I treat them equally. I disagree with any sort of organized faith-based belief system, but I fully support their right to exist and will gladly go to bat for any party I think is being unfairly discriminated against.

It just happens that in this country, Christians are more often than not the ones discriminating rather than victims.

Also, there are small, insane components of the Christian faith as well.

They're called the Christian Coalition. Look them up. They're fucking -scary-.

You are absolutely correct Draugnar!!!

The US military never attacks civilian targets.

Not in Afghanistan;

http://cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm

Not in Pakistan;

http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=21440

And DEFINITELY not in Iraq;

I mean, American troops would never kill innocent children in retribution for attacks by thier parents, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_killings

They wouldn't purposefully endanger civilian areas unless it was necessary, right?
http://cursor.org/stories/iraq.html

They wouldn't shoot a group of civilians under dubious circumstances; Americans follow proper protocol! (And protocol will protect innocents, right?)
http://www.collateralmurder.com/

And above all, the US would never specifically target and kill journalists trying to keep track of civilian casualties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_bombing_memo



--------

Now, I will agree that the American military's mission abroad is most likely not to kill civilians. But it seems pretty clear that they really don't give a shit whether you're a civilian or not if they can get away with it.

"If you're brown, yer down!", as I always say in situations where one group of people kill a lot of innocent foreigners but don't really care. :)

You're the one comments on "the white man", you racist asshole. I have always said Native American. Not once have I called you or your "people" teepee camping redskinned savages. So put that in your peace pipe and smoke it, mother fucker.

The above was directed at PuppyKicker.

Hey now Krellin. If you want to get into bashing extremist Islam I am equally happy to oblige. It is used as the primary justification for some of the worst abuses known to man. The State of Saudi Arabia is possibly the most immoral instution still in existence today (Barring the possible exception of the North Korean government).

Islamic schools in Britain and elsewhere (particularly the wahhabist ones) commit abuses against the education of children in the name of religious inspiration.

But hey, I see no categorical difference between Islam and Christianity in that regard. It just so happens that Christian extremism has been tempered by hundreds of years of humanist intellectual and secular movements.

There is no *rule* that says Christians aren't terrorists but Muslims are, by the way. Have you looked at Ireland, Spain, Armenia, Turkey, Peru, etc. etc. etc.?

If you mean, "but the vast majority of Christians are peaceful!" Well no shit, but this applies to all religions. If you are going to make such a patently ridiculous claim, at least *try* to justify it.

Yes. The US Government butchered the Native Americans.

Its a fact. This is why I don't care, however:

That is (regrettably, I might add) how things were done by basically every civilization up until the last hundred or two hundred years. Doesn't make it right, but that is how it was.

The ironic thing about it (and this is just a single example) of the Lakota Nation bleating about how the Black Hills were their holy land.... near as we can tell, they went to war with the last peoples, slaughtered them, and expelled the survivors. Basically, everybody was playing the same game of fuck over everybody else if you can get away with it.... white Europeans just happened to be better armed. And if the only difference between my ancestors and others is that mine were better armed assholes... I'm not going to waste my time apologizing for that.

Point being: We can go on for days about whose people fucked who in the past.

However, it doesn't accomplish squat.

@FS - every one of the ones I read above speak of 10 here and 12 there. What about over 2000 in one fucking attack?! And those reports don't say how many fot he taliban were killed in those attacks. Collateral damage happens. It's a fact of war. Just as friendly fire ocassionally kills soldiers on the same side.

Haditha... Marines went against orders, got angry, and murdered innocent people. The backlash continues, but you can't argue they were ordered to perform these actions by someone up in the chain of command. They basically went power mad. Now, I think they needed to punish the soldiers more than they did.

The Reuters incident saw the soldiers cleared of any wrong doing as they were taking fire from that same location. they were not targeting civlians unde r"dubious" circumstances, but were trying to defend themselves from someone they thought was an enemy firing upon them. Collateral damage happens. It's a fact of war.

Your memo report is a bunch of bunk and you know it is. It is not believed to be accurate and, even if it is, the context is unknown as only parts of the minutes were "leaked" (i.e. made up by the Mirror, a really reliable fucking source, ya know?).

And that Professor MArc whatever obviously has an agenda...

I agree that past wrongs committed by people who are long by others who are long gone are worthless issues to quarrel about. Let's move on and complete the healing.

History though folks, *is* relevant when discussing social policy as it relates to priveliged and underpriveliged groups in society. For instance, it is important to emphasize the fact that African Americans have on average a much lower socio-economic status not because they are on average stupider or lazier than 'whites' or 'asians', but because of a heritage of opression and group poverty that repeats itself through the generations.

The same could be said for Native Americans. So let's not just dismiss it as irrelevant, because it isn't.

I think the problem here is not that the building being built is a mosque specifically, but that the people who caused 9/11 appealed to Islam and a mosque is a symbol of Islam. If I killed someone in the name of Jesus Christ, and then over that sight a cross was erected, it would be poor taste. That's all Palin is saying. That it would be poor taste if a mosque was build over a site where jihadist Muslims killed thousands of Americans with no provocation. She is appealing to Muslims to try to get them to see that. She is not saying that a war will erupt over this, or that peace hangs in the balance, but rather that Muslim-Christian relations will be sorely strained by this act.

Draugnar, the vast majority of those attacks resulted in the deaths of no militants. Repeated attacks, based either on dubious intelligence, poor weighing of likelyhoods, an attempt at destroying infrastructure or outright misses have resulted in exclusively civilian casualties. Surely, each individual incident may not have been planned to kill civilians for the sake of killing, but it creates a pattern, don't it?

If I set off a nuke in Paris with the intent of killing a group of widely spread insurgents planning to attack America.. and I succeed in killing half of them... would that be justified?

Bleh I hate proportionality.

---

As for numbers, how about 97,082 – 105,855 directly killed by violence over the whole war, a majority killed either by American, or American trained Iraqi troops (either directly or as part of a cross-fire).

The above represents the low end of the estimates, by the way.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

"She is not saying that a war will erupt over this, or that peace hangs in the balance, but rather that Muslim-Christian relations will be sorely strained by this act"... which, however I wish it wasn't so, is probably true.

To get back on topic, I still think that the Mosque has the right to be built and that it ought to be, I do not believe that Palin is being particularly out to lunch with this, as far as emotions are concerned.

Of course the Mosque has a right to be built, but the point that Palin makes is that it won't help Muslim-Christian relations to build it there. For once, she is not wrong.

@FriendlySword....Sigh.....Once again purposely (I think) missing my point. I didn't try to imply that Islam is any worse than/better than Christianity. they all have their faults....JUST AS atheism does. My question - my point - is that the Anti-Religious on these forums tend to take great delight in bashing the people of Christianity and broadly labeling them. But you bring up Islam in polite - islam which *currently, not histroically* is affiliated with wonton death and destruction, and people feel like we need to be all kind and polite so as to not offend the "peaceful" Muslims. I'm just looking for the Anti-Religious to be as f8ing hateful towards Islam as they are towards Christians. I think the *lack* of equal hate-flinging is very interesting.

For example -- FUCK the fucking Islamic fuckheads and their fucking moronic temple of insanity on ground zero. Since all religion is brain-washed fuckery anyway, damn near verging on child abuse by teaching kids about the nonsensical idea of an eternal being, OF COURSE it is pig-shit stupid to allow them to build their shrine to insanity.

THIS is the anti-religious post I am looking for from all you Christian bashers.

You're clearly no atheist. This type of speech is more typical for religious folk :P

@Ghost - "If Ivo is about to bring up Hiroshima as in any way a parallel of terrorism or as a basis to criticise America, heaven help us. "

No, what I was making a parallel to was the concept of killing civilians, by the thousands, in order to achieve "shack and awe". Everyone who could have used it. Some people don't have nukes and only have faith. I don't approve, but I understand - because it makes logic sense. For people who believe that is...

@krellin - "WHY is Christianity treated so much more harshly than Islam by some? "

You can add to that question "Why is the US...".

Well, my mother used to tell me, when I would ask her why other kids could do X and I couldn't "look at yourself first, not the others". I didn't like it and it seemed unfair. But you see, the question is, do you want to be better than the rest?

The US, and the Christian world in large, is considered to be at the forefront of human civilization, especially when it comes to human rights, free speech, social equality and other liberal and ungodly ideas. And this is where I think I'd like to be actually. So what exactly is your problem with having a higher standard. You're envious of Iran or something? :)

!!

Holy crap Mr Potty mouth. When has anyone on this forum ever been so obtuse with their language? (Other than you) ^^

-----

Well,
Krellin, the reasons that you will never hear anything like that from us ( or at least me, anyways) is;

a) The 'Christian-bashers' as you like to call them, have not revealed themselves (in my opinion) to be so pointlessly offensive and derogatory. I for one am perfectly capable of expressing my discontent over the problems of organized religion without reverting to redundant expletives.

b) It isn't criticism, it's a childish rant that offers no substantive reasons for it's claims. When I say the Catholic Church has problems with child abuse, I *support* that claim.

c) It isn't based on reality. The Mosque will not be built *on* ground zero, it won't even be visible from ground zero.

d) Furthermore, general criticisms of religion using examples specific to Christianity (for the benefit of the Christian reader) are not equivalent to saying that Muslims are insane pigs.


--------

Anyway, when you said that modern Islam is directly asscoaited with violence and terrorism, but that modern Christianity isn't, you very clearly made the claim that Islam is currently worse. My point was that the notion of there being no Christians killing in the name of Christ is a false one, even though there may be less of them than Muslim fundamentalists. For doing anything other than generalising, you entire paragraph was based on a distinction that was wrong and useless.

If you live in a predominantly Christian country, you are going to criticize Christians. And stringent criticism is not necessarily equivalent to hate, however much you seem to think it is.

----


For example Krellin,

I think you can be an overly emotional foolish arguer, and I will criticize your misconceptions (as I see them) to bits, but I certainly don't hate you.

That would be Silllllleeeeeee

PuppyKicker, you are exaggerating the "crimes" committed by the American military. The American forces entered Iraq and Afghanistan to do a specific job. Admittedly, that job was a bit of a failure, but there was certainly not a "Kill every Arab we can" attitude. At least there is no proof of it, and so for you to assert that there is without any evidence is argumentative and pointless. The atomic bombs were used to defeat a nation in war, not to send a political message or to kill a massive number of people. The examples of American bullying you cite were in response to direct provocation. 9/11 was not a response to direct provocation, but was rather a message of hate and destruction in the name of a certain religion. True, those terrorists did not speak for the entire religion, but the name of Islam is still attached to 9/11, like it or not, just as Westboro Baptist Church has tainted the name of Christianity. Would it be poor judgment to put up a church where the Westboro Baptist Church rallied at Rutgers University (an event I was part of)? Absolutely. The same goes for a mosque at Ground Zero. It is not wrong, but rather poor taste, something that certainly does not exude goodwill from Muslims. The reason a mosque create such feelings is because the attack was in the name of Islam. If the attack was in the name of baseball, it would be poor taste to build a baseball field, but would be alright to build a football field or any other sports venue.

Actually, based on the fact that htis mosque is actually blocks away, I would have no problem with it. But I would have a problem with any denominational church or mosque going up at ground zero. If anything, I think the most appropriate thing to put there would be a memorial of all (and no) religions to represent the diversity of the people who worked there as well as the emergency personnel who made the ultimate sacrifice to try and save them. And I think, in that, a small meditation garden with symbols representing all the major faiths from Christianity and Judaism to Islam and Hinduism and all other faiths could be constructed. If there is an universal atheistic symbol, it should be there too. Humanity was seriously wounded that day, not just Christians and Jews or the West, but all humanity: East and West, believer and non-believer.

@Draugnar +1

My understanding is that the perceived (by Muslims) intolerance of the West (primarily Christian) is a major driver of the "West vs Islam" argument. Which is why statements like Palin's (which may be heartfelt but I suspect more likely are based on opinion polls) are so negative.

If the people/government of NYC 'reach out' to the majority of Muslims by allowing construction of a mosque close to Ground Zero it would do a great deal to undermine the arguments of those who fuel the argument.

In short, turn the other cheek.

The more I read these debates the more I believe that the important question is not "who started it?" but "who finished it?".

Well said Diplomat 61.
Also you can say things like "Well the attacks were committed in the name of Islam therefore it's in poor taste." but atrocities have been committed in the name of so many different causes that to single out the link between 9/11 and Islam is very very misleading. We can't allow the fact that a very small minority of people perform violent acts in the name of their religion as a way to express their frustrations with global geopolitics, to condemn all members of that religion.
There were Muslims who died on 9/11 too, and Muslim New Yorkers, and Muslim Americans in general were just as effected on that day, without the backlash from everyone else.
Don't forget that good acts have also been performed in the name of Islam, like any other religion. Let's give people that chance.

I have to get a WebDip hookup on my phone or something so I can check these things while at college for the day...I come back and there's been like 40+ new responses lol...

@TGM:

Except even if the attackers carried out the attacks "in the name of Islam" 1. I'll put foward the admittedly dangerous argument and say that the attacks don't reflect Islam (and I say a dangerous argument because I'm sure this will elicit plenty of responses why Islam is this evil, warmongering nation, but really looking at their codes it's not- how much members *stick* to those codes, of course, is up for debate, and obviously those attackers were perverting the codes and ideals and broke them rather severely, akin to the Crusaders "killing in the name of Christ," but, again, do the Crusaders reflect true Christianity, Christian readers? If not...same case with the Muslims and the attackers...abusers of ideals in every religion and, yes, even atheism, I'm sure, there's no one belief or non-belief system that has never ever done a single bad thing and is toally the white sheep amongst a flock of big bad black ones...) and 2. We are not, last time I checked, at war with ISLAM, but with AL QUADA and TERROR.

This is a problem in the public consciousness, and that's why I see Ms. Palin's comments as dangerous and totally irresponsible and offensive (and hey, I'm no PC police, I love off-color comedy, but this isn't comedy, and this should not have been said.)

To reiterate:

We are NOT at war with Islam, but with Al Quaeda.

If we were at war with Islam, if Bush or Obama came on TV and said "Folks, we're going to war against the Nation of Islam" how well do you think that'd go?

...

Okay, maybe about a quarter of the yahoos in this and other Western nations that are either warmongering or intolerant and just hate Muslims/folks not like them might respond "OK, let's get a-killin'! Yee-haw!"

However, I suspect most people would react with outrage, fury, indignation, or a good mix of all three.

We do not and cannot declare war on a religion when our First Ammendment promises the right to any and all religions!

Furthermore, were we to declare war on Islam itself, then this isn't a war defending our nation or even Western Democracies anymore, at that point it's a holy war, and I'd like to think (though some people like Ms. Palin do make me wonder sometimes how much it's true) that we've moved past our Medevial inclinations.

Again, the only, the *only* link that mosque has with the attackers is they happened to be Muslims, so, again, if you say that a mosque there hurts you are essentially saying a reminder of Islam hurts, if you call it a provocation you are stating that to build a house of worship for Islam is a provocation, that's the only link between these Muslims and the attackers, so it's Islam, not terror, not Al Quada, not the Middle East that's being called a provocation here, it's Islam.

And as long as this war is West vs. Terror and not West vs. Islam, to make a statement against Islam and to deny them rights any other citizen and religion would have (again, this wouldn't be a problem if it were a church, now, would it?) is to violate a First Ammendment right...and to essentially announce that America has a problem with Islam, and that this war is partially a holy one; if we do not want it to be so, we cannot single out and impede a religion like that just because ten years ago some people who happened to be of that religion committed a heinous crime.

By that logic, I think I should loudly protest against any and all churches built in my area or in Jersalem, TGM, since the ancestors of those Christians killed and raped a great many million of my people over the millenia and a half or so, and no Spanish buildings in my California neighborhood, then, had better be built, because of that malicious and religious group of attackers and persecutors of my people, The Spanish Inquisition!



HA!

Didn't expect them to creep into the conversation, did you?

But then again- NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!

;)

@obi

"I have to get a WebDip hookup on my phone or something so I can check these things while at college for the day..."

What are you doing @ college? It's the summer!

Also, if your college has good wireless, you could drop $200 on a netbook.

>I treat them equally. I disagree with any sort of organized faith-based belief system, but I fully support their right to exist and will gladly go to bat for any party I think is being unfairly discriminated against.

I treat them equally, and I don't support their "right" to exist. Why should they have that right, when there is no truth to their wild claims?

Well Dunecat, I should hope that you agree that people have both the right to organise into consensual groups, and that they have the right to believe in whatever they want and that free speech is also an important right.

If you do, than you also supprot the right of religions to exist. However much you dislike them and argue against them, consistency dictates you ought not to prevent them from existing through force.

The wild claims are rather beside the point.

>Well Dunecat, I should hope that you agree that people have [...] the right to believe in whatever they want and that free speech is also an important right.

No, people do not have the right to believe whatever they want. There is no truth to the wild claims of religion. Religions and their followers ought to be ostracized for being unreasonable. I don't advocate any sort of force against them; however, no religion deserves tax exemption.

>The wild claims are rather beside the point.
No, the wild claims are exactly the point. Religious faith is antithesis to reason and thus it threatens humanity itself. That is why it should be ostracized publicly and intimately.

"No, people do not have the right to believe whatever they want. There is no truth to the wild claims of religion."

And who do you propose is to rule on what the truth is and what deserves ostracising for? Given that I'm willing to bet you wouldn't accept that anything you say being stupid, I'm guessing that means the answer is you yourself.