US Forces fighting Chrisitian Organisation in Uganda

[Charles Darwin]

[youtube][/youtube]

How dare he!?

Funny how christians are all for killing muslim terrorists but boy when the terrorists are christians..whole nother story!

[Goat]

I've only read the first page of this thread.
Of course these people are nuts, bad, and CINO (xtian in name only). As are Al-Qaeuida (sp?) per Islam..

But it raises the question, beyond demoninational diversity, pertaining to which beliefs we can say are beyond the pale. Is violence the only indicator, or do delusion, unreason, fringe thoughts, untellectual dishonesty, problematic ethics, etc. count? I ask this in the context of rejecting an alleged intellectual equivalency between mainstream and intellectually respected conservative and liberal versions of religion, and the fringe fundamentalist mindset, no matter how many universities they create in their own parallel universe. This equivalence is a nihilism.

This seems the bigger issue that this thread raises.

Oh, and I recently learned that forum rules prevent me from expressing myself in the manner of my choosing about even non-members, so let's just say that Limbaugh is "mistaken."

There is no such things as 'xxxx in name only'. Let's just say many times, it is abused by the extreme to try to get the center closer to their extreme. The people that many of the more conservative republicans called 'RINO' would be considered very conservative in the mid to late 1980's

[East of Eden]

I've only read the first page of this thread.
Of course these people are nuts, bad, and CINO (xtian in name only). As are Al-Qaeuida (sp?) per Islam..

But it raises the question, beyond demoninational diversity, pertaining to which beliefs we can say are beyond the pale. Is violence the only indicator, or do delusion, unreason, fringe thoughts, untellectual dishonesty, problematic ethics, etc. count? I ask this in the context of rejecting an alleged intellectual equivalency between mainstream and intellectually respected conservative and liberal versions of religion, and the fringe fundamentalist mindset, no matter how many universities they create in their own parallel universe. This equivalence is a nihilism.

This seems the bigger issue that this thread raises.

Oh, and I recently learned that forum rules prevent me from expressing myself in the manner of my choosing about even non-members, so let's just say that Limbaugh is "mistaken."

There is no such things as 'xxxx in name only'. Let's just say many times, it is abused by the extreme to try to get the center closer to their extreme. The people that many of the more conservative republicans called 'RINO' would be considered very conservative in the mid to late 1980's

And I would argue the Democratic Party has drifted much further left than the days of Moynihan and Scoop Jackson.

[Adurumus]

I've only read the first page of this thread.
Of course these people are nuts, bad, and CINO (xtian in name only). As are Al-Qaeuida (sp?) per Islam..

In Islam rather than 'extremists' I prefer the think of them as 'devout'.

"I prefer to call the Norwegian terrorist, those who attack abortion clinics and Westboro Baptist Church members devout Christians." Of course, I don't. I see them as extreme (to a ridiculous level) outliers that is only tangentially related to mainstream. I hope you do too, on the Islamic issue.

[East of Eden]

I've only read the first page of this thread.
Of course these people are nuts, bad, and CINO (xtian in name only). As are Al-Qaeuida (sp?) per Islam..

But it raises the question, beyond demoninational diversity, pertaining to which beliefs we can say are beyond the pale. Is violence the only indicator, or do delusion, unreason, fringe thoughts, untellectual dishonesty, problematic ethics, etc. count? I ask this in the context of rejecting an alleged intellectual equivalency between mainstream and intellectually respected conservative and liberal versions of religion, and the fringe fundamentalist mindset, no matter how many universities they create in their own parallel universe. This equivalence is a nihilism.

This seems the bigger issue that this thread raises.

Oh, and I recently learned that forum rules prevent me from expressing myself in the manner of my choosing about even non-members, so let's just say that Limbaugh is "mistaken."

The millions of horrible atrocities committed by organized Christianity during the centuries of its rule in Europe and later in the New World,

Cite the 'millions' please.

especially the early Spanish colonies, were not the aberrant acts of a few individuals. They were done as the continuing, widespread and official policy of the mainline established church.

Incidentally, I have not listened to Limbaugh in years. I remember him as entertaining, but not a serious political commentator. His opinions, as he expressed them, were certainly over the top, but I believe such people serve to raise questions which need to be addressed.

John

If you holding Christianity responsible for the misdeeds done by its alleged adherents (against Jesus' teachings), then you are responsible for Stalin.

[East of Eden]

I've only read the first page of this thread.
Of course these people are nuts, bad, and CINO (xtian in name only). As are Al-Qaeuida (sp?) per Islam..

In Islam rather than 'extremists' I prefer the think of them as 'devout'.

"I prefer to call the Norwegian terrorist, those who attack abortion clinics and Westboro Baptist Church members devout Christians."

What teaching of Christ were they following? BTW, the Westboro folks haven't hurt a fly. I can point to many examples of the 'prophet' that the Jihadists follow.

Of course, I don't. I see them as extreme (to a ridiculous level) outliers that is only tangentially related to mainstream. I hope you do too, on the Islamic issue.

The problem is, in much of Islam the extreme is mainstream. In Egypt for example 85% of Muslims think 'apostates' should be killed, 82% think that of adulterers. 15,000,000 Egypt Muslims support Al-Queda.

[Slopeshoulder]

I've only read the first page of this thread.
Of course these people are nuts, bad, and CINO (xtian in name only). As are Al-Qaeuida (sp?) per Islam..

But it raises the question, beyond demoninational diversity, pertaining to which beliefs we can say are beyond the pale. Is violence the only indicator, or do delusion, unreason, fringe thoughts, untellectual dishonesty, problematic ethics, etc. count? I ask this in the context of rejecting an alleged intellectual equivalency between mainstream and intellectually respected conservative and liberal versions of religion, and the fringe fundamentalist mindset, no matter how many universities they create in their own parallel universe. This equivalence is a nihilism.

This seems the bigger issue that this thread raises.

Oh, and I recently learned that forum rules prevent me from expressing myself in the manner of my choosing about even non-members, so let's just say that Limbaugh is "mistaken."

There is no such things as 'xxxx in name only'. Let's just say many times, it is abused by the extreme to try to get the center closer to their extreme. The people that many of the more conservative republicans called 'RINO' would be considered very conservative in the mid to late 1980's

Point taken. Fair enough.

But if 99.999% of people who go by the same name, xxx, think the extremists in question are evil and bonkers, that counts for something I would think. Otherwise we reverse what you proscribe and define the center by its fringe.

[JohnPaul]

I've only read the first page of this thread.
Of course these people are nuts, bad, and CINO (xtian in name only). As are Al-Qaeuida (sp?) per Islam..

But it raises the question, beyond demoninational diversity, pertaining to which beliefs we can say are beyond the pale. Is violence the only indicator, or do delusion, unreason, fringe thoughts, untellectual dishonesty, problematic ethics, etc. count? I ask this in the context of rejecting an alleged intellectual equivalency between mainstream and intellectually respected conservative and liberal versions of religion, and the fringe fundamentalist mindset, no matter how many universities they create in their own parallel universe. This equivalence is a nihilism.

This seems the bigger issue that this thread raises.

Oh, and I recently learned that forum rules prevent me from expressing myself in the manner of my choosing about even non-members, so let's just say that Limbaugh is "mistaken."

The millions of horrible atrocities committed by organized Christianity during the centuries of its rule in Europe and later in the New World,

Cite the 'millions' please.

especially the early Spanish colonies, were not the aberrant acts of a few individuals. They were done as the continuing, widespread and official policy of the mainline established church.

Incidentally, I have not listened to Limbaugh in years. I remember him as entertaining, but not a serious political commentator. His opinions, as he expressed them, were certainly over the top, but I believe such people serve to raise questions which need to be addressed.

John

If you holding Christianity responsible for the misdeeds done by its alleged adherents (against Jesus' teachings), then you are responsible for Stalin.

"Alleged" adherents? I suppose you could continue rejecting all those who ever called themselves Christians until you are the only "true Christian" left.

I am responsible for Stalin? I don't quite follow the logic of that. If I had lived in Russia during the early 20th century, I would probably have been at least a supporter of the Bolsheviks and against the "divine right" of the Czar to rule. But Stalin? Stalin was a clever and ruthless opportunist whose only ideology was Stalinism.

Meanwhile, I am looking for citations for my claim of 5 million Christian atrocities during the centuries of the Crusades, the Inquisition and the Witch Hunts. Unfortunately, I don't keep a scrapbook of everything I read, but I have read that figure a number of times over the years, and the sources claimed for it by historians were the still existing records of individual churches in Europe. A number of history textbooks and encyclopedias claim similar figures. I will get back to you. Do you accept Google?

John

P.S. Incidentally, that 5 million figure is individual atrocities and does not include the casualities of the many religious wars during the same period.

[Adurumus]

What teaching of Christ were they following? BTW, the Westboro folks haven't hurt a fly. I can point to many examples of the 'prophet' that the Jihadists follow.

One of these?

10 They assembled at Jerusalem in the third month of the fifteenth year of Asa’s reign. 11 At that time they sacrificed to the LORD seven hundred head of cattle and seven thousand sheep and goats from the plunder they had brought back. 12 They entered into a covenant to seek the LORD, the God of their ancestors, with all their heart and soul. 13 All who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman.

To note, I'm at a disadvantage for talking about how harmful a religion can be in this way, because I still think it's cranky, absurd and possibly insane individuals that do bad things, not someone's faith. (And that the linked website is somewhat in bad taste) Typically, anyways. Westboro hasn't physically assaulted anyone, but I'd be hard pressed to find anyone who simply despised and called for the punishment (though not by human hands) of so many people. Though equating "being an enormous jerk" to "actually killing someone" is not entirely point for point, I'll admit. It'd be a lot easier to shut them down if they did assault someone, instead of merely massively disrespecting the dead and celebrating the widespread death of people.

The problem is, in much of Islam the extreme is mainstream. In Egypt for example 85% of Muslims think 'apostates' should be killed, 82% think that of adulterers. 15,000,000 Egypt Muslims support Al-Queda.

21% of Egyptian Muslims support Al-Qaeda. That is still 15 million, unfortunately. Note though, the economically flourishing (ranked 15th in the world) Turkey only has 2% support, even though the nation is very Islamic. The less money and more oppressive the country is, the more likely they are to appreciate revolutionary figures. One must wonder if the blame is to be set on the poor conditions of the country, rather than the religion?

[JohnPaul]

East of Eden wrote:

Cite the 'millions' please.

I have found a few historical citations, but am still looking. If we are allowed to expand the count of Christian atrocities to include those described in the Christian Bible as committed or commanded by your "loving God," then I have dozens of notes and citations ready at hand. Shall I begin with those?

Incidentally, I need a housekeeper and have been thinking of purchasing a slave girl, as approved by your Bible in both Exodus and Leviticus. I live in a mostly Bible-believing community, so that should be OK here. I understand that your merciful God will not allow me to beat my slave completely to death, but if she is able to stand up after three days of recovery, that is OK.

John

[micatala]

[youtube][/youtube]

How dare he!?

Funny how christians are all for killing muslim terrorists but boy when the terrorists are christians..whole nother story!

I have to say, this is loony even by Rush's standards.

The Lord's Resistance Army is pretty well known as a brutal terrorist group.

http://www.economist.com/node/17472814

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_Resistance_Army

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/ug.html

The CIA factbook notes:

Uganda is subject to armed fighting among hostile ethnic groups, rebels, armed gangs, militias, and various government forces that extend across its borders; Uganda hosts 209,860 Sudanese, 27,560 Congolese, and 19,710 Rwandan refugees, while Ugandan refugees as well as members of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) seek shelter in southern Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo's Garamba National Park; LRA forces have also attacked Kenyan villages across the border

The State Department notes:

The vicious and cult-like Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), which sought to overthrow the Ugandan Government, operated in northern Uganda from 1986 to 2006, where it killed tens of thousands of people, abducted thousands of children to serve as soldiers and slaves, and displaced approximately 1.8 million Ugandans. Human rights abuses committed by the LRA include murder, mutilation, abduction of young women for sexual servitude, and kidnapping of children to become rebel fighters.

In 2005, the Ugandan military pushed the LRA out of northern Uganda. The LRA escaped to and continued to operate in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (D.R.C.), as well as in Southern Sudan and the Central African Republic (C.A.R.). Under military pressure, the LRA rebels requested peace talks, which Government of Southern Sudan Vice President Riek Machar mediated and which after 2.5 years resulted in a Final Peace Agreement (FPA) in April 2008. However, LRA leader Joseph Kony ultimately refused to sign the FPA and continued to commit atrocities against local populations in D.R.C., Southern Sudan, and C.A.R. In December 2008, the Governments of Uganda, D.R.C., and Southern Sudan launched a joint military operation against the LRA in northeastern D.R.C. This operation is ongoing as of 2011 and extends across LRA-affected areas in D.R.C., C.A.R., and South Sudan.

Why it is a bad thing for Obama to send a 100 troops either to protect the natives there or to get rid of some of the LRA, I am not sure.

Why Rush is so fired up about supporting these people because they profess Christianity I am also completely perplexed by. If they say they are Christians, I am willing to let them define themselves that way. However, that seems to me to be pretty irrelevant.

Their principle characteristic seems to be that they are brutally violent.


If we pointed to their being black, with even a hint that "black culture" is contributing to their actions we would pretty quickly be labeled racist.


As far as trying to smear Christians in general either because of the lunacy of Rush or the brutality of the LRA, it seems to me that the case people are trying to make along those lines is pretty fallacious, and amounts primarily to smear by association. I am not sure it makes much more sense than attributing this to race.

The same goes for people trying to smear Islam or Muslims in general. This is the same fallaciousness people used to argue against the the so-called Ground Zero Mosque which was neither a mosque nor at ground zero. Somehow the moderate Imam promoting that project was supposed to answer for the atrocities committed by Al-Qaeda and others. Why that makes any sense at all is beyond me.



Trying to explain people's violent actions by the religious ideologies they hold or profess may not be a totally worthless enterprise, but it is pretty clearly a very poor approach to explaining the reality. There are a whole host of other much more relevant reasons people end up doing these sorts of things.