed to win the hearts and minds of the German Nazis or the Japanese militarists? How was the North supposed to win the hearts and minds of the slaveholding Southern Autocracy? Et cetera.

I'd submit that we need to figure out how to defeat them.

I'd submit that this pretty much puts paid to your previous attempt to invoke the Old Testament to prove that somehow Christianity is as bad as Islam.

Never said that Christianity is as bad as Islam.

Simply said that some Christians (like those who recently espoused the forcible rape of women in Virginia) are as bad as some Muslims.

Thus we shouldn't lump all Muslims together (as some in this discussion do) or all Christians together.

But it's nice to see you supporting secular liberal values such as homosexual rights. Here in the American south most right wing Christians are doing everything they can to codify anti-gay discrimination.

Looks like ISIS was effective in driving political change. They made Ty Beard a secular liberal on gay and feminist issues! :-)

As to 'winning hearts and minds' (originally in Daily Telegraph) -

The veil has conquered Sarajevo, for example, a city that could easily have come into the West's orbit after the collapse of communist Yugoslavia. Not so long ago, there was scarcely a veil to be seen in the whole city. A friend of mine, who was a foreign correspondent during the Bosnian war, came to know a young sniper in Sarajevo and stayed in touch with him. But soon after, he refused to meet her, saying he could not be seen with an unmarried non-Muslim. In the space of a few years, veils had gone from being unseen in Sarajevo to being commonplace – yet it's hard to call this "backward" when, for so many Bosnians, this is the way forward. When strategists in Britain and America were congratulating themselves on the "end of history", their counterparts in Saudi Arabia were funding the construction of mosques, and even paying people who worshiped there. This strategy was a remarkable success, and a visit to Sarajevo now will confound those who imagined that the end of Communist rule would see such countries make their way to try to adapt to our way of life.

Read more at: link

Seems that the West is behind the curve there.

P.S. As to Christians writing the book on torture, murder, etc., I believe that the Assyrians among others predate any Christians.

That sort of behavior is as old as humanity.

Visceral --

Congrats, you hit a nerve and made me violate my rule about saying goodbye.

I suggest that you refrain from making assumptions about people you don't know. As it happens, there are 3 attorneys (of 8) in my law firm that would find your comments offensive. They'd likely explain to you in very unpleasant terms how inaccurate your assertions are. And while I'd hate to face any of them, I'm certain you'd enjoy it even less. They can talk harsh, man.

See, I hire really good people…

You really should avoid uncritically accepting stereotypes, you know?

Kyoteblue-- yeah, the Allies really lost the peace after 1945 didn't they? And boy, the North just thought it won the Amrican Civil War…

I believe that any opponent can be beaten if you have the tools and the willingness to use them. I can point to FAR more historical examples to support this than you can to rebut it, I expect.

In any case, I'm not a big fan of surrendering to people who would enslave me and my family, treat my daughters as property and slaughter my friends who happen to be gay or atheists. So if it's all the same to you, I'll keep advocating that we find a way to defeat them.