So, how exactly is it seditious if a British director made it. Do you even know what sedition means Steve ?

God damn, you are an idiot.

I can't believe you guys! With such a prolific weekend in news, you choose this as your priority. I swear, this site loses more and more credibility each day. The fact that you have given this silly docudrama this much attention is a statement of it's own in terms of advertising: all publicity is good publicity, isn't that what they say? Nice marketing campaign.

"I can't believe you guys! With such a prolific weekend in news, you choose this as your priority. I swear, this site loses more and more credibility each day. The fact that you have given this silly docudrama this much attention is a statement of it's own in terms of advertising: all publicity is good publicity, isn't that what they say? Nice marketing campaign."

Okay, hon. What did you want to talk about? Missing 1-week old baby? Dusquene basketball players getting shot? E coli in the spinach?

How about Anna Nicole Smith's son not being murdered? Or, maybe you want to have a rousing discussion of the over-reaction of the followers of the religion of peace to an academic speech by the world leader of the Catholic church?

We could talk about the Somali president not being blown up, or the girl who escaped from her captor by text-messaging…..

Wait a minute, I know.

Stay tuned.

Ah, the bliss of ignorance! I rest my case.

"Ah, the bliss of ignorance! I rest my case."

Not really an answer, is it?

If you don't have the ability to follow "real" news during the weekend that's your problem; I am not responsible for summarizing what you've missed.

So no, it is not really an answer if you want me to do your work for you. Thanks.

Is this gonna be another game of political debate Whack-A-Mole, where if you don't have a good answer, you just change the subject?

I'm still waiting to hear how a foreign film can be branded as an act of "sedition" against the USA.

Can Pat Robertson's call to assassinate Hugo Chavez be considered sedition then as well? Y'all seemed to think that it was fine to talk shit like that when it was being discussed about somebody else's president.

"Okay, hon. What did you want to talk about? Missing 1-week old baby? Dusquene basketball players getting shot? E coli in the spinach?"

How aboout this for subject matter? I think you mentioned (over on the stooges opinion about three sane congressmen) how the presidents feelings shouldn't be Blah, blah, bla....in regards to matters of law.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14868608

If a film on the death of a president disturbs you, we could discuss the 50-80 Iraqi citizens being killed in Baghdad on a daily basis.

A look at the ineptness of the administration in considering an outcome other than a flower petal strewn street welcome for the invading coalition.

While Kerry touts the *numbers* willing to go to war and those that don't need to step aside... We could discuss the *numbers* of children in the Bush Admin that serve in the military.

This tidbit of Papal news is worth a go; His *bring em' on* antics seem to be an attempt to unseat "W" from his village idiot position.

http://www.slate.com/id/2149863/?GT1=8592

Or you could pose the really big question. With the republicans in control of congress, and the democrats definitely not standing in the way, why did it take 5 years for Congress enact legistration to protect our ports from a terrorist attack? Why is a bill only now being passed 1 1/2 months before a mid-term election....hmmm. For being the party in complete control of congress, and the only ones really in fighting terror...what took you so long. What was standing in your way. Don't blame the democrats, they along with the 9/11 commission have been the ones harping on you to do it.

That is real news....the kind you'd rather sweep under the rug.

Ya gotta wonder.

you, Mr, Russ, are not worthy to shine the Pope's shoes. How DARE you. The man is head and shoulders above you. In intelligence, compassion, education, and holiness. What an incredible piece you are.

Liesa, rest assured, I expected the message to escape you? Why would you compare me to the pope? He is just a human being? I don't know what his IQ may be? His words don't ring of compassion. My education isn't of a religious nature? I know he is no better in Gods' eyes than I.

If he is who you think he is, then he should have told the truth! The truth? He knew what he was saying and really believes it, yet when confronted was unwilling to say so. If he was trully intending to make an apology then he fell dramatically short of the mark. In both cases his pathetic ass wasn't as high as you thought you had lifted it, so again you and he missed the mark.

The message Lisa; If the Muslims or Christians choose to call the other "evil and inhuman" they are hypocrites. What kind of message was the pope trying to convey? To date we don't really know because he hasn't been honest and forthright enough to give us a clue. Was he throwing the quote out there for idle conversation or was he saying; "bring em' on!"

The Christian Crusades wasn't all fun, games and campfire songs, or as you neo-cons prefer, Cum ba ya..

Idiot! Try reading the text of his speech. By the way,does your computer type an ? instead of a period? If not, you are truly odd. How dare you say that the Pope is not honest. You can disagree with his statements, but cease calling him dishonest. That is ludicrous. Yeah right. The Pope was saying bring em on. Hah! Alright now. Let's get to the heart of the matter here. Why are you so prejudiced about Catholics? Raised in a faith that demonizes Catholics? Come on now Mr. Russ. Do tell. Many of your idols in the democratic party are pretend Catholics, so what's your beef?

Speaking of more "important" news, here's a story out of Afghanistan...supposedly a country the US and NATO has "under countrol". Doesn't sound like it.

MOSCOW — For the umpteenth time now, Afghanistan is breaking all records in opium production, and is ready to flood Europe with first-grade heroine.

According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the area sown to opium poppy has increased this year by 59 percent, while the gross opium harvest will amount to 6,100 tons.

I went looking for this story because of what I heard on the radio, where they basically stated that the opium crop expanded this year from 200k acres to 400k acres.

Does anybody realize where the Taliban and Al-Qaeda get a great deal of their money? Selling heroin. Why is Bush not dealing with this problem? The amount of heroin grow is almost at or beyond the amount grown when the Taliban were in control!

The Crusades were actually a response to the violent conquest of Islam across the land. More importantly, Catholics have leaped ahead light years from that time period. Not so the Muslims.

leapt

Lisa,

I have read the text. History is, what history is!

History is told through the eyes of the beholder. Did you understand the popes' message?

It was the emperors' words that were written. Do you think it possible the emperor wanted only his position/view to be written? Was it possible the learned Persian wasn't allowed to state his views, therein not becoming history?

What is your interpretation of this quote?

"God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...."

Does this apply only to Muslims? When the Pope pleaded for a peaceful solution to the impending invasion of Iraq was he wrong in doing so?

The Pope chose to use both meanings of the Greek word "Logos" to present his speech. His emphasis on "reason and word" was used in a manner to show that fanatical Muslims were not using reason. He applied it to all Muslims when he used the quote from the emperor.

In his position of leadership, where was his ability to reason when he was making a comment that would inflame millions? Where was the reasoning when the Crusades began? Were the european kings taking directives from the pope? Where was the reasoning then?

Speaking of *reasoning*, pity you that you feel demonized. Maybe it's your lack of reasoning. I can, and do, separate *you* Lisa from Catholics I know who think and reason.

If the Pope believes Muslims (those who practice the teachings of Islam) are "evil and inhuman" then he should say so. He didn't; he pussy-footed around the subject which makes his supposed apology, disingenuous, aka: false, dishonest. There is no need for you to tell me to "cease" anything!

FYI; I have no idols, religious political or otherwise. In regard to your eminence, I may, and have the right to call him dishonest. If I am allowed to be angry with God, then I surely can and will display my dislike for the pope when he makes an ass of himself.

In regard to your question mark(?) period(.) comment, what difference does it make to you, you never answer the question anyway. FYI; This is rhetorical.

PS. It's a given the president thinks his position is through divine intervention. Don't you think the divine would have chosen he use reason over the sword when considering options toward Iraq(.) FYI; Rhetorical again.

Here's some more important news that PME fails to cover. Renditioning of "INNOCENT PEOPLE!"

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=2024374n

And the US attorney general has the gall to call his incident deportation? How many Canadians do you know who get deported to Syria while on vacation in a different country? What Alberto is really saying is, I have say something BS, because we are never wrong about terrorists.

Lisa,

I decided you needed a little history lesson, so here's a quote from Wikipedia which can be backed up by historical texts. Notice the difference between how the Muslims invaders treated the people of Jerusalem, versus the Crusaders, and then you tell me again who was more violent.

The city remained under Roman and Byzantine rule, until it was taken by the advancing Muslim forces in 638. The rights of the non-Muslims under Islam were governed by the Pact of Umar, and Christians and Jews living in the city were granted autonomy in exchange for a required poll tax. Whereas the Byzantine Christian authorities had not tolerated the presence of Jews within the walls of the city, the Muslim rulers allowed the reestablishment of a Jewish community.[2] After the treaty of Capitulation signed with the Byzantines, Umar ordered the Patriarch Sophronius to guide him and those who accompanied him to the sanctuary of King David, where he later decided to build a mosque in front of the Rock.The mosque became known as Masjid Umar.

In 1099, the city was conquered by the First Crusaders, who slaughtered most of its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants. A series of conquests followed: in 1187 the city was taken from the Crusaders by Saladin. From 1228 to 1244, it was given by Saladin's descendant al-Kamil to the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II.

If you weren't able to dig the juicy parts out for you, here they are. When the Muslims entered Jersualem, they leaved a "poll tax" against the Christians and the Jews, and otherwise left them alone, and when the Crusaders entered Jersualem they "slaughtered most of its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants".

And you call the Muslims violent? Learn your history. Many times (not always) they were more civilized than their Christian counterparts.

"Speaking of *reasoning*, pity you that you feel demonized. Maybe it's your lack of reasoning. I can, and do, separate *you* Lisa from Catholics I know who think and reason."

By which he of course means those who are pro-choice, pro-gay, and generally in rebellion against the Pope and the Church.

See, Russ only likes NOMINAL religious people. If you mean what you say, you must be a "hypocrite."

"And you call the Muslims violent? Learn your history. Many times (not always) they were more civilized than their Christian counterparts."

And what about today? Are there a lot of Christian terrorist groups around the world killing people and destroying buildings?

By the way, the Pope and the Emperor were both right. Islam WAS spread by the sword. The Koran directs Muslims to "fight and slay" the pagans. It does not speak of a "spiritual warfare" as Christianity does, but of real, flesh and blood MURDER. You want to call that "not evil?" Feel free. It would be fully in keeping with your relativist moral framework. "Oh, gee. What does 'evil' MEAN, really? I mean, what's 'evil' to you may not be 'evil' to me--and who are we to judge?"

Right?

Here's an interesting story that nobody cares about:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/09/11/afghanistan.fighting.ap/index.html?section=cnn_topstories

The good guys are winning.

"See, Russ only likes NOMINAL religious people. If you mean what you say, you must be a "hypocrite.""

Do you have someone in mind here? Nominal religious? What was it a few days ago, nominal Christian?

"And what about today? Are there a lot of Christian terrorist groups around the world killing people and destroying buildings?"

Well to tell the truth you get excited when someone calls "W" a terrorist, but yes, they are. Much like the Christian Crusades (and some don't like them called the Christian Crusades because many who participated in the Crusades were not Christians) the Bush ideology is steeped in fanatical religious beliefs.

"By the way, the Pope and the Emperor were both right. Islam WAS spread by the sword. The Koran directs Muslims to "fight and slay" the pagans. It does not speak of a "spiritual warfare" as Christianity does, but of real, flesh and blood MURDER. You want to call that "not evil?" Feel free. It would be fully in keeping with your relativist moral framework. "Oh, gee. What does 'evil' MEAN, really? I mean, what's 'evil' to you may not be 'evil' to me--and who are we to judge?""

Where do you come up with this drivel?

By the way, the Pope and the Emperor were both right. Islam WAS spread by the sword. The Koran directs Muslims to "fight and slay" the pagans. It does not speak of a "spiritual warfare" as Christianity does, but of real, flesh and blood MURDER. You want to call that "not evil?" Feel free. It would be fully in keeping with your relativist moral framework. "Oh, gee. What does 'evil' MEAN, really? I mean, what's 'evil' to you may not be 'evil' to me--and who are we to judge?"

Kerry,

And yet you find centuries old Jewish and Christian communities in Muslim dominated countries. Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine, Turkey, Yemen, Iran, etc. Either the Muslims have been doing a piss poor job of converting "infidels" by the sword, or they haven't been as consistently violent as you claim or seem to think.

And what about today? Are there a lot of Christian terrorist groups around the world killing people and destroying buildings?

No you don't but how many European dictatorships do see getting propped up with Muslim money and weaponery? How many prominent Muslim leaders or religious figures do you see chastizing Europeans for the way they live their lives, or how they dress. How many Muslims do you see proclaiming to the world that their political system is better than anybody elses. I don't see Mubarak, or Assad, or the King of Saudi Arabia you should be adopting Sharia law. You also didn't have a foreign power come in and create your country's political boundaries and force groups of people to live under one political system when they wouldn't have done so on their own? Just imagine all the people that would cry fowl if Saudi Arabia had controlled America a 100 years ago and decided without your input to remove the border between Mexico and United States, or decide on a whim that they were going to give the oil states of Texas and Alaska to Mexico and Canada. I know you absolutely love my hypotheticals, whether they are possible or not, you would not be happy if it happen to you...and you know it.

Which of course gets me back to the same old argument as before. Why are the Muslims angry. You think its something totally domestic, a product of their genes, or their religion. And I'm telling you its that, but if you think that's the only reason they are acting the way they are....you are wrong. And considering the stakes involved...you are dead wrong. Know your enemy...and based on our past discussions its clear to me you don't.

You would have us fight a whole host of people would never have fought us unless we attacked them first(the purely Iraqi element of the insurgency), and wasting energy and resources on these people is pointless and dangerous....because we might just turn your delusion into reality through our own stupidity.

Kerry,

Here's another question for you, or more correctly a scenario that is very possible in the Middle East if Bush gets his wish to spread democracy. I assume since you seem to support everything Bush does, or says, that you also want to see democracy in the Middle East? But, the questions then becomes are you sure you can handle the Middle East's version of democracy. Because remember now, to be truely democratic, free elections means there can be no internal or external manipulation. To interfer either before or after the fact because you don't like the result, goes against everything you supposedly stand for, and would brand you a hypocrit forever.

So given these ground rules, what would you do if Egypt, Syria, and Saudi Arabia given all the freedoms and tools of a democracy, chose to elect "Islamist" regimes -- the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Syria, and the Wahhabi in Saudi Arabia....all of which would be intent probably on imposing Sharia moral and civil codes on these societies.

Could you honestly resist the temptation, despite your vow to support democracy, to stop YOUR worst nightmare from taking place in the Middle East. Or would you scratch that itch which seems to be in grained some corners of American society, that if we don't like a country's policies or the way its run, we can impose our will on it whenever we feel like it....and be morally correct every time.

Somehow I suspect you'd give into that temptation, and nobody in the Middle East would be the least bit surprised, because they've put up with the same crap for generations. Except way back when, they may not have felt desperate enough to elect draconian Islamist regimes.

Ain't life grand when you live by a golden double standard, which is backed by the full might and arrogance of the US government.

Ahmanrah,

When the crusaders took Jerusalem, they slaughtered everyone indiscriminately… Muslims, Jews and Christians. It was a complete and utter bloodbath.

Lisa,

The Crusades were, indeed, a response to the rapid spread of Islam, however there was very little violence associated with that spread. Much of the conquest was completely bloodless. Many people welcomed Muslim rule and offered no resistance. By and large, the Muslims allowed people to live their lives as they saw fit. Muslims have always considered Christianity and Judaism to be valid religions. Likewise, Jews have always considered Islam and Christianity to be valid religions. It is only the Christians who have historically denied the validity of the other two.

JNE where is your proof to back this crap up? It is so bogus! Where are you coming from here? Are you a Muslim? Know someone that is and want to help him out? Muslims have NOT always considered Jews and Christians to be valid religions. What the hell do you mean by the word "valid"? People of other faiths didn't offer "resistance" because if they did they would be KILLED!!! Muslims treated, and still do treat, those of other religions as second-class citizens. "Very little violence", for the love of Pete, where is your brain man?!?

"Islam WAS spread by the sword. The Koran directs Muslims to "fight and slay" the pagans." -- Kerry

What you fail to understand, again and again, is that the Koran is as much a historical document as it is a religious document. There is no universal call for Muslims to “fight and slay” pagans. I assume you refer to the much quoted “kill the infidels” verse. Yes, Mohammad did say this. He said it as Muslims were preparing a preemptive attack on the idol worshippers of Mecca. The preemptive attack was in defense of the Muslim nation as the idol worshipper were planning to attack Mohammad’s people. So yes, Mohammad did say it. It was not a universal call to kill infidels. It was essentially nothing more than a call to arms for a specific battle in Muslim history. That is all.

The Koran’s only call to fight non-Muslims is in defense of one’s own homeland. Killing any human being for any other reason is, according to the Koran, a one way ticket to eternal damnation.

The Koran later talks about spreading the faith by force. This aspect of the Koran could be viewed much in the same way as the book of Revelations. The book of Revelation basically says that unbelievers will be tortured for five months, and that the tortured shall seek death but shall not find it. Later in the same passage the unbelievers will be killed by fire, by smoke and by brimstone. In essence, those who don’t believe will die a most horrible death. The Koran has a similar section that foretells of the arrival of a Caliphate who will unite the nation of Islam. At such time, the Caliphate will call for a universal belief in Islam… and those who resist shall first be persuaded by reason and if that fails, then by force. As in the book of Revelation, only the true believers will find salvation.

The problem is not in the religion. The problem is in the fundamentalist ability to warp people into a certain way of thinking and understanding. Most Muslims do not believe in violence as terrorists do. Certainly many are angered at the Pope, but anger does not necessitate a call to arms.

Lisa... I'm not defending anyone or anything except truth.

Good job JNE!

Lisa, you're a gut ache. I'm still laughing as I type. First; in your response to BenRhodes on "Ws" ratings shudder, you refer to "WE" a few times, you have a turd in your pocket? When history is written to describe GWBs accomplishments, there will be an eight year void.

Secondly; For someone who has NEVER supported or provided a link to any of your comments, how DARE YOU ask JNE to produce a source for his accurate and intellectual post!

JNE where is your proof to back this crap up? It is so bogus! Where are you coming from here? Are you a Muslim? Know someone that is and want to help him out? Muslims have NOT always considered Jews and Christians to be valid religions. What the hell do you mean by the word "valid"? People of other faiths didn't offer "resistance" because if they did they would be KILLED!!! Muslims treated, and still do treat, those of other religions as second-class citizens. "Very little violence", for the love of Pete, where is your brain man?!?

Lisa,

Where is your proof that the Muslims entered Jersualem and slaughtered all the Jews and Christians prior to the first crusade? Do you have any historical documents to discount what I originally posted. Explain to me why so many Jews and Christians in Muslim countries have thrived there for centuries....if the goal of the Muslims was to subject anyone to the sword who did not convert, they did a pretty bad job of following their own doctrine.

And like JNE said, Muslims are required to respect members of the Jewish and Christian traditions. You would know this if you step out of your brainwashed world and read the Koran, and listened to anybody but your ultra-conservative (we have an agenda to spread Christianity) friends

Lisa,

Both Judaism and Christianity fulfill the basic tenants of Islam and, as such, both are considered by Islamic teaching to be valid, though inferior to Islam. Remember that Islam, Judaism and Christianity all have common origins and although they differ in very distinct ways, they are also similar in very distinct ways. Each contains some version of what Christians call the Old Testament.

Judaism also accepts that both Christianity and Islam fulfill the basic tenants of the religion and considers them both valid. One of the articles I read suggested that Islam was closer in belief to Judaism than is Christianity. Again, look to the commonality of the religions and not to their differences.

The interesting thing is that both Judaism and Islam recognize Jesus as a prophet of the religion and consider his teachings sacred. Islam even recognizes the Virgin Mary. Likewise, the God described in all three religions is the same… the God of Abraham. Obviously neither Islam nor Judaism recognizes Jesus as the Son of God or, as some believe, God himself. The only religion of the three that denies the others is Christianity.

You don’t need me to post a reference. Do the research yourself. You might be enlightened.

Now, with regard to Muslim conquest. Because I’m lazy, I’m just going to borrow a segment from Encarta.

“The Islamic cause was aided by political upheavals occurring outside of Arabia. The Muslim triumphs in the Near East can be partly accounted for by the long series of wars between the Byzantine and Persian empires. Earlier Byzantine victories had left both sides exhausted and open to conquest. Moreover, the inhabitants of Syria and Egypt, alienated by religious dissent and resenting the attempts of the Byzantine Empire to impose Christianity on the population, were eager to be free of Byzantine rule. In 636, Arab armies conquered Syria. The Muslims then won Iraq from the Persians and, within ten years after Muhammad's death, subdued Persia itself. The greater part of Egypt fell with little resistance in 640 and the rest shortly afterward. By the end of the reigns of the first four caliphs, Islam had vastly increased its territory in the Near East and Africa.

The new conquests of Islam were governed with remarkable efficiency and flexibility. The centralization of authority typical of military organization aided in the incorporation of new peoples. Unbelievers in the conquered territories became increasingly interested in the new religion and accepted Islam in great numbers. In addition to the obvious power of the religious message of Islam, the imposition of a personal tax on all non-Muslims encouraged many to become converts. Contrary to exaggerated accounts in western Europe of the forceful imposition of Islam upon conquered peoples, Jews and Christians outside of Arabia enjoyed toleration because they worshiped the same God as the Muslims; many non-Muslims participated in the Islamic state and prospered financially and socially.

Islam was and remains one the most effective religions in removing barriers of race and nationality. Apart from a certain privileged position allowed Arabs, distinctions were mostly those of economic rank in the early days of conquest. The new religion converted and embraced peoples of many colors and cultures. This egalitarian feature of Islam undoubtedy aided its expansion.”

JNE,

Its it nice to wash brainwashed BS away with reality...

Lisa,

Here's a link for you to read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi

This page also gives you a 160 books as references in case you choose to educate yourself.

"Good job JNE!"

JNE now has Rusty as his top cheerleader. His degeneration is complete.

Amen RR!!!

they are gone.

"they are gone"

Now THAT I'd give a hearty "Amen"!

;-)

It would be nice to see an intelligent response rather than a glib one. If you believe my statement to be untrue, then argue the merits of your case. Sometimes I argue in favor of the Republican view, as I do with the war in Iraq and abortion. Sometimes I argue in favor of the Democratic view, as I do with capital punishment. In all cases, I actually research the topic with an open mind before posting anything here. Opinions are like assholes. Everyone's got one and sometimes they're filled with crap.

Specifically, this part of Ahmanrah's link is relevant and supportive of my previous statement regarding Islamic views of Christianity and Judaism.

"Not all of them are alike; a party of the people of the Scripture stand for the right, they recite the Verses of God during the hours of the night, prostrating themselves in prayer. They believe in God and the Last Day; they enjoin Al-Ma'rûf and forbid Al-Munkar ; and they hasten in (all) good works; and they are among the righteous. And whatever good they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for God knows well those who are Al-Muttaqûn" .(3:113-115) "And there are, certainly, among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), those who believe in God and in that which has been revealed to you, and in that which has been revealed to them, humbling themselves before God. They do not sell the Verses of God for a little price, for them is a reward with their Lord. Surely, God is Swift in account." '(3:199)' "Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." 2:62

"Say (O Muhammad ): 'O people of the Scripture : Come to a word that is just between us and you, that we worship none but God, and that we associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords besides God." 3:64

It would be nice to see an intelligent response rather than a glib one.

Such as this:

Opinions are like assholes. Everyone's got one and sometimes they're filled with crap.

Self-parodying buffoonery. Are you Um Yeah in drag?

Dingleberry.

RR, lol. After all the factual information I posted, you choose my one off-hand comment to try slamming me with. Well, I do appreciate the attention. :)

JNE,

I suspect Lisa responded the only way she knew how after we destroyed her argument about the Muslims being more brutal than the Christians through the ages. Its basically BS and now she knows it...one more piece of the her contrived little fantasy shattered. Oh dear.

Ahmanrah,

The thing is that for people like Lisa and Kerry, who have faith in Christianity, no other religion has any merit. Essentially for them, there is no other religion but Christianity. Therefore, any argument you place before them in defense of Islam is going to go unheard. They simply cannot look at Islam objectively.

My goal is not to destroy their argument, but to make them see that their opinions, in this matter, are not supported by the truth. That is my goal in nearly every argument I make on PME. Though I argue with Lisa in this threat on this particular subject… I may stand beside her and argue for her in the next thread, on the next subject. Though Russ applauds me in this thread, he may be calling me an idiot in the next thread. Such is the life when you refuse compromise free thought in favor of partisan politics. I have a feeling John McCain knows exactly what I’m talking about.

JNE,

I don't ever remember calling you an idiot. :) I do understand what you're saying and I appreciate you comments. I don't always agree but you do your research and are articulate in your statements.

I would like to think Lisa and Kerry fully understand their religions. Both Christian, one Catholic and one protestant. I don't think they look at there professed beliefs objectively. If they don't understand the tenets of their on religion, it escapes me how they might profess to know another. I'm not sure what they were taught but their view of Christianity seems to come from a very distorted ideology.

There seems to be an attitude of; Okay we did it like this before (were barbaric) and we would like to pretend it didn't happen. We don't do it now (they would like to think so) so that automatically makes us better than you. If their faith and belief was as strong as they profess they would then understand the strength in their belief and be willing to acknowledge anothers faith, belief, religion.

Religions have a strong; *you don't do it right* mentality, i.e. the profession of their faith is interpreted as telling others how wrong they are. The longer they have been *doing it* the more correct they are and wrong others are. Christians are the worst (I am a christian) at this and I feel more qualified to address them. From what's been stated here by Kerry and Lisa on a religion that teaches tolerance, there seems to be the opposite from them.

OhmyGod! Are you for real Mr. Russ? Yes, I went through 12 years of Catholic schooling, and I thoroughly understand my religion. You say that you are a christian, yet you do not seem to understand what your faith, if it is really christian, tells you is wrong or right. It is not a "mentality", it is doctrine. Telling others "how wrong they are" means that we know what our particular faith teaches us. Don't you? What religion that "teaches tolerance" are you referring to? Please don't say Islam, then I KNOW you are insane.

hey Mr.Russ, The Catholic church even during the Crusades, did not authorize the killing of Jews that was[admittedly], done by Catholic citizens. there were reasons for this, but it was still a terrible thing. But the Church itself did not condone nor advocate it. The Catholic Church was not "barbaric" for the time period. If Muslims, and it seems you, have to cite centuries old incidents by Catholics to try and justify the current behavior of Muslims, then you are just proving how they have not progressed. They are mired in an ancient past. Their violent component hasn't changed in all of these centuries.

What does your bible say about doing unto others?

Does that mean you would like someone to torture you until you *piss all over yourself and shit your pants*, well if you would have pants on during the torture process.

Nothing about doing it to them because they did it to you. Yes we must take care of ourselves!

Regarding your second post; If this is the best twelve years got you, consider something more indepth. Based on most of your post I'm begining to believe you were held back for twelve years.

Everyone understands their faith; and tell me how many Christian denominations there are *agreeing* with each other?

I would think you understand I was referring to Christians as being tolerant, and since you missed the interpretation, yes the faith of Islam too. How would you expect me to believe you are capable of understanding the Bible, and then you stretch yourself by trying to include the Koran.

In not aware of anyone trying to justify the behavior of Islamic extremist, terrorists etc. I don't. I don't try and justify the behavior of the US either.

there is no moral relevance between the two. By the way, "tolerance" does not mean accepting, nor approving, behavior that goes against the teachings of your religion. It doesn't mean saying, Gee, my faith says that is a sin, but, what the hell, I'll give it my blessing. Tolerance means TOLERATING, not ACCEPTING. I have yet to see Islam TOLERATE anything. Their response is to call for death and destruction. You have hardly responded to my post.

What would you have me respond to,,,,,,,

this????

""hey Mr.Russ, The Catholic church even during the Crusades, did not authorize the killing of Jews that was[admittedly], done by Catholic citizens. there were reasons for this, but it was still a terrible thing. But the Church itself did not condone nor advocate it. The Catholic Church was not "barbaric" for the time period. If Muslims, and it seems you, have to cite centuries old incidents by Catholics to try and justify the current behavior of Muslims, then you are just proving how they have not progressed. They are mired in an ancient past. Their violent component hasn't changed in all of these centuries.""

Now you choose to discuss *who* told *who* to kill who? The Catholic church didn't do what? Not their fault the Jews were killed?

The Crusades WERE condoned, encouraged, advocated by the Pope to the kings of Europe, and now you wish to say they were justified, not BARBARIC for the medieval period.

Do you think the non-Christians give a rats ass if the manner they were killed wasn't considered barbaric for the time period. Death by the sword was embraced and accepted nor did it matter who was wielding it or advocated it's use? Ahhhh, it's a sign of the times, feels good!

"There is no moral relevance between the two?"

Are you refering to Muslims and Christians? On what do you base your assertion? You have no proof. You are not one to be asking for a response to your comments when you still haven't provided a response to your ignorant USS Cole-Clinton connection. You are delinquent in all requests to support your arguments and comments. I'm refering to requests from everyone.

How many Muslims must die at the hands of Americans before moral relevance is achieved? The number of American soldiers killed has just surpassed the number killed in the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Tens of thousands of civilians killed. How many more dead before American Christians who support the war will proclain we have reached the level of moral relevance of the Muslims?

Does the reality escape you, yeeeeeees *REALITY* escape you as to why anyone would advocate having someone assassinated, or win an award for doing so? What was the award for, Critics? I haven't followed the movie script or reviews, but I know there have been instances where somone was shot for doing what Clinton did. I guess Hillary was more compassionate and tolerant than suspected.