Post by: Wildalaska on March 04, 2005, 10:07:06 PM
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahah
U.S. can sit back and watch Europe implode
February 27, 2005
BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
A week ago, the conventional wisdom was that George W. Bush had seen the error of his unilateral cowboy ways and was setting off to Europe to mend fences with America's ''allies.''
I think not. Lester Pearson, the late Canadian prime minister, used to say that diplomacy is the art of letting the other fellow have your way. All week long President Bush offered a hilariously parodic reductio of Pearson's bon mot, wandering from one European Union gabfest to another insisting how much he loves his good buddy Jacques and his good buddy Gerhard and how Europe and America share -- what's the standard formulation? -- ''common values.'' Care to pin down an actual specific value or two that we share? Well, you know, ''freedom,'' that sort of thing, abstract nouns mostly. Love to list a few more common values, but gotta run.
And at the end what's changed?
Will the United States sign on to Kyoto?
No.
Will the United States join the International Criminal Court?
No.
Will the United States agree to accept whatever deal the Anglo-Franco-German negotiators cook up with Iran?
No.
Even more remarkably, aside from sticking to his guns in the wider world, the president also found time to cast his eye upon Europe's internal affairs. As he told his audience in Brussels, in the first speech of his tour, ''We must reject anti-Semitism in all forms and we must condemn violence such as that seen in the Netherlands.''
The Euro-bigwigs shuffled their feet and stared coldly into their mistresses' decolletage. They knew Bush wasn't talking about anti-Semitism in Nebraska, but about France, where for three years there's been a sustained campaign of synagogue burning and cemetery desecration, and Germany, where the Berlin police advise Jewish residents not to go out in public wearing any identifying marks of their faith.
The ''violence in the Netherlands'' is a reference to Theo van Gogh, murdered by a Dutch Islamist for making a film critical of the Muslim treatment of women. Van Gogh's professional colleagues reacted to this assault on freedom of speech by canceling his movie from the Rotterdam Film Festival and scheduling some Islamist propaganda instead.
The president, in other words, understands that for Europe, unlike America, the war on terror is an internal affair, a matter of defusing large unassimilated radicalized Muslim immigrant populations before they provoke the inevitable resurgence of opportunist political movements feeding off old hatreds. Difficult trick to pull off, especially on a continent where the ruling elite feels it's in the people's best interest not to pay any attention to them.
The new EU ''constitution,'' for example, would be unrecognizable as such to any American. I had the opportunity to talk with former French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing on a couple of occasions during his long labors as the self-declared and strictly single Founding Father. He called himself ''Europe's Jefferson,'' and I didn't like to quibble that, constitution-wise, Jefferson was Europe's Jefferson -- that's to say, at the time the U.S. Constitution was drawn up, Thomas Jefferson was living in France. Thus, for Giscard to be Europe's Jefferson, he'd have to be in Des Moines, where he'd be doing far less damage.
But, quibbles aside, President Giscard professed to be looking in the right direction. When I met him, he had an amiable riff on how he'd been in Washington and bought one of those compact copies of the U.S. Constitution on sale for a buck or two. Many Americans wander round with the constitution in their pocket so they can whip it out and chastise over-reaching congressmen and senators at a moment's notice. Try going round with the European Constitution in your pocket and you'll be walking with a limp after two hours: It's 511 pages, which is 500 longer than the U.S. version. It's full of stuff about European space policy, Slovakian nuclear plants, water resources, free expression for children, the right to housing assistance, preventive action on the environment, etc.
Most of the so-called constitution isn't in the least bit constitutional. That's to say, it's not content, as the U.S. Constitution is, to define the distribution and limitation of powers. Instead, it reads like a U.S. defense spending bill that's got porked up with a ton of miscellaneous expenditures for the ''mohair subsidy'' and other notorious Congressional boondoggles. President Ronald Reagan liked to say, ''We are a nation that has a government -- not the other way around.'' If you want to know what it looks like the other way round, read Monsieur Giscard's constitution.
But the fact is it's going to be ratified, and Washington is hardly in a position to prevent it. Plus there's something to be said for the theory that, as the EU constitution is a disaster waiting to happen, you might as well cut down the waiting and let it happen. CIA analysts predict the collapse of the EU within 15 years. I'd say, as predictions of doom go, that's a little on the cautious side.
But either way the notion that it's a superpower in the making is preposterous. Most administration officials subscribe to one of two views: a) Europe is a smugly irritating but irrelevant backwater; or b) Europe is a smugly irritating but irrelevant backwater where the whole powder keg's about to go up.
For what it's worth, I incline to the latter position. Europe's problems -- its unaffordable social programs, its deathbed demographics, its dependence on immigration numbers that no stable nation (not even America in the Ellis Island era) has ever successfully absorbed -- are all of Europe's making. By some projections, the EU's population will be 40 percent Muslim by 2025. Already, more people each week attend Friday prayers at British mosques than Sunday service at Christian churches -- and in a country where Anglican bishops have permanent seats in the national legislature.
Some of us think an Islamic Europe will be easier for America to deal with than the present Europe of cynical, wily, duplicitous pseudo-allies. But getting there is certain to be messy, and violent.
Until the shape of the new Europe begins to emerge, there's no point picking fights with the terminally ill. The old Europe is dying, and Mr. Bush did the diplomatic equivalent of the Oscar night lifetime-achievement tribute at which the current stars salute a once glamorous old-timer whose fading aura is no threat to them. The 21st century is being built elsewhere.
Post by: Happy Bob on March 04, 2005, 10:38:08 PM
Post by: wasrjoe on March 04, 2005, 10:38:53 PM
Post by: Cool Hand Luke 22:36 on March 04, 2005, 11:28:55 PM
Quote
CIA analysts predict the collapse of the EU within 15 years. I'd say, as predictions of doom go, that's a little on the cautious side.
Aren't these the same folks at CIA who completely missed the impending collapse of the Soviet Union?
You'd do better with a magic 8-ball than by listening to CIA predictions.
Quote
Some of us think an Islamic Europe will be easier for America to deal with than the present Europe of cynical, wily, duplicitous pseudo-allies. But getting there is certain to be messy, and violent.
How will the loss of our Christian European heritage, our roots, be of any great benefit to us?
Post by: BillBlank on March 05, 2005, 01:11:20 AM
Post by: MaterDei on March 05, 2005, 03:41:24 AM
Post by: Ron on March 05, 2005, 04:12:32 AM
I believe you can find this article on his web site.
http://www.steynonline.com/index.cfm
Post by: Wildalaska on March 05, 2005, 09:39:04 AM
Quote
How will the loss of our Christian European heritage, our roots, be of any great benefit to us?
When the roots are rotten, as they have been for hundreds and hundreds of years, they do no good. Better to get punched in the face instead of stabbed in the back.
Historically, the Msolem world was far more tolerant to others than the "Christian" west...
WildbutheytoeachhisownAlaska
Post by: Matthew Carberry on March 05, 2005, 10:31:39 AM
Quote
Historically, the Moslem world was far more tolerant to others than the "Christian" West...
Look where that got 'em.
I'm not sure that special increased taxes and ghettoized housing, along with lesser legal standing, interspersed with unofficial pogroms by the young and reactive, are truly that much better a legacy than the relatively brief period of official church stupidity considering the outcomes for all involved that flowed from each tradition.
Post by: Standing Wolf on March 05, 2005, 11:09:07 AM
Quote
Historically, the Msolem world was far more tolerant to others than the "Christian" west...
In the year 1200, yes. In the year 1800, no.
Islam today is where Christianity was about 800 years ago.
Post by: Wildalaska on March 05, 2005, 11:54:58 AM
WildwhichpissesofftheeurostonoendimayaddAlaska
Post by: Cool Hand Luke 22:36 on March 05, 2005, 11:56:19 AM
Quote
In the year 1200, yes. In the year 1800, no.
Islam today is where Christianity was about 800 years ago.
Islam today is where Christianity was about 800 years ago.
I'm not sure if I would give Islam even this much credit. It has been a murderously violent movement right from the beginning, with only brief periods of relative sanity.
For example, the Hindus of Central Asia have faced unending genocide at the hands of Muslims. "Hindu Kush" is a name derived from the term Sanskrit(?) term "Hindu Slaughter." The Muslims killed hundereds of millions of Hindus over the millenia during their push into that region.
The idea of a benign, tolerant Islam in the past is a politically correct myth.
One gets the impression that if the Spanish hadn't pushed to Moors out, they would have repeated this slaughter in Western Europe.
Having said this, I agree that the Christian churches in parts of the world have certainly been corrupt to the extent that they have driven many away. The rise of Paganism and eventually Islam in Western Europe will be a result.
Steyn's essay neglects the strength of the Christian Churches in parts of Eastern Europe, e.g., Poland, and in Russia.
Post by: Cool Hand Luke 22:36 on March 05, 2005, 12:06:15 PM
Quote
When the roots are rotten, as they have been for hundreds and hundreds of years, they do no good. Better to get punched in the face instead of stabbed in the back.
To mention just one potential negative aspect of "Eurabia" keep in mind that you're talking about a religion in which even many of the mainstream followers agree that music and the artistic depiction of the human form are wrongs.
That's their belief system and they are certainly entilted to it. No argument there.
But are you prepared to say that the destruction of the titanic artistic heritage of Western Europe is a good thing?
We also need to discuss the potential negative impact of Islam on other aspects of Western European culture. Issues such as women's rights and democracy.
The problem with Muslims in Western Europe is that the young ones are much more likely to follow the teachings of Osama Bin-Laden than Kamal Ataturk.
Post by: BillBlank on March 05, 2005, 12:41:45 PM
Post by: Cool Hand Luke 22:36 on March 05, 2005, 12:45:47 PM
Quote
Another example of the simple truth that religion has nothing to do with standards of behaviour, humans are nasty little critters whatever god they bow too.
Amen to that.
Post by: roo_ster on March 06, 2005, 09:31:31 AM
Quote
Historically, the Msolem world was far more tolerant to others than the "Christian" west...
I would suggest a Google search on the term "dhimmitude" might help clear any misconceptions held on this subject.
Post by: The Rabbi on May 25, 2006, 11:13:01 AM
Quote from: jfruser
Wildalaska wrote:
I would suggest a Google search on "ghetto", "Crusades," "Spanish Inquisition", and other charming facets of Christian Europe might clear your obvious misconceptions on this subject.Quote
Historically, the Msolem world was far more tolerant to others than the "Christian" west...
I would suggest a Google search on the term "dhimmitude" might help clear any misconceptions held on this subject.I'll point out the article's date suggests it is over a year old.
Post by: Marnoot on May 25, 2006, 11:34:27 AM
Quote
I'll point out the article's date suggests it is over a year old.
I'll point out the first post's date indicates this thread is over a year old. 
Post by: The Rabbi on May 25, 2006, 11:38:36 AM
Quote from: Marnoot
Quote
I'll point out the article's date suggests it is over a year old.
I'll point out the first post's date indicates this thread is over a year old. Post by: richyoung on May 25, 2006, 11:39:04 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Quote from: jfruser
Wildalaska wrote:
I would suggest a Google search on "ghetto", "Crusades," "Spanish Inquisition", and other charming facets of Christian Europe might clear your obvious misconceptions on this subject.Quote
Historically, the Msolem world was far more tolerant to others than the "Christian" west...
I would suggest a Google search on the term "dhimmitude" might help clear any misconceptions held on this subject.I'll point out the article's date suggests it is over a year old.
Post by: The Rabbi on May 25, 2006, 11:41:13 AM
Quote from: richyoung
Quote from: The Rabbi
Quote from: jfruser
Wildalaska wrote:
I would suggest a Google search on the term "dhimmitude" might help clear any misconceptions held on this subject.
I would suggest a Google search on "ghetto", "Crusades," "Spanish Inquisition", and other charming facets of Christian Europe might clear your obvious misconceptions on this subject.I would suggest a Google search on the term "dhimmitude" might help clear any misconceptions held on this subject.
I'll point out the article's date suggests it is over a year old.
Post by: K Frame on May 25, 2006, 01:13:17 PM
But riling prejudice against Muslims is just fine and dandy...
It means that Jews are just as much of a bunch of blood thirsty bastards as Christians and Muslims when it suits their needs, wants, and desires...
Is it my imagination, or is it generally only Christians who will admit to their faith's savage side?
Oops, I guess I'm an (insert descriptive term of the nature of my supposed bias here).
Post by: richyoung on May 25, 2006, 01:52:42 PM
Quote from: The Rabbi
I dont see the relevance of any of the terms you cite to this discussion at all.
None are so blind as those who refuse to see...
Post by: grampster on May 25, 2006, 02:04:29 PM
We of the gun culture like to say it's not the gun that kills, it people. Well, I submit it works the same way with religion. Take away religion, man will find another reason to slaughter his neighbor.
That's why it's really so futile to be debating who's god/God/g*d is better.
Post by: The Rabbi on May 25, 2006, 02:11:48 PM
Quote from: richyoung
Quote from: The Rabbi
I dont see the relevance of any of the terms you cite to this discussion at all.
None are so blind as those who refuse to see...Obviously I need to flesh it out for you.
The discussion had to do with tolerance and rights in different societies. The point was made that Muslim societies historically were much more tolerant than Christian ones. Someone took issue with that by mentioning the concept of "dhimmi." Notwithstanding that idea, non-Muslims still had rights, especially under the Ottomans, that non-Christians could only dream about in Europe. On the other hand, Christian Europe uniformly granted no rights to non-Christians and persecuted them terribly. This was the general condition in societies.
Your response focuses on a few isolated incidents in Israel's history. It is not general to any society. Indeed, non-Jewish citizens in Israel have full rights with Jewish citizens.
So, I have to ask, why bring up some isolated incidents affecting maybe 1000 people in all when the discussion has been about widespread societal and political practices that lasted for thousands of years?
And I am still asking this question.
Post by: richyoung on May 26, 2006, 07:37:41 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Obviously I need to flesh it out for you.
The discussion had to do with tolerance and rights in different societies. The point was made that Muslim societies historically were much more tolerant than Christian ones.
No the point waws NOT made - it was ATTEMPTED - in error. A few historical incidences of "tolerence induced by near military parity do NOT outweigh the bloody history of Islam. Further, those few incidences were for "people of the Book" - Christians and Jews. You conveniently leave out how OTHER religions were treated - IF they were allowed to live at all. It was a few MONTHES ago that an Afghan man was threatened with DEATH for converting to Christianity. Christians are still being sold into slavery or kidnapped for ransom by Muslims today in Africa. Islam is a bloodsoaked religion of conquest with its roots in pagan moon worship - they are at war with anything NOT Islam - always have been (unless forced not to by superior might), and always will be. What happened to the Jews living in Arab countries? Kicked out or killed, that what. So much for "tolerence"...The discussion had to do with tolerance and rights in different societies. The point was made that Muslim societies historically were much more tolerant than Christian ones.
Quote
Someone took issue with that by mentioning the concept of "dhimmi." Notwithstanding that idea, non-Muslims still had rights, especially under the Ottomans, that non-Christians could only dream about in Europe. On the other hand, Christian Europe uniformly granted no rights to non-Christians and persecuted them terribly. This was the general condition in societies.
You are refereing to a period in history when the Catholic Church either essentially WAS the secular government, oe exercised so much pull as to de facto be the government. And it wasn't just "non-Christians" - plenty of Lutherans, Gnostics, etc were victims of the Inquisition. The violence is more a reflection of Europe than the religion in charge at the time. Just as the occasional intramural Sunni-Shi'ite-Wahabi-Kurd bloodfest is more indiciative of Arab tribalism than Islam itself.Quote
Your response focuses on a few isolated incidents in Israel's history.
Seeing as how Israel has only existed this time around for 60 years, and that the list was not complete, that's a lot of "incidents" - ALL of which occured with the BLESSING of Israel's theocratic government. This, of course, leaves out any number of worshipers of Ba'al and various and sundry peoples that the old Testament records Israel as wiping out, including children and livestock - but those don't count because "God told them to", right?Quote
It is not general to any society.
I think any neutral observer would seee that it is general to the Jewish government of Israel. You may feel free to believe whatever fantasy lets you sleep at night - just don't expect any one else to buy into it.Quote
Indeed, non-Jewish citizens in Israel have full rights with Jewish citizens.
Yes - when the King David hotel is blown up, Jew and Gentile alike get to die. Whee!Quote
So, I have to ask, why bring up some isolated incidents affecting maybe 1000 people in all when the discussion has been about widespread societal and political practices that lasted for thousands of years?
Israel attempted to FORCE the United States into WAR with Egypt ONCE for certain (Levan Affair), and possibly TWICE (USS LIberty). A war between Egypt and the US certainly would affect more than "maybe 1000" people. When the first reports of the Liberty attack came in, it was assumed that our "ally" Israel couldn't have done it, so it MUST have been Egypt. Cairo almost got nuked. That could have triggered a nuclear WWIII. Do you think that MIGHT affect more than a thousand people? The POINT, which you are ducking, is that the modern state of Israel, a Jewish theocracy, is showing a blood lust, intolerance, and disregard for other religions in its short history quite on a par with midieval Christianity or Islam.Quote
And I am still asking this question.
...and you have been answered. You just don't LIKE the answer. Sometimes the truth hurts.
Post by: The Rabbi on May 26, 2006, 11:26:11 AM
Quote from: richyoung
So much for "tolerence"...
"Tolerance" wasnt the issue. Rights were. And painting everything in a broad stroke is convenient for those with limited thought capacity.Quote
You are refereing to a period in history when the Catholic Church either essentially WAS the secular government, oe exercised so much pull as to de facto be the government. And it wasn't just "non-Christians" - plenty of Lutherans, Gnostics, etc were victims of the Inquisition. The violence is more a reflection of Europe than the religion in charge at the time. Just as the occasional intramural Sunni-Shi'ite-Wahabi-Kurd bloodfest is more indiciative of Arab tribalism than Islam itself.
So now we can blame the evil Catholic Church as well. As far as victims, you still have no grasped the point that we are not dealing with an isolated incident or two but with a general state in society. I doubt you ever will.Quote
Seeing as how Israel has only existed this time around for 60 years, and that the list was not complete, that's a lot of "incidents" - ALL of which occured with the BLESSING of Israel's theocratic government. This, of course, leaves out any number of worshipers of Ba'al and various and sundry peoples that the old Testament records Israel as wiping out, including children and livestock - but those don't count because "God told them to", right?
I see we are slipping into incoherence here. Where do you get the idea that Israel's gov't is theocratic? My repeated criticisms of Israel generally revolve around the fact that it is NOT theocratic, whatever that means. You clearly don't have a clue and have never followed anything going on there beyond what is on ABC.Quote
I think any neutral observer would seee that it is general to the Jewish government of Israel. You may feel free to believe whatever fantasy lets you sleep at night - just don't expect any one else to buy into it.
I think you are engaging in fantasies here. You named 5 incidents or so (actually some of them weren't even incidents) and generalize that Israel's "theocratic" gov't is behind all of them. That is errant nonsense. I only hear some kinds of people spouting that. And I won't comment on who they are.Quote
Quote
Indeed, non-Jewish citizens in Israel have full rights with Jewish citizens.
Yes - when the King David hotel is blown up, Jew and Gentile alike get to die. Whee!Quote
Quote
So, I have to ask, why bring up some isolated incidents affecting maybe 1000 people in all when the discussion has been about widespread societal and political practices that lasted for thousands of years?
Israel attempted to FORCE the United States into WAR with Egypt ONCE for certain (Levan Affair), and possibly TWICE (USS LIberty). A war between Egypt and the US certainly would affect more than "maybe 1000" people. When the first reports of the Liberty attack came in, it was assumed that our "ally" Israel couldn't have done it, so it MUST have been Egypt. Cairo almost got nuked. That could have triggered a nuclear WWIII. Do you think that MIGHT affect more than a thousand people? The POINT, which you are ducking, is that the modern state of Israel, a Jewish theocracy, is showing a blood lust, intolerance, and disregard for other religions in its short history quite on a par with midieval Christianity or Islam.Quote
Quote
And I am still asking this question.
...and you have been answered. You just don't LIKE the answer. Sometimes the truth hurts.Post by: Stand_watie on May 26, 2006, 11:34:41 AM
That's news to me. I thought a major point of contention in Israeli politics was some of the religious Israelis being upset at having a secular government.
Post by: Strings on May 26, 2006, 12:24:18 PM
>A few historical incidences of "tolerence induced by near military parity do NOT outweigh the bloody history of Islam.<
Odd... last time I checked, we were at a significant military disadvantage before the start of the crusades...
> Further, those few incidences were for "people of the Book" - Christians and Jews. You conveniently leave out how OTHER religions were treated - IF they were allowed to live at all.<
And this is followed by:
>It was a few MONTHES ago that an Afghan man was threatened with DEATH for converting to Christianity. Christians are still being sold into slavery or kidnapped for ransom by Muslims today in Africa.<
Ummm... incoherant much? What did/do Muslims do to those not "of the book"?
>Islam is a bloodsoaked religion of conquest with its roots in pagan moon worship<
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over? By all means, give some evidence for this one!
>they are at war with anything NOT Islam<
Ok... gotta give you that one...
>always have been (unless forced not to by superior might), and always will be.<
Ummm... no. Nice try though...
Post by: Stand_watie on May 26, 2006, 01:01:13 PM
Quote
>It was a few MONTHES ago that an Afghan man was threatened with DEATH for converting to Christianity. Christians are still being sold into slavery or kidnapped for ransom by Muslims today in Africa.<
Ummm... incoherant much? What did/do Muslims do to those not "of the book"?
Why are you asking if he's incoherent? The examples he cited are perfectly factual. Or are you saying that Islam is incoherent because it's practiced differently by different groups of people?Ummm... incoherant much? What did/do Muslims do to those not "of the book"?
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1746943&page=1
KABUL, Afghanistan, March 22, 2006 Despite the overthrow of the fundamentalist Taliban government and the presence of 22,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, a man who converted to Christianity is being prosecuted in Kabul, and a judge said Sunday that if convicted, he faces the death penalty...
Post by: Strings on May 26, 2006, 01:12:35 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on May 26, 2006, 01:23:21 PM
Islam is about 1500 years old and has been practiced by groups as different as Afghans and Indonesians. Given the sheer size of the historical sample it would be no problem to pull out some incidents and generalize to all of Islam from them. We need to resist that temptation. There is not either one Islam, any more than there is one Christianity. Wahhabi Islam is very different from other branches in many respects and attributing to those branches the same values as Wahhabi has is historically wrong.
One example already mentioned. Islam traditionally is very tolerant to "people of the book", i.e. Christians and Jews. Wahhabi Islam redefined "People of the Book" to exclude christians and Jews from that category. They redefined that to exclude other branches of Islam as well. This is clearly a deviation from traditional teaching but because of many factors (OK, one factor, Saudi oil money) that doctrine became normative.
Extrapolating from the worst abuses to a general statement is obviously a wrong approach.
Post by: Iain on May 26, 2006, 01:56:42 PM
Whilst trying to avoid some revisionist history (of the dirty kind that seems to have defined the word for many)on the internet I have discovered that there is even a small group of Jewish pagans in existence, that call themselves Hebrews and attempt to learn and practice pre-exile pagan beliefs of the Hebrew people. I'm not sure if the tag they attach to themselves is some sort of self-parody, but it is 'jewitches'. I'll call that my thing learned today.
Post by: Strings on May 26, 2006, 07:52:05 PM
Post by: Stand_watie on May 26, 2006, 09:56:59 PM
Quote from: Hunter Rose
I made the comment because of how Rich phrased everything: he mentions "other reigions", then starts in about the man sentenced to death for converting to Christianity...
O.k. Gotcha now. I went back and reread. It is a little dissonant. I don't know if I'd say 'incoherant', but then I've been known to drop a couple of sentences and so lose a thought in the middle of a paragraph, so I won't say I'm not biased 
Post by: Stand_watie on May 26, 2006, 10:23:14 PM
Quote from: Hunter Rose
Iain, I have no problem with the statement "the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) grew out of previous pagan beliefs". The whole thing of "Islam has it's roots in pagan moon worship", however, stretches thinga a bit for me. Especially when the person saying such has shown a problem with pagans in the past, too!
Read this. I have no problem with viewing this is anti-islam propoganda or that you could substitute all the muslim references in the article for Jewish or Christian terminology and make the same conclusions about Judaism or Christianity (see the conotation of "El" and "Ba'al"), but it should help you understand how a person could go from 'a' to 'b'.http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-moon-god.htm
I, personally, would say "the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam)" all used distinct cultural influences of previous pagan beliefs to more effectively convert pagans. Eg, there is nothing whatsoever "Christian" about decorating evergreen trees on December 25, but that tradition is now very much a part of a mostly Christian holiday.
Post by: richyoung on May 30, 2006, 07:18:20 AM
Quote from: Hunter Rose
I REALLY wanted to stay out of this...
Odd... last time I checked, we were at a significant military disadvantage before the start of the crusades...
The state of "dhimi" wastypically a negotiated less-than-total surrender, somewhere between being ransomed, and being property. It was usually only offered when the military cost of conquering the "infidel" was high enough that such a negotiated settlement made sense - otherwise, it was convert or die.Odd... last time I checked, we were at a significant military disadvantage before the start of the crusades...
Quote
> Further, those few incidences were for "people of the Book" - Christians and Jews. You conveniently leave out how OTHER religions were treated - IF they were allowed to live at all.<
And this is followed by:
>It was a few MONTHES ago that an Afghan man was threatened with DEATH for converting to Christianity. Christians are still being sold into slavery or kidnapped for ransom by Muslims today in Africa.<
Ummm... incoherant much? What did/do Muslims do to those not "of the book"?
There is a difference under Islamic law as to how a conquered person who happens to have always been Jewish or Christain is treated, and how a Muslim who converts to one of those religions is treated - kind of like hte difference between an enemy POW and a traitor. Not saying it makes sense, just observing.And this is followed by:
>It was a few MONTHES ago that an Afghan man was threatened with DEATH for converting to Christianity. Christians are still being sold into slavery or kidnapped for ransom by Muslims today in Africa.<
Ummm... incoherant much? What did/do Muslims do to those not "of the book"?
Quote
>Islam is a bloodsoaked religion of conquest with its roots in pagan moon worship<
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over? By all means, give some evidence for this one!
"Was Allah The Moon God of Ancient Arab Pagan? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over? By all means, give some evidence for this one!
By Syed Kamran Mirza
Historical evidences, impartial logic, well versed references and all available circumstantial judgments can very well prove that(a) Allah name of deity was pre-existed much before the arrival of Islam, (b) Pre-Islamic Pagan peoples worshipped Allah as their supreme deity (moon-god). Allahs name existed in pre-Islamic Arab. In ancient Arab the Allah was considered to be the supreme God/deity (as Moon-God) and Arab Pagans worshipped Allah before Islam arrived.
Let us examine below some valid questions and answers :
Did the Pagan Arabs in pre-Islamic times worship 360 gods? Yes
Did the pagans Arabs worship the sun, moon and the stars? Yes
Did the Arabs built temples to the Moon-god? Yes
Did different Arab tribes give the Moon-god different names/titles? Yes
What were some of the names/titles? Sin, Hubul, Ilumquh, Al-ilah.
Was the title al-ilah (the god) used as the Moon-god? Yes
Was the word Allah derived from al-ilah? Yes
Was the pagan Allah a high god in a pantheon of deities? Yes.
Was he worshipped at the Kabah? Yes.
Was Allah only one of many Meccan gods? Yes
Did they place a statue of Hubul on top of the Kabah? Yes.
At that time was Hubul considered the Moon-god? Yes.
Was the Kabah thus the house of the Moon-god ? Yes.
Did the name Allah eventually replace that of Hubul as the name of the Moon god? Yes.
Did they call the Kabah the house of Allah ? Yes.
Were al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat called the daughters of Allah ? Yes.
Yusuf Ali explains in fn. 5096, pg. 1445, that Lat, Uzza and Manat were known as the daughters of God [Allah]
Did the Quran at one point tell Muslims to worship al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat? Yes. In Surah 53:19-20.
Have those verses been abrogated out of the present Quran? Yes.
What were they called? The Satanic Verses."
Quote
>they are at war with anything NOT Islam<
Ok... gotta give you that one...
>always have been (unless forced not to by superior might), and always will be.<
Ummm... no. Nice try though...
The Qu'oran spells it out as clearly as Mien Kampf outlined Hitler's plans....
Ok... gotta give you that one...
>always have been (unless forced not to by superior might), and always will be.<
Ummm... no. Nice try though...
Post by: richyoung on May 30, 2006, 07:50:23 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Quote from: richyoung
So much for "tolerence"...
"Tolerance" wasnt the issue. Rights were. And painting everything in a broad stroke is convenient for those with limited thought capacity.Quote
[So now we can blame the evil Catholic Church as well.
Until Protestantism became established, the Catholic Church, along with its Eastern and Greek off-shoots, WAS Christianity. Did they not teach you this in history class?Quote
As far as victims, you still have no grasped the point that we are not dealing with an isolated incident or two but with a general state in society. I doubt you ever will.
You fail to grasp that as an advocate for Israel, a nations that constantly, and rightly, waves the bloody shirt of the holocaust, and constantly denounces terrorism, that Israel must answer for : A. Paying tribute in a public museum to perpetrators of a war crime and murder; B. Electing to office people that themsleves commited terrorsit acts prior to Israeli statehood. C. Massacreing prisoners of war.You fail to grasp that while you sling stones at other religions, yours has no clean hands.
Quote
I see we are slipping into incoherence here. Where do you get the idea that Israel's gov't is theocratic?
This might lead one to think so.."
Basic Guidelines of the 31st Government of Israel
4 May 2006
(translated from Hebrew)....
2. The Government will strive to shape the permanent borders of the State of Israel as a Jewish state, with a Jewish majority, ..."
Quote
You named 5 incidents or so (actually some of them weren't even incidents) and generalize that Israel's "theocratic" gov't is behind all of them. That is errant nonsense. I only hear some kinds of people spouting that. And I won't comment on who they are.
The Levan affair occured with the blessing of the government - the Liberty was attacked on orders from the Israeli military. That poor waiter that was mistaken for one of the Munich terroists was executed on the orders of the Israeli government. In fact ALL of the events I listed either occured with the blessing of the Israeli government, or by people who would become leaders of the government.Quote
Was that an argument? The King David was blown up when?
July 22, 1946.Quote
Israel became a state when?
May 14, 1948. Since you like quizs, here's mine, with answers...How many were killed and injured? 92 dead, 45 injured.
Who orderd the attack? Moshe Sneh, the head of Haganah.
Who carried out the attack? Menachem Begin, as part of the Irgun.
Why does that name ring a bell? Became Prime Minister of Israel.
Quote
Merely throwing baseless paranoid charges around is not arguing. It is raving.
I can back up everything I've stated, mostly from U.S. intelligence officials. your Jedi mind trick no workee.Quote
No, it is clear what the answer is. And the continued presence of people espousing classic anti-semitic canards on this forum is one reason I will probably leave.
I'll play...pick ONE assertion of mine that you think is false and I'll happily list the evidence in favor of it. Otherwise, don't let the screen door hit ya where the good Lord/Allah/Yahweh/Ghia/Zeus/etc split ya...
Post by: Guest on May 30, 2006, 04:22:02 PM
Quote
name of deity was pre-existed much before the arrival of Islam
As I've mentioned before, my father's family called God Allah, and they were Christian. It's the Arabic word for God, not the name of God.
Post by: Guest on May 30, 2006, 04:39:05 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 30, 2006, 05:13:18 PM
Post by: natedog on May 30, 2006, 07:11:02 PM
As someone else said, men have been killing their neighbors for thousands of years, for a thousand reasons, no matter which god they bow to.
Post by: richyoung on May 31, 2006, 11:14:14 AM
Quote from: Hunter Rose
Especially when the person saying such has shown a problem with pagans in the past, too!
I can't help it if reporting the facts about paganism is somehow "a problem" for you. The facts are that modern paganism/wiccan ritual was at least partially written by Aleister Crowley - the degree to which he did is is still questioned. WHY he did so is not open to question: he publically avowed an intention to destroy Christianity - to that end, he supported Communism, claimed to be the second coming of Christ, and helped start modern Wicca - all to destroy or diminish Christianity. You, for whatever reason, choose to follow a religion that was founded to replace and destroy Christianity. As a Christian, I do, and always will, love YOU - but I don't have to love Wicca, and feel free to point out its roots - which are NOT in any pre-Christianity Druid or Wiccan rites.
Post by: Strings on May 31, 2006, 06:56:38 PM
I WILL agree though, that Crowley was an early influence, as was archealogy, and Christianity, and mythology. I'll also agree that Wicca has nothing to do with pre-Christian religions. However, there are a BUNCH of pagans out there who aren't Wiccan, and ARE attempting to re-create pre-Christian religions (they're called Celtic Reconstructionists)...
Now, if you want to debate further, either start a new thread or go to email. I HATE hijacking a thread!
Post by: richyoung on June 01, 2006, 06:36:21 AM
Quote from: Hunter Rose
Rich: Thelemic scholars (that's folks who follow Crowley's teachings) seriously dispute the "fact" that AC helped create Wicca (beyond the level that the Christian Bible "helped create" Tolkien's stories). And we've gone over this several times...
Not true...see new thread if you want to continue.