ADVERTISEMENT

***Political Thread*** (Massive merge)

Status
Not open for further replies.
If we're talking about Sandusky, why would you say he's not the first pedophile?


Bill Cosby: Sandusky is a pedophile

Jamo: Well you know, Sandusky isn't the first pedophile

Bill Cosby: What does that have to do with Sandusky being a pedophile?

Jamo: ??????????
 
Originally posted by wkycatfan:
Originally posted by jamo0001:


I haven't read Obama's comments at the National Prayer Breakfast, but the faux outrage over them is absurd. A president's comments on religion should mean precisely nothing. That's like the Pope giving comments on US fiscal policy.
Jam, I'm not sure this is true. If ISIS is motivated by their religion to expand through military force and borderline genocide, I would think what the POTUS says on the subject has a lot of relevance. Especially when you consider that radical Islam could be further galvanized by thinking their cause is perceived at least partially just by the leader of the US, and that they may not have that much to fear in terms of retaliation (except of course, now Jordan). I think history shows that when radical Islam experiences setbacks, it's about they only thing discourages them.
This post was edited on 2/9 2:08 PM by wkycatfan
We have to parse out the foreign policy elements from the theological ones if you want to make that type of argument. Yes, Obama matters if he's commenting on genocide, military engagements, etc. He doesn't matter when discussing scriptural analysis, revision of dogma, etc.

Wouldn't it make sense that he'd be addressing those theological aspects when he's speaking at a gathering of spiritual leaders like the National Prayer Breakfast? As a Christian, his opinion on Christians' historical shortcomings matters as much as yours does, no more; it would make sense that he would pose those types of questions to a gathering of spiritual and ethical minds, no? Why would he be discussing military tactics and DoD policy?
 
Originally posted by Bill Cosby:

Bill Cosby: Sandusky is a pedophile
pretend that you were parodying the real Bill Cosby. THAT would be a great example of the point I'm making.
 
Originally posted by jamo0001:

We have to parse out the foreign policy elements from the theological ones if you want to make that type of argument. Yes, Obama matters if he's commenting on genocide, military engagements, etc. He doesn't matter when discussing scriptural analysis, revision of dogma, etc.

Wouldn't it make sense that he'd be addressing those theological aspects when he's speaking at a gathering of spiritual leaders like the National Prayer Breakfast? As a Christian, his opinion on Christians' historical shortcomings matters as much as yours does, no more; it would make sense that he would pose those types of questions to a gathering of spiritual and ethical minds, no? Why would he be discussing military tactics and DoD policy?
I dunno. He said what he said in public. I think that's all the matters. Not many people are going to do much parsing IMO.
 
Originally posted by wkycatfan:
Originally posted by jamo0001:

We have to parse out the foreign policy elements from the theological ones if you want to make that type of argument. Yes, Obama matters if he's commenting on genocide, military engagements, etc. He doesn't matter when discussing scriptural analysis, revision of dogma, etc.

Wouldn't it make sense that he'd be addressing those theological aspects when he's speaking at a gathering of spiritual leaders like the National Prayer Breakfast? As a Christian, his opinion on Christians' historical shortcomings matters as much as yours does, no more; it would make sense that he would pose those types of questions to a gathering of spiritual and ethical minds, no? Why would he be discussing military tactics and DoD policy?
I dunno. He said what he said in public. I think that's all the matters. Not many people are going to do much parsing IMO.
not to totally derail this convo into a theological one, but i just read the address (the whole "violent religion" part is a small section). i'd like to discuss the theological aspects with you if you have the time to read it sometime today. some very heavy Protestantism buried in it, IMO.
 
I'll acknowledge there is some truth to what he said in Christian history.

I don't Jesus taught anybody to do the things done in the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, or in making Jim Crow laws.

I would say the Crusades generally were a response to Islam aggression in the middle ages. Hard to justify, but in a way, humanly speaking you can. It's sort of like our response to 9-11 for me. The emotion, was not unlike what Peter did when he cut off the Roman soldier's ear when they were taking Jesus captive. Jesus rebuked him, and fixed the guy's ear. People have been 'dying by the sword' ever since.

The Spanish Inquisition was a total mess.

As for Jim Crow, I've never understood the KKK and burning crosses. Can't justify it. However, it was primarily Christians who drove the abolition of slavery movement. I didn't hear anything about that from the POTUS.

I just mainly don't understand why he chose to bring these things up, at a prayer breakfast, considering his audience, in the mist of everything going on with radical Islam. I don't think appeasing them will help, and will probably hurt.
 
Jam, you are right, there is a lot more there, than just what the media told us about. For this, I am at fault, and we shouldn't always trust only what the media gives us.

I agree with much of what the POTUS said later in the address.
 
Originally posted by jamo0001:


Originally posted by Bill Cosby:

Bill Cosby: Sandusky is a pedophile
pretend that you were parodying the real Bill Cosby. THAT would be a great example of the point I'm making.
You're going to have to articulate your point a little better.

Remember, the "christian terrorists" the left loves to bring up aren't actually involved in the conversation in any way.
 
Its not about "christian terrorists" or body counts. Its about mankind's tendency to use good ideals for bad purposes, whether those ideals are religious or not. Christian theology is not immune from such misuse.




EDIT: For clarification, I personally do NOT consider Islam "good" in any way, shape, or form. But for the religiously a inclined, their particular faiths tend to be "good" in their view
This post was edited on 2/9 4:21 PM by jamo0001
 
What is the point of bringing up "mankind's tendencies" in a discussion about specific assholes?


It's making excuses for their behavior.
 
Originally posted by Bill Cosby:

What is the point of bringing up "mankind's tendencies" in a discussion about specific assholes?


It's making excuses for their behavior.
If you would read the address, you'd understand exactly why. It wasn't a speech about Mideast turmoil. It was a speech about interfaith cooperation and religious freedom in the US.
 
Islam has to fix itself. Just like Christianity did.

Until Muslims accept that 'moderate Islam" doesn't exist, Islam ain't getting fixed.
 
Originally posted by Willy4UK:
Islam has to fix itself. Just like Christianity did.
Agreed, but the problem is that the Reformation involved cutting away all of the superfluous dogma the Church had added over the centuries and returning to the fairly benign, mystic teachings of Jesus and Paul. Furthermore, Jesus mostly spoke in parables and riddles; the Quaran and Hadith are collections of unambiguous declarative statements of "fact".

If Islam were to return back to the original teachings of Mohammed and the Hadith, it would actually become *more* violent; in reality, Salafism/Wahhabism has already done that and is the theological force behind what's happened over the last century.
 
Originally posted by jamo0001:

If you would read the address, you'd understand exactly why. It wasn't a speech about Mideast turmoil. It was a speech about interfaith cooperation and religious freedom in the US.
As I said, I don't really care what Obama said. Every thread on hear about terrorism always results in a group of posters bringing up the crusades. It's stupid. And that's the mentality of the left.
 
I mean, if you wanna care about what BlueKel thinks about abortion clinic bombings, that's up to you.
 
Originally posted by jamo0001:



Originally posted by Willy4UK:
Islam has to fix itself. Just like Christianity did.
Agreed, but the problem is that the Reformation involved cutting away all of the superfluous dogma the Church had added over the centuries and returning to the fairly benign, mystic teachings of Jesus and Paul. Furthermore, Jesus mostly spoke in parables and riddles; the Quaran and Hadith are collections of unambiguous declarative statements of "fact".

If Islam were to return back to the original teachings of Mohammed and the Hadith, it would actually become *more* violent; in reality, Salafism/Wahhabism has already done that and is the theological force behind what's happened over the last century.
From the sound of it, it seems Islam needs 600 more years of evolving, hence my earlier post.

Just out curiosity, when did Christianity become this mature and wise religion of peace? My guess. 1980.

This post was edited on 2/9 6:01 PM by Willy4UK
 
Originally posted by jamo0001:
Its not about "christian terrorists" or body counts. Its about mankind's tendency to use good ideals for bad purposes, whether those ideals are religious or not. Christian theology is not immune from such misuse.




EDIT: For clarification, I personally do NOT consider Islam "good" in any way, shape, or form. But for the religiously a inclined, their particular faiths tend to be "good" in their view
This post was edited on 2/9 4:21 PM by jamo0001
But, it is pointless to bring up something that has long since past to relate to or almost make excuses for, what is happening now. The message now should be, we have seen this before and will not let it happen again or will not tolerate it.
 
Originally posted by jamo0001:

Originally posted by Willy4UK:
Islam has to fix itself. Just like Christianity did.
Agreed, but the problem is that the Reformation involved cutting away all of the superfluous dogma the Church had added over the centuries and returning to the fairly benign, mystic teachings of Jesus and Paul. Furthermore, Jesus mostly spoke in parables and riddles; the Quaran and Hadith are collections of unambiguous declarative statements of "fact".

If Islam were to return back to the original teachings of Mohammed and the Hadith, it would actually become *more* violent; in reality, Salafism/Wahhabism has already done that and is the theological force behind what's happened over the last century.
Fundamental Islam wants to take everybody back to the 7th century and wants to kill everybody who doesn't want to go with them.
 
Back to the political, I fear something will happen on a larger scale regarding Islamic terror that will force the US to become more involved whether we want to or not.

At that point, the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and Jim Crow laws won't matter a whole lot.
 
He doesn't want to use word Islamic terrorism because he himself is Muslin and he doesn't want to offend any Muslims.

He is sorry POTUS. He lies about everything and doesn't care about the United States. Just listen to him and you will see for yourself (of course, if you are the libs that post on this board who agree with him). They worship and admire his every word. Sad Sad
 
Originally posted by warrior-cat:


Originally posted by jamo0001:
Its not about "christian terrorists" or body counts. Its about mankind's tendency to use good ideals for bad purposes, whether those ideals are religious or not. Christian theology is not immune from such misuse.




EDIT: For clarification, I personally do NOT consider Islam "good" in any way, shape, or form. But for the religiously a inclined, their particular faiths tend to be "good" in their view

This post was edited on 2/9 4:21 PM by jamo0001
But, it is pointless to bring up something that has long since past to relate to or almost make excuses for, what is happening now. The message now should be, we have seen this before and will not let it happen again or will not tolerate it.
Exactly. Instead we get denials of their religion or that theyre even terrorists; until very recently. Then we're told basically "its not so bad. Christians killed people 1000 years ago"; as if that's any excuse for whats going on in 2015.

We learn today ISIS killed another US hostage. Guess that calls for another round of golf. Or maybe another history lesson; maybe this time he'll even cite something younger than 1000 years old; just to show he really means business.
 
Originally posted by CATS1945:
He doesn't want to use word Islamic terrorism because he himself is Muslin and he doesn't want to offend any Muslims.
laugh.r191677.gif


First time I've ventured over here in a while. I don't know how I could have ever thought this thread was a complete waste of time.

Muslin fabric is the bomb.
 
Originally posted by warrior-cat:

Originally posted by jamo0001:
Its not about "christian terrorists" or body counts. Its about mankind's tendency to use good ideals for bad purposes, whether those ideals are religious or not. Christian theology is not immune from such misuse.




EDIT: For clarification, I personally do NOT consider Islam "good" in any way, shape, or form. But for the religiously a inclined, their particular faiths tend to be "good" in their view
This post was edited on 2/9 4:21 PM by jamo0001
But, it is pointless to bring up something that has long since past to relate to or almost make excuses for, what is happening now. The message now should be, we have seen this before and will not let it happen again or will not tolerate it.
again: read the speech. it's not about ISIS or the Mideast or even FoPo in general
 
Originally posted by jamo0001:

Originally posted by warrior-cat:

Originally posted by jamo0001:
Its not about "christian terrorists" or body counts. Its about mankind's tendency to use good ideals for bad purposes, whether those ideals are religious or not. Christian theology is not immune from such misuse.




EDIT: For clarification, I personally do NOT consider Islam "good" in any way, shape, or form. But for the religiously a inclined, their particular faiths tend to be "good" in their view
This post was edited on 2/9 4:21 PM by jamo0001
But, it is pointless to bring up something that has long since past to relate to or almost make excuses for, what is happening now. The message now should be, we have seen this before and will not let it happen again or will not tolerate it.
again: read the speech. it's not about ISIS or the Mideast or even FoPo in general
Why would I read the speech of a Muslim that hates America? It's all lies, anyways, even though liberals will sacrifice a lamb to the great dictator Barak HUSSEIN 0bama and worship him as a god. Also, something about the media involving the word fawning!
 
Originally posted by wkycatfan:
Back to the political, I fear something will happen on a larger scale regarding Islamic terror that will force the US to become more involved whether we want to or not.

At that point, the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and Jim Crow laws won't matter a whole lot.
I am not sure what could happen for Obama to take a more active role in fighting Islamic radicals. I am pretty sure they could bomb his house and he would chalk it up to the house being old and needing to be remodeled anyway.
 
Speaking of what to call the "extremist" "Terrorist". Obama and his croonies will not call them terrorist or at least struggle to do so. But, do any of you remember this....


"the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."

Janet Napolitano and Homeland security said this in one of their briefings and I do believe Pelosi and Reid echoed that sentiment. Now, veterans who served their country and put their lives on the line for "Her" are now considered possible terrorist and extremist. While they hesitate to call muslim terrorist, terrorist, they have no problem calling American Vets possible terrorist. Now, defend him all you will libs but, your savior and his followers continue to show their lack of respect and concern for those who serve their country but, will try to defend or appease those who want to kill us.


What will it take before some of you wake up and see what is happening to this country.
 
Originally posted by warrior-cat:
Speaking of what to call the "extremist" "Terrorist". Obama and his croonies will not call them terrorist or at least struggle to do so. But, do any of you remember this....


"the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."

Janet Napolitano and Homeland security said this in one of their briefings and I do believe Pelosi and Reid echoed that sentiment. Now, veterans who served their country and put their lives on the line for "Her" are now considered possible terrorist and extremist. While they hesitate to call muslim terrorist, terrorist, they have no problem calling American Vets possible terrorist. Now, defend him all you will libs but, your savior and his followers continue to show their lack of respect and concern for those who serve their country but, will try to defend or appease those who want to kill us.


What will it take before some of you wake up and see what is happening to this country.
I think there is a stark difference between 1) not calling terrorists terrorists (which is appears you are accusing the president of, see bold, and I apologize if I'm mischaracterizing what you're saying), and 2) not calling terrorists Muslim (or Islamic) terrorists. The former is simply not true. The administration has called many people/groups terrorists, including ISIL and al-Qaeda. "ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple." The latter is a interpretation of a religion and has reasonable arguments on both sides, not to mention policy implications. And I'm not sure how not calling ISIL and the ilk Muslim terrorists is somehow appeasing. Wouldn't such groups want to be recognized for their "faith"? Doesn't removing the "legitimacy" of the cause denude them for what they are? Does ISIL prefer to be known as terrorists (as opposed to Muslim terrorists)?

The veteran thing was terrible. No excuses.
 
Originally posted by jamo0001:


Originally posted by warrior-cat:


Originally posted by jamo0001:
Its not about "christian terrorists" or body counts. Its about mankind's tendency to use good ideals for bad purposes, whether those ideals are religious or not. Christian theology is not immune from such misuse.




EDIT: For clarification, I personally do NOT consider Islam "good" in any way, shape, or form. But for the religiously a inclined, their particular faiths tend to be "good" in their view

This post was edited on 2/9 4:21 PM by jamo0001
But, it is pointless to bring up something that has long since past to relate to or almost make excuses for, what is happening now. The message now should be, we have seen this before and will not let it happen again or will not tolerate it.
again: read the speech. it's not about ISIS or the Mideast or even FoPo in general
The speech did not have to be about that to get a jab in. It is done all of the time.
 
Obama spent the majority of that address glorifying various christian missionaries, imprisoned christian pastors, and christian social reformers, but you let the media cow you into calling it a "jab"?
 
Blue79, Jamo-Obama continues to avoid due characterizations of the terrorist who are currently committing terrible acts of violence and yes he and his supporters are avoiding labeling these terrorist for what they really are. His comments at the prayer breakfast were uncalled for even if the majority of his speech praised them. 1400 atta boys are great, but one ah s... wipes the slate clean. There comes a time where avoiding upsetting people with a tough stance is neccessary. That time is now. Step up to the plate and lead.
 
Apparently Obama now wants to declare war against a generically labeled "Islamic state"?

Does that mean we're declaring war against everyone there? Or noone? This is dangerously vague.
 
Originally posted by warrior-cat:
Blue79, Jamo-Obama continues to avoid due characterizations of the terrorist who are currently committing terrible acts of violence and yes he and his supporters are avoiding labeling these terrorist for what they really are. His comments at the prayer breakfast were uncalled for even if the majority of his speech praised them. 1400 atta boys are great, but one ah s... wipes the slate clean. There comes a time where avoiding upsetting people with a tough stance is neccessary. That time is now. Step up to the plate and lead.
So calling them terrorists is not sufficient; he must call them Islamic terrorists (or some variant referring to Islam)? Is that the thrust of the argument?

If so, answer this. Why does that matter? Doesn't that play right into the hands of groups like ISIL? Wouldn't stripping them of their "legitimacy" (I use quotes because we all know it's not actual legitimacy, but it's how they perceive themselves) be the better path? Don't they want to be seen as religious zealots fighting for their cause rather than the butcherers that they are? Isn't that playing right into the narrative that ISIL and al-Qaeda are trying to make, the whole clash of civilizations/Christian versus Islam story? Hint: it is.

Since it's at least a credible argument that these groups should not be labeled as Islamic terrorist groups, and since there are possible policy implications of doing so, is this really the big deal people are making it out to be? Or do people think that Islam is fundamentally terrorist and there is an inevitable clash between Western civilization and the entirety of 23% of the world's population?

Yeah, Obama didn't have to bring up the Crusades, etc... but it's really not that big of a deal. People's panties get twisted over stupid crap. Plenty to criticize the president for without reaching, imho.
 
Originally posted by Big_Blue79:

Why does that matter?

Yeah, Obama didn't have to bring up the Crusades, etc... but it's really not that big of a deal. People's panties get twisted over stupid crap. Plenty to criticize the president for without reaching, imho.
There is a good argument that by doing so it would challenge the self-described peaceful and moderate Muslims to work harder to eradicate that element from their religion. The PEW polling often does not show they are as moderate in many areas of the left wants to describe them. We have had numerous terror events planned out of mosques in Europe for goodness sakes.

Overall from the "workplace violence" label for Ft. Hood to saying the Taliban are not terrorists per se, even many liberals in the media find the PR elements of this admin very strange.

Sidenote, saw where the Dutch are trying to limit Muslims to no more than 5% of their population.
 
Blue79- We are at war with the Muslim world until the so called moderates or "peace loving" muslims take a stand and stop the madness. I don't know if you recall all of the dancing in the streets of Somolia, or Iran or most other Muslim countries when we are bombed/attacked. They may say that they want peace but many of them take to the streets in celebration when something bad happens to us. Also, the Quran allows for "Taqiyya". Simply stated: Lying is acceptable as long as it is to acheive the goal that they want. So, perhaps those that are telling every one that they do not want this (all of the killings going on) are just telling you what you want to hear. Until they actually get involved in stopping it, I will continue to be skeptical. Also, the only time they seem to want to stop it is when the terrorist come into their backyard.
 
Originally posted by warrior-cat:
Also, the Quran allows for "Taqiyya". Simply stated: Lying is acceptable as long as it is to acheive the goal that they want.
yea I think there are a lot of people in this country that do that also, some not too far from here.

BTW admittedly I never heard that term before so I looked up the real definition and its just a bit different that you represented:

In Shi'a Islam, taqiyya (تقیة
taqiyyah/taqīyah) is a form of religious dissimulation, or a legal
dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit
otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts while they are in fear or at risk
of significant persecution.
 
Originally posted by Deeeefense:

Originally posted by warrior-cat:
Also, the Quran allows for "Taqiyya". Simply stated: Lying is acceptable as long as it is to acheive the goal that they want.
yea I think there are a lot of people in this country that do that also, some not too far from here.

BTW admittedly I never heard that term before so I looked up the real definition and its just a bit different that you represented:

In Shi'a Islam, taqiyya (تقیة
taqiyyah/taqīyah) is a form of religious dissimulation, or a legal
dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit
otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts while they are in fear or at risk
of significant persecution.
That is one definition but, there are others that explain what it is used for also. It is and has been used against non believers to cover their intentions.
 
Originally posted by Deeeefense:

Originally posted by warrior-cat:
Also, the Quran allows for "Taqiyya". Simply stated: Lying is acceptable as long as it is to acheive the goal that they want.
yea I think there are a lot of people in this country that do that also, some not too far from here.

BTW admittedly I never heard that term before so I looked up the real definition and its just a bit different that you represented:

In Shi'a Islam, taqiyya (تقیة
taqiyyah/taqīyah) is a form of religious dissimulation, or a legal
dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit
otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts while they are in fear or at risk
of significant persecution.
That "real" definition you have comes from Wikepedia which we all know how that is edited. Below is some of the reason to use "Taqiyya".

The Qur'an:

Qur'an (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie.

Qur'an (3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves."

Qur'an (9:3) - "...Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters..." The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.

Qur'an (40:28) - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must "hide his faith" among those who are not believers.

Qur'an (2:225) - "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts" The context of this remark is marriage, which explains why Sharia allows spouses to lie to each other for the greater good.

Qur'an (66:2) - "Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths"

10:21)

Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be "compelled" to deceive others for a greater purpose.
 
^ but that doesn't really address my point. There are reasonable arguments on both sides of the issue of whether to label terrorist groups as Islamic terrorist groups. So why get all riled up about the president siding with a credible argument? People are stating things that make it seem as if the president is ignoring atrocities or apologizing for things like burning people alive. That is not the case.

I am extremely skeptical that calling terrorists Islamic extremists (or Islamic terrorists or whatever) will push moderate Muslims to "take a stand and stop the madness." I think it would have the opposite (if any) effect. Most violence committed by these terrorist groups is against other Muslims. So how is the president saying "Islamic terrorists" the tipping point? Hey, I know you raped and tortured and killed, but NOW I AM READY TO FIGHT BECAUSE PRESIDENT OBAMA CALLED THEM ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS! The argument is not at all compelling. And again, it plays right into the what ISIL and al-Qaeda want. They want it to be the West against Islam.

And no f'ing way you guys believe there are no moderate Muslims fighting against terrorist organizations, right? You have to know that's just a ridiculous assertion. I simply cannot believe that living, breathing people actually believe that there is a dearth of moderate Muslims taking action, speaking out, etc... when we live in an age of Google and access to news from around the world. But that's just me talking after doing < 5 minutes of simple searching.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT