AlexCrowley

The bias here has gotten to the point where people feel they have to say something. This, http://swiftreport.blogs.com/news/2005/07/hurricane_cover.html talks about the issue in some detail. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

It's one fo those arguments that you cannot really do, its like asking about your own personal spoken dialect. I spent the first 25 years of my life in the UK and am used to UK journalism. I realize that most of the world sees UK journalism as The Sun, but outside of the tabloids there's a very busy investigative press that hasnt been seen in the US for several decades. US media generally suffers from over simplifying everything, not offering balanced coverage, sensationalizing coverage and pandering to easy titillation. In the first year of the Iraq war there was an average 5 week delay between a story breaking in Europe (ex, jessica lynch not really being rescued as stated on US tv). If the story gained serious traction it would be reported here. Sourcing: The US media is very bad with sourcing in general. "Karl Rove steals sweets from toddlers" as a story, a reporter calls Karl Rove and says 'did you steal sweets from toddlers?' Mr Rove says "of course not!!" and the headline becomes "Karl Rove did not steal sweets from Toddlers"* . Think it doesnt happen? It's that or 'unknown sources'. Followup questions: US media doesnt seem to like to do that very often, unless they're showboating. Take any major occurence recently involving terrorism, the patriot act, 9/11, WMDs, Iraq. Now, bear in mind i'mnot saying that anyone lied, im comparing journalism differences as the question asked. In the UK papers asked hard questions about all these things, that were never tackled seriously in the media or a public forum in the US. (US Tv newsmen have been quoted on UK Tv on NewsNight saying that they could not ask difficult questions because the US public would lynch them). Without exception every WMD story printed in the Times, sourced from Chalabi was debunked in the rest of the world press. Its why Spain and the UK had 80%+ of the population coming out against the war. In fact, the Chalabi/Miller connection was first publicised in Europe before Chalabi was ever considered a fraud here in the US. 9/11, Many journalists across the world have asked questions about the US response that have never been touched upon in the press here, and if they were they were never followed up with. 1 example: in an interview Cheney stated that jet fighters had to call in for orders on how to deal with the hijacked jet liner. As the pilots here will know, FAA regulations already had emergency procedures in place, in the aviation manuals (if you fly a commercial plane and a jet flanks you and wobbles his wings you follow him - actually if I have that wrong I would really like to know! there's a chance the original sources I used were incorrect). Anyway, my point is that these items were discussed in the rest of the worlds press. The patriot act. As a tool fo the people you think that some media group may have taken a long hard look at this and present the information in a fair and unbaised way and then discussed the issues. This is normal behavior for the free media in other countries when a potentially contentious law is being drafted. Arguments would be explored from both sides without judgement. As far as Iraq, US reporters have, for the most part, gotten all their intelligence from official high command. Other countries have journalists on the ground interviewing both sides of the war to get perspective. It's much like how the US press treats Israel and Palestine. In the UK you see a war occurring with both sides battling a bloody and at times unethical battle. In the US its all about how Israel are the victims of terrorism. The sad thing is that the US has a free press and the UK doesnt (they can use D notices to supress stories of national security impact), however, the US really doesnt seem to ever use its freedoms to uncover real stories. This isnt a left/right wing, investigate Bush thing, its an investigate anything! comment. Corporate polluting, Charity fraud and embezzelment, the real story behind the accounting frauds of the .com era. For the liberals: Bush could have been kicked out if the US media still had investigative journalism alive and well. For the conservatives: imagine Clinton's presidency if the media had really done some digging, seperated out the stupid conspiracy red herrings and hit him on the *real* stuff. so yes, US journalism is an absolute joke, I'm not saying that the press anywhere else doesnt have its problems, but it is far less insular, timid and demographics driven (popular stories rather than news). Tom Cruise, Michael Jackson, Jen and ben, Brad and whatserface are not news. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Actually even the early manuscripts available are simply copies of earlier books. An interesting article on the KJV translation, with quotes from the team that performed it, can be found here: http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html As you can see, it's not the sort of book I'd want to claim is the *exact* word of God. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Your original post: No one span anything, no biased remarks insulting psycho IRA members, they replied with facts, experiences and articles which are directly relevent to your question. Now, your original statement above said 'any instances where Irish Catholics were torturing their own people or even Brits'. And again, you ignore all posted facts, claim ignorance after claiming earlier you knew a lot about the IRA after writing a 15 page essay at college using 5 (count 'em, 5!) sources. We talked about Ad ignorantum previously, just because you said something you didnt know anything about doesnt mean that it might not exist when confronted with evidence. As you can see, you are now weaseling out of your intial statement and trying to make it about the official Roman Catholic Church supporting Irish terrorism. You then excommunicate all the IRA members because they're not 'real' catholics, maybe you can point that out to them when we're on our pub crawl. Your opinion on the catholic church structure and the role of the Pope simplifies the reality and illustrates your lack of knowledge of the subject. 1. It's not as strict or simple as you're painting it, Pope is God's mouthpiece, he is not the CEO of a company of robots. 2. I haven't mentioned this one before because I thought someone else might mention it. But not all Catholics are Roman Catholics, its like Shia Muslims vs other Muslims. Other forms of Catholicism: Maronite, Ukrainian, Byzantine, Syro-Malabar, Coptic to name a few. 3. Not all catholic sects follow the Pope: Oriental Orthodox churches do not follow the Roman Catholic pope. Now, I believe you had mentioned that a centralized Catholic church was different than a centralized Islamic church in our previous discussion. In fact, both Islam and Catholicism are very similar, Islam is considered to be split into 3 major and 2 minor sects, whereas Catholicism is can also be split into 3, with many minor sects (mostly considered part of Eastern Catholicism). Now, I find it interesting that you would state that they can't be real catholics if they do that. I'm sure that you can now understand why a large number of Muslims would say that who follow their own version of Islam. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

"two wrongs dont make it right" fallacy. I thought you'd written a 15 page essay on the IRA. "Libyan security forces trained IRA personnel in the black art of torture, which included beating suspected informers repeatedly on the soles of their feet with batons, a technique used frequently to extract confessions in South Armagh." http://www.guardian.co.uk/Northern_Ireland/Story/0,2763,953578,00.html "During Collins' interrogation, when he complained of verbal abuse, his interrogator viciously, but accurately reminded him of the difference between the interrogation methods of the RUC and those of the IRA. "Verbal abuse? Verbal abuse is about the only thing we can give you Provie fuckers. I wonder what you'd give me, you Provie bastard, if you were interrogating me in some barn in south Armagh? It wouldn't be verbal abuse you murdering cunt. No, you'd be taking lumps out of me with an iron bar before you put a hole in my fucking head". Collins is forced to admit that his interrogator is correct. "I thought about what the RUC man was saying. I knew he was right: the IRA would torture a captured member of the Special Branch if he did not speak. Then they would shoot him. A peculiar feeling overcame me. I felt sympathy for him: I did not want to envisage him in that awful situation. I was ashamed that he was right in what he said". http://www.popmatters.com/columns/stephens/030501.shtml I could go on if youd like. Hopefully for the vast majority reading this I dont need to point out the obvious regarding the second quote. It takes a ballsy guy to call IRA members fools from several thousand miles away. If ever you'd like to go on an Irish pub crawl with me I'll pay for the tickets if we can print that quote on a tshirt and have you wear it while we order Guiness. Hell, I even have friends and family there so we can have them invite the neighbors over to discuss it

neurotheology has been evolving pretty fast over the last decade. Finally scientists can point to the area of the brain that reacts to prayer/meditation, they can see the area stimulated and active. But the question still remains: does the existence of a specialized part of the brain prove its all pure chemistry? or does it prove that we're wired to commune with a higher power? or both? TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Steel, I think it time I withdraw from this discussion again. You and I both seem to have a communication problem. You selectively ignore those parts of my posts which would be tough to argue against and instead nitpick on small points that could easily be rectified by a quick google search, when you're not simply misunderstanding me. Secondly, you have changed your stance through weasel words throughout todays discussion. Your ignorance regarding the KKK and what it represents is so out of whack that it might be considered insulting. Your statements regarding the OFFICIAL catholic church are different than 'support from a church' and that you cannot see the difference leads me to believe either you and I are not speaking the same version of english or you are intentionally ignoring everything I'm saying and just writing whatever you think will continue this argument regardless of facts. No, it would be difficult to prove that the official Catholic religion is sponsoring terrorism in exactly the same way that it is impossible to suggest that the official church of Islam is sponsoring terrorism (as it is also spread over the globe with many different sects and structures yet has a universal core belief system). "But anybody with the most miniscule knowledge about that conflict. {BTW in college, I wrote a 15 page paper with more than 5 sources on Michael Collins} knows that none of their attacks were funded by a Catholic church." - Steel, your ignorance here regarding how the IRA was funded by american catholics (to name one group of donors). It is common knowledge to most people with an interest in the conflict that Irish Americans helped fund the IRA - the vast majority catholic. Official record keeping in churches of 'Donation to IRA'? please, can we be a little less naive? - my source? Growing up in a town the IRA blew up regularly, seeing legal actions on BBC television, documentaries on US fund raising, then moving to Boston and drinking in pubs that collect for 'The Cause'. While you may be correct that its an 'English out' problem I will leave it to the Irish and Northern Irish to explain where that is not the whole story. (ref: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1563119.stm http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761575144_2/Irish_Republican_Army.html Please pay attention to the section Procurement, and the discussion of protestant/catholic tensions. These are verifiable facts, as requested, double sourced with many more available to find from any media source you may find suitable. As a college paper writing unix administrator it seems reasonable to expect you to have some familiarity with both Google and basic internet research. I'm going to end my interaction with you here because I feel that you'll change your questions, deny the veracity of my information without producing any challenge data or simply point out grammatical errors - in otherwords, not worth my time. For future reference, and general consumption: Here's how you argue in a way that uses facts, no logical fallacies and provides room for debate. Conclusion: Steel is a racist, Premises: premise 1: Within the sarcasm brackets you stated: "Yeah about 5 minutes after this psycho faith was invented in the 6th century. " but each statement regarding arabs since then has been in support of this premise. of course, if english is not your first language I apologize as I realize that sometimes translations can be tricky (such as my italian friend who thinks that c*** is a polite word for female genitals). So feel free to ignore the rest of the analysis over this one thread. 2. " I will continue to analyze things objectively. Skin color generalizations will always be challened with annecdotes. Kind of like the Irish wolfhound is the tallest breed but people who know dogs know they can always find a great dane that is taller. That doesn't change the fact that the average Irish Wolfhound is taller than the average great dane." This statement has been used as justification for racist behavior for at least two centuries. This was the main thrust of Eugenics. The main difference here is that we're all HUMAN and not different breeds of dogs - which were artificially created by human intervention for the most part. 3. When Bill Von finds one town in the entire U.S. that is populated 90% black that is not a slum, then we can think this statement might hold a couple of drops of water. - Again, I haven't seen you quote any statistics, or shown that you have the information on hand to begin to make a statement like this - at least as part of a rational argument for or againt any particular statement. An equally valid claim would be: When Billvon finds me one guy named Steel who isnt racist I'll believe it. I do not know if Steel is a racist, I only have limited information regarding that, I have only met one Steel, I am sure there are many more online, and many who use that name offline too. It is unlikely that they are all racists. In lieu of any hard data it's a totally bogus argument. 4. "It almost suggests that the Muslims called it a holy site only so that it would inspire their followers to fight the Jews, the Infidels" This is a pretty vicious claim from someone who has professed a deep knowledge of history, and if you really do know history than you are assuredly either racist or have every intention of starting a flame war on this forum. (mods, please note the conditions placed on that statement being considered true - sorry, I code therefor I use conditionals) The reason for Jerusalem being holy to muslims was because thats where muslims used to pray to before they decided on mecca as a religious center. Google this fact, it's also available in the historical introduction of the Penguin Classics Series english translation of the koran (translated 1956, hardback release early 1970s). Jerusalem was chosen first because the Prophet Muhammad first believed they were part of the same Jewish and Christian family, with Islam having been created as a way to use the teachings of christianity and judaism to appeal to the Arabs' culture - one of tribal nomadism, and provide a little spritual discipline. This is true until the expulsion of the Jewish tribes and the 'break with Jerusalem' in March 624. This is a major point in their history, even I - with a less than cursory knowledge of Islam was aware of this fact. 5. "Then some pyscho descendant of the people who actually built Dallas claims it as a holy land. But rather than blend in peacefully he starts murdering followers of both of the other religions and continues to do so for thousands of years, meanwhile he claims to be a from a religion of peace. Now how does that sound? " Used as an example for what Muslims are doing with Jerusalem, no sarcasm tags yet exactly the same wording, the same wording twice to cover the same topic would lead me to believe this is actually your true feelings about Islam. Notice, each premise is argued rationally without resorting to distortion of the original quote, or distortion of it's apparent intent. There is no personal attack implied within the discussion, or sarcasm/taunts used. Now the conclusion: In all cases where Steel talked about Muslims outside of a historical context (discussing the crusades), he has used language that someone of arabic descent would find insulting (which is how I was made aware of your post, by an arab who was offended by your anti-muslim/arab statements). In addition, even in those cases where the terms used could in some way be acceptable language to promote discussion there was no factual evidence put forward, only verbal sleight of hand and subtle attacks on other posters in retaliation (chewbacca defense), this in addition to a constant tone of disdain throughout the series of posts leads me to my conclusion. Therefor, I argue that Steel is a racist and violating the Forum's TOS. See? it's quite easy if you can go in a straight line and use previous evidence to support your statements. Oh of course,

Ah, yes, I read your post. I'm sorry, lets try that again... If you read my post rather than jumping on a percieved innaccuracy you would have seen: 1. PAUL JENNINGS HILL - 2nd to fully defend the innocent against future acts by an active aggressor who was clearly unjust; a cold blooded murderer. A former Presbyterian minister on death row who killed two abortion providers " - yeah, pulled from a pro-life page where they have an honor roll of people who have performed violent crimes against abortion clinics and doctors. You would also have seen an ongoing discussion debating at which point a church is said to be 'assisting terrorism' with the religious infrastructure of both the KKK and Christian Identity being talked about, the IRA mentioned, and a link to a website from a Christian Identity mission who sell souvenirs and tapes for $$$$, which presumably will go towards funding their church. Which, ironically, the FBI lists as a hate group which in turn is used to catagorize domestic terrorist groups as per the link to the FBI and Government links to yearly reports on domestic terrorism. The question was also asked, an unanswered: is anyone able to quantify the ratio of militant muslims to peaceful muslims. You have demanded facts from people who wish to discuss this with you. You have repeatedly talked about large numbers of muslim terrorists without any solid numbers to back it up. Historical timelines do not validate your premise, they only show what has happened. I'll start: Estimates of the total number of muslims in the world vary greatly, ranging from 0.7b to 1.2b, of that number _______ are extremists according to a report compiled by the CIA/Mossad/Mi6/KGB/Other (please enter which intelligence group) _____________ using data available for the periods ________ to ________ . Which is what is provided regarding domestic terrorism and hate groups within the thread I linked to above, if you want to verify them. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

I would suggest a cursory reading about Christian Identity and Eric Rudolph, the man who was sentenced for the olympic bombings *and* bombing 3 clinics. The following is a link to a discussion from last week about this situation, abortion bombers and the IRA, it's heavily sourced , as I realize you like hard facts. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=1729052;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25; BTW please check the God is dead. (warning: rant) thread, where there's a discussion about logical fallacies, as many of your posts on this thread and others tend to use one of the techniques mentioned. A google search for 'logical fallacies' will bring up a list of the other ones that you use regularly. I point this out because I know that you like hard facts, here's a great guide to fallacies, http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/. For instance, your quote above here: Another good one you may like: TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Crap, sorry about that Ron. Getting names and positions on topics mixed up in my head. So lets ignore the first part, and leave the second part: If a "christian" bombs a clinic are people outside of Christianity able to discern the difference? TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Dude.....this IS Speaker's Corner. Oh good, it's not just me then. I agree about the ying thread and the final comment, funny stuff. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Sorry, just noticed the quote marks. Are you saying that as a mainstream Christian you believe that violent pro-lifers are not true Christians? Do you think people outside of Christianity are able to make that distinction? edited to fix question. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

The straw man argument is what you're referring to here. It's common for someone to charicature an issue or object in a way that fits with their argument, making it much easier to tear down. Other techniques that are used on this forum very often, and blatantly: red herring arguments (chewbacca defense), onsensus gentium - or argument by consensus, appeals to various emotions, two wrongs make a right (ahhh yes, A lied but B LIED BEFORE AND IT WAS MUCH WORSE!), slippery slope arguments (well if gays can marry then how long before we let people marry dogs!?), and lastly, the argument ad nauseum - where one party continually repeats the exact same argument with the same premises. This last argument seems to be the norm when dealing with ideological discussions (well that, argument by consensus and appeals to emotion). I find it incredibly difficult to get certain questions I have regarding religion answered because my perspective is percieved as an attack on that particular faith (and I think I've managed to upset members of most of the popular ones, and some not so popular). TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Which is somewhat ironic since it is 3 months to the day that I started writing to moderate christians, asking them to step forward and wrestle the public perception of their religion away from the violent bigotted nutjobs. no, not a joke. serious. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

I'm sorry, I have no clue what this timeline represents based on my previous post, which was about hypocrisy within a small yet vocal portion of the US Christian population. Perhaps you mistook independent thought and an inquiring mind to be bashing, but I thought I was quite clear in my respect for the Gospels, while making what I feel is a valid argument. Steel, once again, if you'd like to discuss this I'm happy to debate it rationally. It's not my place to try and change anyones mind, I would just like to detangle this perceived conflict of belief. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Parajito, you may have missed the part where I tackle this exact subject, that of the religious historian who knows the context. The vast majority of Christians do not know that context, and only believe what they read in the Bible without an understanding of it's compilation or the various schools of thought and arguments for and against each entry (I'm not saying I have either, only that I have an awareness of them). My original laundry list was in reply to another laundry list, my point was simply to reduce a religion that many on this board are familiar with to a simple list of rules in the same way Islam was being demonstrated to people. In addition, it is disengenous to claim that the Bible quotes both law and history and the two should not be confused when religious folk of every stripe use BOTH to justify their ideology. As for the 3 sections of the law, it has always seemed to me that Jesus was trying to point out that the moral laws were more important and laid out some ground rules with which to interpret them. There are examples of Jesus breaking civil and ceremonial law in the Gospels, as an educated man such as yourself would already know. Your 'why is slavery permitted in the Bible' link provides no information except 'because people sin'. I have to disagree with you. From the information on that page we are to believe that Hebrews had special status, because after 6 years they would be free, what of any other race? where is this any different than any other form of slavery where a 'master race' has more rights than the under races. Pedarasts are spoken out against, many sins of property are spoken out against. Jesus himself supports the position of the slave as property. The existence of sin in the world would not seem to justify the acceptance of slavery. The existence of slavery both before and after this period is inconsequential and has no bearing on the topic at hand, which is that the Old and New Testament specifically supports slavery and a slaves position as property. A position that most christians on the planet in the 21st century think as outdated. Please feel free to argue that point, but once again I am forced to point out that in my post above I stated that I am discussing ordinary christians who read the book as the word of god without any additional context or historical knowledge. If we are to agree that slavery is an outdated concept that no longer fits the culture or the times then I would suggest that it also brings other moral and cultural 'laws' of the Old and New testaments into question. I dont ask this as a trap, but it would seem to be incredibly hypocritical to accept some laws yet reject others simply because we've changed. Or is this really an area of cognitive dissonance for certain christians? OR maybe I'm just crazy and even the atheists and agnostics think I've lost it. Please understand, I was not criticising the Bible, only the ignorance of a portion of it's adherents, and my own personal opinion regarding the content in the NT. I am neither bashing Christianity as a whole, only a "small vocal minority" as stated in my original post. My apologies if I managed to hit a nerve with some people here, I dont feel I am in any position to bash God, only to discuss opinions and try to get some resolution to my own questions. If the concept of discussing those issues is offensive then I apologize and ask your forgiveness, as it would appear to be a central theme of your religion. I hope that sorta clears things up for a real discussion. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Well, it's funny you should say that................ As a european with a somewhat christian religious background the militant extremist version of Xtianity does seem predominant here. From personal experience I would give a 5:2 ratio of nutbag Xtians to moderate (for a european). Ironically the moderate Xtian's are both preachers. While I realize that there must be more moderate Xtians out there than the nutbags the public perception as someone who is part of US culture is that (and pay attention here USians) *Most american christians are fundamental extremists who hate homos, love war and killing, and preach anger and intolerance, hellfire and brimstone* It is the vocal minority which sets the tone, and the public tone of US Christianity is one of religious intolerance and bigotry justified by using the KJV bible by judicious cherry picking of quotes to backup their position - by cherry picking I mean using old testament justifications while ignoring laws from the same book which would be considered cruel or unenlightened in the 20th century. Even more ironically is the fact that these old testament justifications are in direct opposition to the example set by Jesus - which might be a hint as to why he was crucified, in my bible the zealots and lawkeepers hated him because of his breaking of Jewish law when he felt it was obsolete *and* having the audacity to directly contradict the law when it contradicted Jesus (and in the Xtian mythos God's) interpretation of what is right and wrong. Lets start small: Many Christians will justify their bigoted use of the Old Testament by quoting The Sermon on the Mount: "Matthew|5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. MatthewMatthew|5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. " Ok fair enough, that gives us an eye for an eye and 'god hates fags' yadda yadda.....but a little further down the page, during the same Sermon on the Mount...... Matthew|5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: Matthew|5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. and Matthew|5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: Matthew|5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. Oh, and while we're on the 'God Hates Fags' thing: "Samuel-2: 1:26 I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." i'm assuming God didnt mind have much issue with the situation (unlike Jonathon's father, who at Sam 1 20:24-30 goes absolutely balistic at Jonathon for being gay). Now there are arguments against that interpretation (and some strong evidence FOR the argument, such as the same hebrew words used in this book to describe David and Jonathon's relationship (delighted=châphèts=Gen 34:19, talks about desiring a woman sexually, and the fact they go to David's house in the woods for a little afternoon delight). I'm sure there are biblical scholars who could out-talk me and give me historical, sociological and theological arguments to educate me in the subtleties of what the bible REALLY meant to say, and why exactly I'm wrong. The academic reality (while of interest to me) is not the point of my comment. The reality on the ground is that there is a country with a lot of Christians who read the bible daily and interpret it as they read it, they dont have a background in hebrew or ancient greek history or language, or the reasons why certain trends occur at different times within the biblical timeline. This lack of critical thought and blind acceptance allows for "cognitive dissonance" on a massive scale. Once again we run smack into ideological thinking transcending even the physical proofs of the religion AND the "rules" for belief. Basic flow: 1. The Bible is the Word of God 2. Jesus is the Messiah, God made flesh, the son of God. 3. Without Jesus there is no Christianity 4. Jesus said "Love one another" 5. Jesus said "turn the other cheek" 6. Jesus said "rather than Thou Shalt Not Kill I say If you are ANGRY enough to think about violence it is against God" 7. Jesus re-statement of God's law was part of the Messianic prophecy (Jeremiah 31:31) . 8. If Jesus cannot rewrite law then he is not the Messiah 9. Christians purposefully reduce the importance of Christ's Sermon on the Mount by quoting biblical passages from later books to re-instate the 10 commandments and other Jewish law..........does this seem a little presumptuous to anyone else but me? "I think what God meant to say was ...............". If I go to a seminar to see "Famous religious Dude A", and there are other people on the same show, I may listen to FRD B, but I'm going to pay more attention to Dude A, especially if I think he's the son of God. My personal viewpoint is that I find the New Testament to contain a lot of very useful philosophys and find myself agreeing with a lot of it up until Acts. In my opinion, Paul destroyed christianity as it was intended to be by putting his own societal biases before the word, and created laws, rules and restrictions of the kind that Jesus actively refuted and discarded during his lifetime. My sci-fi special thought: What if.........we know that Saul persecuted Christians, maybe the Romans realized that they could never shut down Christianity by killing them, perhaps Paul was simply an agent sent to pervert the course of Christianity. It's his work that starts telling teh various churches that they are sinning against god (according to the records available), he's the one that sets up rules that are in direct scriptural conflict with the teachings of Jesus. Acceptance of Paul's vision led the way to the destruction of many different Christian sects with opposite opinions to his (gnosticism anyone?). Eh, I said it was sci-fi, but it would be one hell of a con to pull off. Ok, I've gone on long enough. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Thats a remarkably short list of sins for a healthy popular religion. They have NOTHING on the Xtians. http://www.parentalguide.com/Documents/Bible_Studies/Sin_list_part_6.htm Now, this is a list of ALL sins, or at least the ones that could be found listed in the Bible - given that it's only from the Bible there are bound to be a whole lot more out there in the rest of the religious canon (used by churches which didnt walk off and claim the Bible was the only holy book worth reading). Interesting you mention slavery, given that the Bible talks about slavery but never ONCE says its a bad thing. How did Jesus say a slave should treat his master? - “Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward" (1 Peter 2:18). "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ" (Ephesians 6:5). What is God's policy on physical punishment of your slave? - “A servant will not be corrected by words: for though he understand he will not answer” (Proverbs 29:19). “And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake. And if he smite out his manservant’s tooth, or his maidservant’s tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake” (Exodus 21:26-27). What does God say should happen to a master who beats his slave to death? -“And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money” (Exodus 21:20-21). But, most importantly to this discussion: What conduct by slaves does Jesus dislike? “Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God” (Colossians 3:22; see also Ephesians 6:5-6). “Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in all things” (Titus 2:9-10). Ok, ready for some fun? 01. Associating anything with Allah 225. HAVING ANY GODS THAT COME BEFORE GOD Ex 20:3; Ps 81:9; Acts 15:20 NOT TURNING AWAY FROM THOSE WHO DON’T GLORIFY JESUS 2 Tim 3:5 02. Murder Thou shalt not kill 03. Practising magic SORCERIES Acts 8:11 BEING A WITCH, OR HAVING ANYTHING TO DO WITH A WITCH Deut 18:10,11 Penalty for being a witch is death Ex 22:18 608. WITCHCRAFT Gal 5:20 04. Not Praying NOT READING THE BIBLE (DAILY) Ps 1:2; Acts 17:11; 1Pe 2:2; 1 Tim 4:13 NOT PRAYING, PRAYERLESS 1 Sam 12:23; 1 Thes 5:17 05. Not paying Zakat 442. NOT HELPING A POOR BROTHER Lev 25:35-40 443. NOT HELPING THE POOR AND NEEDY Ezek 16:49 444. NOT REMEMBERING THE POOR Gal 2:10 445. WITHHOLDING WAGES FROM THE POOR Deut 24:15 06. Not fasting on a Day of Ramadan without excuse 07. Not performing Hajj, while being able to do so Not really a pilgrimage aspect of Xtianity, but you could argue that anything against prayer or xtian tradition would be normal. 08. Disrespect to parents NOT HONORING YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER Ex 20:12; Mt 19:19 DISOBEDIENT TO PARENTS 2 Tim 3:1,2; Ro 1:30 YOUNGER, NOT SUBMITTING TO THE ELDER 1 Pe 5:5 09. Abandoning relatives NOT HONORING ALL MEN 1 Pe 2:17 10. Fornication and Adultery ADULTERY Mt 19:18; Gen 39:7-9; Ex 20:14 Penalty for both involved is death Deut 22:22; Lev 20:10-12 To look on a woman to lust is adultery Mt 5:28; 2 Pe 2:14 11. Homosexuality(sodomy) HOMOSEXUAL Lev 18:22; Ro 1:24-28; 1 Cor 6:9 12. Interest(Riba) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury#Biblical_injunctions_against_Usury Please note, the instances of biblical to koranic quotes are 3:1 (15 biblical, 5 from the koran). ROB GOD NOT GIVING 10% PLUS OFFERINGS (CURSED) Mal 3:8,9 NOT GIVING TITHES AND OFFERINGS (CURSED) Mal 3:8,9; Lev 27:32; Deut 14:22 13. Wrongfully consuming the property of an orphan OPPRESSING THE WIDOW OR FATHERLESS CHILD Ex 22:22-24 STEALING Ex 20:15; Mk 7:22 DEFRAUDING OTHERS Lev 19:13; 1 Thes 4:6 14. Lying about Allah and His Messenger DISTORTING THE WORD OF GOD (THE TRUTH) 2 Pe 3:16 NIV; Acts 20:29,30 NIV HANDLING GOD’S WORD DECEITFULLY 2 Cor 4:2 15. Running away from the battlefield FEAR (BEING AFRAID) BEING FEARFUL Gal 2:12-14; 1 Jn 4:18; Rev 21:8 16. A leader's deceiving his people and being unjust to them BEING A FALSE WITNESS Ex 20:16; Mt 15:19; Mt 19:18 LIES, LYING Ps 59:12; 12:2; 31:18; 58:3 17. Pride and arrogance BEING VAIN Ja 2:20; Titus 1:10 PRIDE (PROUD) Ja 4:6; Ro 1:30; Pv 16:18; Ps 10:4 479. EXALTING YOURSELF (PRIDE) Lk 18:10-14 18. Bearing false witness BEING A FALSE WITNESS Ex 20:16; Mt 15:19; Mt 19:18 LIES, LYING Ps 59:12; 12:2; 31:18; 58:3 19. Drinking Khamr (wine) GETTING DRUNK (DRUNKEN) Lk 12:45,46; Ro 13:13; 1 Cor 6:10 20. Gambling GAMBLING Lk 12:15 21. Slandering chaste women SLANDER (BACKBITERS) Mk 7:20-23 NIV; Ro 1:30, 2 Cor 12:20 22. Stealing from the spoils of war Thou shalt not steal 23. Stealing Thou shalt not steal 24. Highway Robbery Thou shalt not steal 25. Taking false oath A FALSE WITNESS THAT SPEAKS LIES (AN ABOMINATION TO GOD) Pv 6:16,19; Mt 15:19; Ex 20:16 26. Oppression OPPRESSING THE WIDOW OR FATHERLESS CHILD Ex 22:22-24 27. Illegal gain Thou shalt not steal, again. 28. Consuming wealth acquired unlawfully DEFRAUDING OTHERS Lev 19:13; 1 Thes 4:6 29. Committing suicide Thou shalt not kill 30. Frequent lying BEING A FALSE WITNESS Ex 20:16; Mt 15:19; Mt 19:18 LIES, LYING Ps 59:12; 12:2; 31:18; 58:3 31. Judging unjustly JUDGING OTHERS (JUDGING BROTHERS IN CHRIST) Mt 7:1-5; Ro 2:1;Ja 4:11,12 32. Giving and Accepting bribes Proverbs 17:8; 18:16; 21:14; 28:21; 17:23 ("A wicked man receives a bribe from the bosom to pervert the ways of justice.") 33. Woman's imitating man and man's imitating woman WEARING THE CLOTHING OF THE OPPOSITE SEX Deut 22:5 34. Being cuckold ADULTERY Mt 19:18; Gen 39:7-9; Ex 20:14 35. Marrying a divorced woman in order to make her lawful for the husband But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery" (Matthew 5:32) 36. Not protecting oneself from urine Weird, but Xtians hate the physical body in general. 37. Showing-off PRIDE (PROUD) Ja 4:6; Ro 1:30; Pv 16:18; Ps 10:4 38. Learning knowledge of the religion for the sake of this world and concealing that knowledge NOT BELIEVING ALL OF THE BIBLE (ALL OF GOD’S WORD) (FOOL) 1 Jn 5:10; Lk 24:25; Jn 8:47; 10:26; 12:48 NOT PUTTING GOD’S WORD IN YOUR HEART Deut 6:6 39. Bertrayal of trust IES, LYING Ps 59:12; 12:2; 31:18; 58:3 40. Recounting favours GIVING TO THE POOR TO BE SEEN BY MEN Mt 6:1-4 41. Denying Allah's Decree DENYING JESUS IS THE CHRIST (Messiah) 1 Jn 5:10,1; 1 Jn 2:22 42. Listening (to) people's private conversations WHISPERING OR GOSSIP Pv 16:28 NIV; Ro 1:29; 2 Cor 12:20 Alright you get the point, I'll leave the last 20 or so to anyone thats' interested. Wow I need to get a life. 43. Carrying tales 44. Cursing 45. Breaking contracts 46. Believing in fortune-tellers and astrologers 47. A woman's bad conduct towards her husband 48. Making statues and pictures 49. Lamenting, wailing, tearing the clothing, and doing other things of this sort when an affliction befalls 50. Treating others unjustly 51. Overbearing conduct toward the wife, the servant, the weak, and animals 52. Offending one's neighbour 53. Offending and abusing Muslims 54. Offending people and having an arrogant attitude toward them 55. Trailing one's garment in pride 56. Men's wearing silk and gold 57. A slave's running away from his master 58. Slaughtering an animal which has been dedicated to anyone other than Allah 59. To knowingly ascribe one's paternity to a father other than one's own 60. Arguing and disputing violently 61. Witholding excess water 62. Giving short weight or measure 63. Feeling secure from Allah's Plan 64. Offending Allah's righteous friends 65. Not praying in congregation but praying alone without an excuse 66. Persistently missing Friday Prayers without any excuse 67. Unsurping the rights of the heir through bequests 68. Deceiving and plotting evil 69. Spying for the enemy of the Muslims 70. Cursing or insulting any of the Companiions of Allah's Messenger TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Doubt is good, but I'm not going to tell you any additional facts because from your statements you've already set your mind to something and you'll be the only one to change that. First suggestion: read about the formation of Islam and it's very early history. Too broad? Pay attention to the reasons WHY Islam was formed and early methods of worship. After that we can move foward chronologically and try fixing the other historical errors in your other statements. I'm sorry that you take my comments for merely being argumentative, they were meant to be insults towards someone I percieved to be an ignorant bigot with an unwillingness to question their own preconcieved notions. I've found that telling someone that they dont have a sense of humor gets an overly rational explanation to explain the reasons for the behaviors. I have also noticed the same over rationalizing by racists and bigots. Generally trying to discuss a racist's erroneous justifications for their bigotry is as difficult as discussing evolutionary science with christian who believes in creationism - an ability to ignore vast amounts of hard data while clinging to psuedo facts put forward by biased and unqualified "experts" that happen to have the same ideology as the believer. So Steel, let me know, if you're interested in discussing this rationally using facts and documented history and I'm all for it. If you wish to cling to the frame of mind that you've exhibited throughout this thread - ie, falsehoods, racist statements, pseudo-science etc, then I respectfully withdraw from the discussion and let others continue the debate. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Steel, this paragraph alone illustrates the depths of your ignorance on the subject and seriously undermines any credibility the rest of your argument may have carried. Historically, biologically, sociologically and theologically your entire argument is based on faulty data, hearsay, rabid right-wing radio hosts and, quite possibly, the ignorant ramblings of a drugged horse - at least I hope so because there's really no excuse for the statements your making if you're a fully functional human who doesnt have to be reminded to breathe every few seconds. You know, I'm always the person who says the wrong thing at the wrong time. Steel, you didnt choose that name because you have to use an Iron Lung, right? That'd be just my luck. Again. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Someone may have touched on this, but this is an extremely bad idea for a simple reason. The extremists are an incredibly small percentage of the Muslim population. Last year, during the military actions in iraq which threatened one of the holiest shrines of Shia muslims I had a number of debates with a co-worker, a lebanese muslim. This person was highly educated (A Masters in Comp Sci from MIT, and two degrees, one from a US college and another from a college near his home town). He explained to me that the desecration of a holy site would be a call to action for Muslims around the world *even if they disagreed with the initial reasons for the war, and the fact that Iraq militants were using it as a military stronghold - something he thought was an affront to God* (he supported the removal of Saddam). Let me just rephrase that for those of you with a 'bomb them all' attitude: 1. My friend a moderate muslim thought Saddam was a bad man and needed removal. 2. My friend, a moderate muslim thought it was against god that militants would use holy buildings as cover. 3. My friend, a moderate muslim, felt very strongly that to destroy a holy muslim shrine would be reason enough to join the fight against the aggressor. Perhaps we should remember that while we consider it all fair game, the average muslim in the street would not. A couple of other threads have talked about radicalizing the population of Iraq and other Mid eastern countries - but we should remember that there are 1.1 Billion muslims on the planet. Considering we've seen a lot of military action from the US in the last couple of years and have *not* seen puposeful damage to religious buildings and shrines you have to consider that perhaps someone out there controlling the troops is using their brains properly. Perhaps some of that brain usage may trickle down to the gung ho 'blow em to hell' contingent present on the board Lets try another example: In the country USerica, where all liberals live in Liberonia - Maine, NH and MA, and the rest of the mainland is Bushland (conservative), the liberals have been using terrorism tactics in Euranada to enforce [health care|environmental concerns|moral relativism]. In retaliation the army of Euranada have decided to (in their godless socialist heathen ways) to burn every Christian church and every USerican flag it can find in public. They broadcast these burnings on TV and everyone in the world can watch them. So, once the right wingers get over the wet dreams caused by the concept of Liberonia/Bushland, how long before Bushland starts taking the concept of flag and church burning personally, and even tho they idealogically disagree with Liberonia they start, at first quietly, and over time more openly - supporting the terrorists? TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

A problem? I don't think enabling identity thieves is a positive, no. ID cards seem to work well in some european countries, and as an immigrant to the US I am expected to carry my identity card with me at all times, so I dont have any moral issues with the concept - although I realize many nationals do, and for obvious reasons considering the foundations of your society. The post 9/11 hysteria has calmed down somewhat (at least, the CNN footage of black clad Homeland Security officers asking 'citizens' for their papers during border training hasn't been shown since circa 2002.). The Real ID is a defacto end run around the whole national ID thing. Personally I wish people would look at the real gains an ID card would get them , if there are any, rather than bogus 'it will identify terrorists easier/illegals easier' something patently false considering each of the 9/11 hijackers had valid IDs and I know several immigrants with fake papers good enough to fool most employers. So my score: i) dont care I already have ID, ii) stop talking about terrorists, iii) Why make it so easy for identity thieves to steal everything about you? Simply digitizing that quantity of information makes it available for 'hackers' to steal. (would now be a time to mention the Russian mob, links to arms dealers and terrorism?), which in conclusion means: dont mind the constitutional issues, it's technologically a really bad idea and after more than a decade in computer security feel qualified to judge the issue accurately. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

You do realize that this law was already (sort of) passed in the last couple of months, right? Attached as an addition to a military spending bill, the Real ID act will go into effect in 3 years. All your info will be kept on the magnetic stripe in your drivers license and any merchant or authority will be able to scan it - something tough to do currently because each state has a different format for the information stored on the license. Computer security experts are, understandably, concerned because this system is going to make it even easier for people to steal identities. http://news.com.com/FAQ+How+Real+ID+will+affect+you/2100-1028_3-5697111.html?tag=st.ref.goo What's going to be stored on this ID card? At a minimum: name, birth date, sex, ID number, a digital photograph, address, and a "common machine-readable technology" that Homeland Security will decide on. The card must also sport "physical security features designed to prevent tampering, counterfeiting, or duplication of the document for fraudulent purposes." Homeland Security is permitted to add additional requirements--such as a fingerprint or retinal scan--on top of those. We won't know for a while what these additional requirements will be. How will I get one of these new ID cards? You'll still get one through your state motor vehicle agency, and it will likely take the place of your drivers' license. But the identification process will be more rigorous. For instance, you'll need to bring a "photo identity document," document your birth date and address, and show that your Social Security number is what you had claimed it to be. U.S. citizens will have to prove that status, and foreigners will have to show a valid visa. State DMVs will have to verify that these identity documents are legitimate, digitize them and store them permanently. In addition, Social Security numbers must be verified with the Social Security Administration. ****[my addition: which is a horrible idea: choicepoint, lexis nexus, mastercard etc etc] Is this a national ID card? It depends on whom you ask. Barry Steinhardt, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's technology and liberty program, says: "It's going to result in everyone, from the 7-Eleven store to the bank and airlines, demanding to see the ID card. They're going to scan it in. They're going to have all the data on it from the front of the card...It's going to be not just a national ID card but a national database." At the moment, state driver's licenses aren't easy for bars, banks, airlines and so on to swipe through card readers because they're not uniform; some may have barcodes but no magnetic stripes, for instance, and some may lack both. Steinhardt predicts the federalized IDs will be a gold mine for government agencies and marketers. Also, he notes that the Supreme Court ruled last year that police can demand to see ID from law-abiding U.S. citizens. --------------------- Papers please. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

This thread illustrates quite clearly the power of propaganda and disinformation broadcast by the US media. I'm not even going to begin to detail the reasons I feel that way, but you could start with PNAC and work your way forwards. Check the british Times, the NYT, the Daily Telegraph (but bear in mind that the Telegraph is used by MI6 far more often than any other paper). Cross reference with the UK Independent, Times of India and throw in a dash of Japanese and Pakistan english speaking news (because I dont recall the papers I read at the time.) Should give a clearer picture. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

If you thought that was me going on for paragraphs you've obviously not seen my other posts. If I had the time and patience about the subject I'd dig up the articles that discussed it, but from my recollection there would be a period of a few years of underfunding and then it would balance itself out. Of course, it's going to be a tough article to find when most of the partisan sites are filled with 'the sky is falling' predictions. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.