Terrorist/criminal human rights
Posted by: Rasher on 03 July 2007
quote:Rasher
I'd argue that just when it seems most desperately necessary to ignore human rights for a greater good - is exactly when a Nation needs most to cleave to them unwaveringly.
Deane
I understand the need for calm insofar as we don't want lawless chaos, but taking an extreme case like Zimbabwe & Robert Mugabe, surely for the sake of the countless lives the man and his regime must be overthrown at any cost. His rights surely cannot be considered alongside the rights of those starving and dying as a result of him. He can be treated as a human being after he has been removed and all efforts have been made for aid for the country, but certainly not before.
In the case of terrorists, priorities have to be considered and their rights have to be pretty far down the list. Far more important are the lives of the innocent. Maybe this is where it has all gone wrong; that we see the rights of the criminal as equal priority to the rights of the victims, and this has led us to wish that they didn't have any rights at all.
Read this and explain to me how you could possibly feel so inclined to consider the rights of this scum. I don't think I could, and to be honest, I wouldn't want anyone else to either.
Posted on: 09 July 2007 by Nigel Cavendish
Any religious text is open to interpretation, usually by "priests" as the Christian western world knows full well. In the West we have reached a liberal view of belief given that the majority have no religious inclination.
The terrorists who follow Islam are no doubt sincere in their belief that what they do is sanctioned by interpretation of the Koran.
These people are not necessarily "easily led", many are very intelligent.
The key is to get the Muslim community, who often see their religion as more important than their country of residence, to identify the extremists and their mentors.
The terrorists who follow Islam are no doubt sincere in their belief that what they do is sanctioned by interpretation of the Koran.
These people are not necessarily "easily led", many are very intelligent.
The key is to get the Muslim community, who often see their religion as more important than their country of residence, to identify the extremists and their mentors.
Posted on: 09 July 2007 by John G.
Britain, through it's lax immigration policy and granting of asylum to Muslim extremists has become a breeding ground for Jihadists.
The view of Islam as a "religion of peace" contributes to the whole untenable mess.
The view of Islam as a "religion of peace" contributes to the whole untenable mess.
Posted on: 09 July 2007 by acad tsunami
All this talk of Islamic Jihad is missed placed in my view.
FACT: Suicide terrorism is not primarily a product of Islamic fundamentalism.
FACT: The world’s leading practitioners of suicide terrorism are the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka–a secular, Marxist-Leninist group drawn from Hindu families.
FACT: Ninety-five percent of suicide terrorist attacks occur as part of coherent campaigns organized by large militant organizations with significant public support.
FACT: Every suicide terrorist campaign has had a clear goal that is secular and political: to compel a modern democracy to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland.
FACT: Al-Qaeda fits the above pattern. Although Saudi Arabia is not under American military occupation per se, one major objective of al-Qaeda is the expulsion of U.S. troops from the Persian Gulf region, and as a result there have been repeated attacks by terrorists loyal to Osama bin Laden against American troops in Saudi Arabia and the region as a whole.
FACT: Despite their rhetoric, democracies–including the United States–have routinely made concessions to suicide terrorists. Suicide terrorism is on the rise because terrorists have learned that it’s effective.
Details here
FACT: Suicide terrorism is not primarily a product of Islamic fundamentalism.
FACT: The world’s leading practitioners of suicide terrorism are the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka–a secular, Marxist-Leninist group drawn from Hindu families.
FACT: Ninety-five percent of suicide terrorist attacks occur as part of coherent campaigns organized by large militant organizations with significant public support.
FACT: Every suicide terrorist campaign has had a clear goal that is secular and political: to compel a modern democracy to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland.
FACT: Al-Qaeda fits the above pattern. Although Saudi Arabia is not under American military occupation per se, one major objective of al-Qaeda is the expulsion of U.S. troops from the Persian Gulf region, and as a result there have been repeated attacks by terrorists loyal to Osama bin Laden against American troops in Saudi Arabia and the region as a whole.
FACT: Despite their rhetoric, democracies–including the United States–have routinely made concessions to suicide terrorists. Suicide terrorism is on the rise because terrorists have learned that it’s effective.
Details here
Posted on: 09 July 2007 by John G.
The chief barrier today to a better understanding of Islam -- apart, perhaps, from outright fear -- is sloppy language. Let us take, to start with, the much-vaunted "war on terror." Upon scrutiny, the phrase "war on terror" makes as much sense as a war on "blitzkrieg," "bullets," or "strategic bombing." The "war on terror" implies that it is perfectly fine if the enemy seeks to destroy us -- and, indeed, succeeds in doing so -- as long as he does not employ "terror" in the process.
"Terrorism," it should be obvious, is a tactic or stratagem used to advance a goal; it is the goal of Islamic terrorism that we must come to understand, and this logically requires an understanding of Islam.
As we have seen, contrary to the widespread insistence that true Islam is pacific even if a handful of its adherents are violent, the Islamic sources make clear that engaging in violence against non-Muslims is a central and indispensable principle to Islam. Islam is less a personal faith than a political ideology that exists in a fundamental and permanent state of war with non-Islamic civilizations, cultures, and individuals. The Islamic holy texts outline a social, governmental, and economic system for all mankind. Those cultures and individuals who do not submit to Islamic governance exist in an ipso facto state of rebellion with Allah and must be forcibly brought into submission. The misbegotten term "Islamo-fascism" is wholly redundant: Islam itself is a kind of fascism that achieves its full and proper form only when it assumes the powers of the state.
The spectacular acts of Islamic terrorism in the late 20th and early 21st centuries are but the most recent manifestation of a global war of conquest that Islam has been waging since the days of the Prophet Muhammad in the 7th Century AD and that continues apace today. This is the simple, glaring truth that is staring the world today in the face -- and which has stared it in the face numerous times in the past -- but which it seems few today are willing to contemplate.
It is important to realize that we have been talking about Islam -- not Islamic "fundamentalism," "extremism," "fanaticism," "Islamo-fascism," or "Islamism," but Islam proper, Islam in its orthodox form as it has been understood and practiced by right-believing Muslims from the time of Muhammad to the present. The mounting episodes of Islamic terrorism in the late 20th and early 21st centuries are due largely to the geostrategic changes following the end of the Cold War and the growing technical options available to terrorists.
With the collapse of Soviet hegemony over much of the Muslim world, coupled with the burgeoning wealth of the Muslim oil-producing countries, the Muslim world increasingly possesses the freedom and means to support jihad around the globe. In short, the reason that Muslims are once again waging war against the non-Muslim world is because they can.
It is paramount to note, however, that, even if no major terrorist attack ever occurs on Western soil again, Islam still poses a mortal danger to the West. A halt to terrorism would simply mean a change in Islam’s tactics -- perhaps indicating a longer-term approach that would allow Muslim immigration and higher birth rates to bring Islam closer to victory before the next round of violence. It cannot be overemphasized that Muslim terrorism is a symptom of Islam that may increase or decrease in intensity while Islam proper remains permanently hostile.
Muhammad Taqi Partovi Samzevari, in his “Future of the Islamic Movement” (1986), sums up the Islamic worldview.
Our own Prophet … was a general, a statesman, an administrator, an economist, a jurist and a first-class manager all in one. … In the Qur’an’s historic vision Allah’s support and the revolutionary struggle of the people must come together, so that Satanic rulers are brought down and put to death. A people that is not prepared to kill and to die in order to create a just society cannot expect any support from Allah. The Almighty has promised us that the day will come when the whole of mankind will live united under the banner of Islam, when the sign of the Crescent, the symbol of Muhammad, will be supreme everywhere. … But that day must be hastened through our Jihad, through our readiness to offer our lives and to shed the unclean blood of those who do not see the light brought from the Heavens by Muhammad in his mi’raj {“nocturnal voyages to the ‘court’ of Allah”}. … It is Allah who puts the gun in our hand. But we cannot expect Him to pull the trigger as well simply because we are faint-hearted.
It must be emphasized that all of the analysis provided here derives from the Islamic sources themselves and is not the product of critical Western scholarship. (Indeed, most modern Western scholarship of Islam is hardly “critical” in any meaningful sense.) It is Islam’s self-interpretation that necessitates and glorifies violence, not any foreign interpretation of it.
"Terrorism," it should be obvious, is a tactic or stratagem used to advance a goal; it is the goal of Islamic terrorism that we must come to understand, and this logically requires an understanding of Islam.
As we have seen, contrary to the widespread insistence that true Islam is pacific even if a handful of its adherents are violent, the Islamic sources make clear that engaging in violence against non-Muslims is a central and indispensable principle to Islam. Islam is less a personal faith than a political ideology that exists in a fundamental and permanent state of war with non-Islamic civilizations, cultures, and individuals. The Islamic holy texts outline a social, governmental, and economic system for all mankind. Those cultures and individuals who do not submit to Islamic governance exist in an ipso facto state of rebellion with Allah and must be forcibly brought into submission. The misbegotten term "Islamo-fascism" is wholly redundant: Islam itself is a kind of fascism that achieves its full and proper form only when it assumes the powers of the state.
The spectacular acts of Islamic terrorism in the late 20th and early 21st centuries are but the most recent manifestation of a global war of conquest that Islam has been waging since the days of the Prophet Muhammad in the 7th Century AD and that continues apace today. This is the simple, glaring truth that is staring the world today in the face -- and which has stared it in the face numerous times in the past -- but which it seems few today are willing to contemplate.
It is important to realize that we have been talking about Islam -- not Islamic "fundamentalism," "extremism," "fanaticism," "Islamo-fascism," or "Islamism," but Islam proper, Islam in its orthodox form as it has been understood and practiced by right-believing Muslims from the time of Muhammad to the present. The mounting episodes of Islamic terrorism in the late 20th and early 21st centuries are due largely to the geostrategic changes following the end of the Cold War and the growing technical options available to terrorists.
With the collapse of Soviet hegemony over much of the Muslim world, coupled with the burgeoning wealth of the Muslim oil-producing countries, the Muslim world increasingly possesses the freedom and means to support jihad around the globe. In short, the reason that Muslims are once again waging war against the non-Muslim world is because they can.
It is paramount to note, however, that, even if no major terrorist attack ever occurs on Western soil again, Islam still poses a mortal danger to the West. A halt to terrorism would simply mean a change in Islam’s tactics -- perhaps indicating a longer-term approach that would allow Muslim immigration and higher birth rates to bring Islam closer to victory before the next round of violence. It cannot be overemphasized that Muslim terrorism is a symptom of Islam that may increase or decrease in intensity while Islam proper remains permanently hostile.
Muhammad Taqi Partovi Samzevari, in his “Future of the Islamic Movement” (1986), sums up the Islamic worldview.
Our own Prophet … was a general, a statesman, an administrator, an economist, a jurist and a first-class manager all in one. … In the Qur’an’s historic vision Allah’s support and the revolutionary struggle of the people must come together, so that Satanic rulers are brought down and put to death. A people that is not prepared to kill and to die in order to create a just society cannot expect any support from Allah. The Almighty has promised us that the day will come when the whole of mankind will live united under the banner of Islam, when the sign of the Crescent, the symbol of Muhammad, will be supreme everywhere. … But that day must be hastened through our Jihad, through our readiness to offer our lives and to shed the unclean blood of those who do not see the light brought from the Heavens by Muhammad in his mi’raj {“nocturnal voyages to the ‘court’ of Allah”}. … It is Allah who puts the gun in our hand. But we cannot expect Him to pull the trigger as well simply because we are faint-hearted.
It must be emphasized that all of the analysis provided here derives from the Islamic sources themselves and is not the product of critical Western scholarship. (Indeed, most modern Western scholarship of Islam is hardly “critical” in any meaningful sense.) It is Islam’s self-interpretation that necessitates and glorifies violence, not any foreign interpretation of it.
Posted on: 09 July 2007 by acad tsunami
quote:"Terrorism," it should be obvious, is a tactic or stratagem used to advance a goal; it is the goal of Islamic terrorism that we must come to understand, and this logically requires an understanding of Islam.
John G,
If you have to post a load of paranoid bollocks you could at least cite your source which is plainly Jihad Watch Section 3 Conclusion
Posted on: 09 July 2007 by droodzilla
John G - Thanks for bringing my attention to the true face of Islam:
All muslims are the same.
All muslims want to kill me.
Merciful Allah, spare me!
All muslims are the same.
All muslims want to kill me.
Merciful Allah, spare me!
Posted on: 09 July 2007 by Bob McC
Acad
And there was me thinking he was a scholar!
And there was me thinking he was a scholar!
Posted on: 09 July 2007 by Deane F
Well I'll be damned!
John G. just cut and pasted an entire passage from a website, posted it on the Naim Forum, and didn't even attribute the source!!!
John G. just cut and pasted an entire passage from a website, posted it on the Naim Forum, and didn't even attribute the source!!!
Posted on: 09 July 2007 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
Regardless of source, its bollocks.
Posted on: 09 July 2007 by Deane F
John G.
Even the guy that wrote what you plagiarised cited his sources.
Deane
Even the guy that wrote what you plagiarised cited his sources.
Deane
Posted on: 09 July 2007 by John G.
Please forgive me for not citing the source of the quote. It was not my intention to take credit for the well written piece. I thought the content was germain to the discussion and I believe a good many of you can benefit from reading some of the info regarding Islam that Robert Spencer's website contains.
Calling something bollocks does not add much to the discussion.
I don't get where in the piece you get the idea that all Muslims want to kill us.
Calling something bollocks does not add much to the discussion.
I don't get where in the piece you get the idea that all Muslims want to kill us.
Posted on: 09 July 2007 by droodzilla
quote:I don't get where in the piece you get the idea that all Muslims want to kill us
Last para + the suggestion that the attitudes expressed in it represent orthodox Islam, not an extremist interpretation of it.
Posted on: 09 July 2007 by John G.
You might want to look through the site for more answers. But here's something that addresses that statement from the same site.
b. If Islam is violent, why are so many Muslims peaceful?
This question is a bit like asking, "If Christianity teaches humility, tolerance, and forgiveness, why are so many Christians arrogant, intolerant, and vindictive?" The answer in both cases is obvious: in any religion or ideology there will be many who profess, but do not practice, its tenets. Just as it is often easier for a Christian to hit back, play holier-than-thou, or disdain others, so it is often easier for a Muslim to stay at home rather than embark on jihad. Hypocrites are everywhere.
Furthermore, there are also people who do not really understand their own faith and so act outside of its prescribed boundaries. In Islam, there are likely many Muslims who do not really understand their religion thanks to the importance of reciting the Quran in Arabic but not having to understand it. It is the words and sounds of the Quran that attract Allah's merciful attention rather than Quranic knowledge on the part of the supplicant. Especially in the West, Muslims here are more likely to be attracted by Western ways (which explains why they are here) and less likely to act violently against the society to which they may have fled from an Islamic tyranny abroad.
However, in any given social context, as Islam takes greater root -- increasing numbers of followers, the construction of more mosques and "cultural centers," etc. -- the greater the likelihood that some number of its adherents will take its violent precepts seriously. This is the problem that the West faces today.
b. If Islam is violent, why are so many Muslims peaceful?
This question is a bit like asking, "If Christianity teaches humility, tolerance, and forgiveness, why are so many Christians arrogant, intolerant, and vindictive?" The answer in both cases is obvious: in any religion or ideology there will be many who profess, but do not practice, its tenets. Just as it is often easier for a Christian to hit back, play holier-than-thou, or disdain others, so it is often easier for a Muslim to stay at home rather than embark on jihad. Hypocrites are everywhere.
Furthermore, there are also people who do not really understand their own faith and so act outside of its prescribed boundaries. In Islam, there are likely many Muslims who do not really understand their religion thanks to the importance of reciting the Quran in Arabic but not having to understand it. It is the words and sounds of the Quran that attract Allah's merciful attention rather than Quranic knowledge on the part of the supplicant. Especially in the West, Muslims here are more likely to be attracted by Western ways (which explains why they are here) and less likely to act violently against the society to which they may have fled from an Islamic tyranny abroad.
However, in any given social context, as Islam takes greater root -- increasing numbers of followers, the construction of more mosques and "cultural centers," etc. -- the greater the likelihood that some number of its adherents will take its violent precepts seriously. This is the problem that the West faces today.
Posted on: 09 July 2007 by acad tsunami
quote:Originally posted by John G.:
However, in any given social context, as Islam takes greater root -- increasing numbers of followers, the construction of more mosques and "cultural centers," etc. -- the greater the likelihood that some number of its adherents will take its violent precepts seriously. This is the problem that the West faces today.
John,
I can't be bothered to comment on all of your post or why I think the article you posted is bollocks because I will be here all night. However I would point out the 'reasoning' you use in the above quote is equally applicable to right wing Christian fundamentalism.
Posted on: 09 July 2007 by Phil Barry
The Chicago Tribune, in yesterday's edition, gave a brief summary of a poll of US Muslims, and it IS scary.
8% of US Muslims answered question(s) in a way that indicated they do believe attacks on civilians is sometimes permissible. And 24% of US non-Muslims gave the same answer.
I'm not sure what all this means, but I don't think it bodes well for human beings.
Phil
8% of US Muslims answered question(s) in a way that indicated they do believe attacks on civilians is sometimes permissible. And 24% of US non-Muslims gave the same answer.
I'm not sure what all this means, but I don't think it bodes well for human beings.
Phil
Posted on: 09 July 2007 by u5227470736789439
The evil section in humankind is probably not something that has altered so very much over time or even differs radically between cultures. What is different nowadays is the technology used for destruction available to the mad element.
Cultures do vary as to how the mad element manifest their evil aims, but I agree with Phil Barry that an examination of this does not bode well... I think that the future for greater civilisation and even the future of the human race must indeed look bleaker than at anytime before.
In this way I do also believe that the ways of combating terrorism must become more comprehansive, and certainly taken more seriously than at anytime before, given what could happen if we sleep walk into it. A nutcase with a spear can do a lot less harm than a nutcase with some plastic explosive for example...
Pessimistic as ever, Fredrik
Cultures do vary as to how the mad element manifest their evil aims, but I agree with Phil Barry that an examination of this does not bode well... I think that the future for greater civilisation and even the future of the human race must indeed look bleaker than at anytime before.
In this way I do also believe that the ways of combating terrorism must become more comprehansive, and certainly taken more seriously than at anytime before, given what could happen if we sleep walk into it. A nutcase with a spear can do a lot less harm than a nutcase with some plastic explosive for example...
Pessimistic as ever, Fredrik
Posted on: 09 July 2007 by John G.
quote:Originally posted by acad tsunami:quote:Originally posted by John G.:
However, in any given social context, as Islam takes greater root -- increasing numbers of followers, the construction of more mosques and "cultural centers," etc. -- the greater the likelihood that some number of its adherents will take its violent precepts seriously. This is the problem that the West faces today.
John,
I can't be bothered to comment on all of your post or why I think the article you posted is bollocks because I will be here all night. However I would point out the 'reasoning' you use in the above quote is equally applicable to right wing Christian fundamentalism.
Read on, more from the same informative site.
c. What about the violent passages in the Bible?
First, violent Biblical passages are irrelevant to the question of whether Islam is violent.
Second, the violent passages in the Bible certainly do not amount to a standing order to commit violence against the rest of the world. Unlike the Quran, the Bible is a huge collection of documents written by different people at different times in different contexts, which allows for much greater interpretative freedom. The Quran, on the other hand, comes exclusively from one source: Muhammad. It is through the life of Muhammad that the Quran must be understood, as the Quran itself says. His wars and killings both reflect and inform the meaning of the Quran. Furthermore, the strict literalism of the Quran means that there is no room for interpretation when it comes to its violent injunctions. As it is through the example of Christ, the "Prince of Peace," that Christianity interprets its scriptures, so it is through the example of the warlord and despot Muhammad that Muslims understand the Quran.
Posted on: 09 July 2007 by Deane F
I wonder who will be the first to mention the terrorist Timothy McVeigh on this thread?
Oops. I did.
How do American survivalists fit into the picture that some forum members are trying to paint about terrorists?
Oops. I did.
How do American survivalists fit into the picture that some forum members are trying to paint about terrorists?
Posted on: 10 July 2007 by Rasher
quote:Originally posted by John G.:
..the Islamic sources make clear that engaging in violence against non-Muslims is a central and indispensable principle to Islam. Islam is less a personal faith than a political ideology that exists in a fundamental and permanent state of war with non-Islamic civilizations, cultures, and individuals. The Islamic holy texts outline a social, governmental, and economic system for all mankind. Those cultures and individuals who do not submit to Islamic governance exist in an ipso facto state of rebellion with Allah and must be forcibly brought into submission.
I've heard this before; from a paranoid misguided evangelical self proclaimed "Christian" who belongs to a very right wing and suspect "church" in Brighton. The same "church" that Brighton & Hove City Council will now no longer rent their premises from for any events because of their homophobic and racist bigotry (info from someone who works at the council in a related dept - and a practicing Roman Catholic themselves). I don't think they represent the Christian church at all. Anyone living in Brighton knows who they are.
I think the religious slant to this discussion is a red herring as neither faith is represented by the fanatics that are being discussed here, on either side. Any religion is an easy target for those that want to distort it for their own ends. It isn't fair to chuck around the sort of bollocks quoted above...and it is bollocks. It's also bollocks to reply that it sounds just like Christianity.
Posted on: 10 July 2007 by Malky
quote:Originally posted by Rasher:
As in the NI negotiations, when, and only when, terrorism and arms were put aside could talks in a civilised manner begin. There can be no negotiations with terrorists under any circumstances because it then qualifies its actions as reaching its goal.
Rasher, it's common knowledge that both the Thatcher and Major administrations conducted secret negotiations with the leaders of the provisional IRA, although this was never admitted at the time.
Whatever is going on at the moment re: the 'war on terror' we're being fed a load of bullshit.
Posted on: 10 July 2007 by Rasher
You bugger Malky! Yes, I guess you've got me there.
We certainly can't be seen to be negotiating with terrorists and I suppose that by secret meetings being agreed to, something was promised in return. Anyway, it worked.
We certainly can't be seen to be negotiating with terrorists and I suppose that by secret meetings being agreed to, something was promised in return. Anyway, it worked.
Posted on: 10 July 2007 by acad tsunami
quote:Originally posted by Phil Barry:
The Chicago Tribune, in yesterday's edition, gave a brief summary of a poll of US Muslims, and it IS scary.
8% of US Muslims answered question(s) in a way that indicated they do believe attacks on civilians is sometimes permissible. And 24% of US non-Muslims gave the same answer.
I'm not sure what all this means, but I don't think it bodes well for human beings.
Phil
The Whitehouse and the Pentagon both believe it is sometimes permissible to bomb civilians only they call it 'Collateral damage'. 650,000-750,000 civilians killed in iraq.
Posted on: 10 July 2007 by acad tsunami
quote:Originally posted by Rasher:
[QUOTE]
[QUOTE] The same "church" that Brighton & Hove City Council will now no longer rent their premises from for any events because of their bollocks.
Which church is this Rasher?
I had a friend who was deeply into Buddhism and would have got ordained as a nun if not for the fact she had a young child and a husband who resented all the time she spent at a Buddhist centre. In the end she gave up going to the centre because of the relentless pressure from her husband and his family. She was dragged to a local church (Hove)and brain washed. She was taught that Buddhism is the work of the devil and subjected to a kind of exorcism from a gang of maniacs. She has since had a complete mental breakdown. A few months ago she returned to the Buddhist centre and let herself in by lobbing a brick through the door window and entered a meditation room and whacked a nun over the head with the brick.
I have been to this church and chatted informally to many members and each said the same thing 'Buddhism (and Islam)is the work of the devil' - this can not be their own private personal beliefs reached separately from teachings received in their church - they are all taught it! Obviously this is NOT standard C of E practice but there are an increasing number of evangelist churches teaching crap like this - they all follow the American model - there is money in it! There are at least three such 'churches' in the Brighton & Hove area I have checked out personally and all encourage racism, homophobia and religious intolerance. There is a hard core within each church who are End Timers (for End Timer please read totally barking mad)
Posted on: 10 July 2007 by Rasher
I've found this archived article from a Brighton newpaper which reports the basis of the dispute I referred to. I want to state clearly that I do not believe these fringe groups represent the general body of the Christian Church and they are at the mercy of their local leaders who sometimes let their misguided personal views taint what they teach. I guess it's true that there are rotten apples in every organisation. I don't know the outcome of all this since.
Article
The member of this church that I know is slightly unhinged anyway, and these places do prey on the vulnerable. I don't know where they found him, but it would have been at a meeting of some sort where they send scouts to actively recruit the easily brainwashed. I suppose there is a very close similarity here with terrorist recruitments among young Muslims, which nicely illustrates just how rare these cases are and that no matter what religion, we are all the same and face the same challenges within our own communities while trying to live peacefully among others. I must also add that this guy, being a bit metally damaged, tends to misunderstand the messages sometimes, so it is likely that the crap he spouts in the name of his religion isn't exactly what he has been told; he's just got it all wrong by himself.
I truly believe that Muslim or Christian, we all want the same thing – to live in peace together. I know you like to jump on these things Acad, but 99.9% of people belonging to a religion are good people. Don’t let yourself be tainted by this poison of propaganda and mischief, as sympathising with it only means you are thinking exactly what they want you to think, whichever side you are looking from. Like I said, they, and we, are all the same. Please Acad, I'm trusting you to not use this article as a weapon against the Christian Church, because it is unrepresentitive in general.
Personally I like the idea of a traditional Christian Church and although I don't necessarily agree with Andrew's Bible quotes all the time, I do respect the honesty and lack of ambiguity that his form of religion takes, and his total faith in it. I don't personally subscribe to that, but sometimes kind of wish I did.
Article
The member of this church that I know is slightly unhinged anyway, and these places do prey on the vulnerable. I don't know where they found him, but it would have been at a meeting of some sort where they send scouts to actively recruit the easily brainwashed. I suppose there is a very close similarity here with terrorist recruitments among young Muslims, which nicely illustrates just how rare these cases are and that no matter what religion, we are all the same and face the same challenges within our own communities while trying to live peacefully among others. I must also add that this guy, being a bit metally damaged, tends to misunderstand the messages sometimes, so it is likely that the crap he spouts in the name of his religion isn't exactly what he has been told; he's just got it all wrong by himself.
I truly believe that Muslim or Christian, we all want the same thing – to live in peace together. I know you like to jump on these things Acad, but 99.9% of people belonging to a religion are good people. Don’t let yourself be tainted by this poison of propaganda and mischief, as sympathising with it only means you are thinking exactly what they want you to think, whichever side you are looking from. Like I said, they, and we, are all the same. Please Acad, I'm trusting you to not use this article as a weapon against the Christian Church, because it is unrepresentitive in general.
Personally I like the idea of a traditional Christian Church and although I don't necessarily agree with Andrew's Bible quotes all the time, I do respect the honesty and lack of ambiguity that his form of religion takes, and his total faith in it. I don't personally subscribe to that, but sometimes kind of wish I did.
Posted on: 10 July 2007 by acad tsunami
Blimey Rasher,
Don't you worry because I agree with you entirely, I have loads of Christian friends CofE and RC and even one evangelical and they are a millions miles away from some others who call themselves Christian and who practice a particularly brain dead and intolerant form which horrifies not only me but my other Christian friends too. Some of the nicest people I know are Christian and Muslim and Jewish and I am happy for them - my only gripe with anyone of any faith (including my own)is when they bang on about it being the only true path or they become intolerant etc. which is when I am pleased to take a pop at them
BTW I've just read the article in the link and the Clarendon Centre in New England Street is one of the happy clappy intolerant 'Buddhism and Islam is the work of the devil' churches I have visited. I wonder what Jesus would make of them?
Don't you worry because I agree with you entirely, I have loads of Christian friends CofE and RC and even one evangelical and they are a millions miles away from some others who call themselves Christian and who practice a particularly brain dead and intolerant form which horrifies not only me but my other Christian friends too. Some of the nicest people I know are Christian and Muslim and Jewish and I am happy for them - my only gripe with anyone of any faith (including my own)is when they bang on about it being the only true path or they become intolerant etc. which is when I am pleased to take a pop at them
BTW I've just read the article in the link and the Clarendon Centre in New England Street is one of the happy clappy intolerant 'Buddhism and Islam is the work of the devil' churches I have visited. I wonder what Jesus would make of them?