Jason Alexander apologizes really well!

[Top Gun]

So your dad's side of the family embraces a label that implies they're uneducated hicks? That's...kind of sad, actually.

[Capm]

I think, when discussing it, people get wrapped up in the words themselves, rather than the underlying meaning. "gay" "redneck" "chink" etc.

It all boils down to a demographical slur. Put it in generic terms to discuss it, and you can deconstruct the underlying problem logically and objectively.

The basic issue is Demographic A made a joke about "activity" being akin to qualities inherent to demographic B. Some people in demographic B, were offended.

Point 1) Was the joke intended to be derogatory towards demographic B? Or towards the Activity?

Point 2) Was it spoken in a "negative" tone, meant to be harmful, or was it said lightly? (ie, how serious was the tone)

Point 3) Were, on the whole, the implied observations of qualities inherent to demographic B accurate?


This could go on...

My underlying point here is that anyone can make a joke about anyone and anyone can get offended by it. If it wasn't meant to be mean, then some people need to lighten up, after all, if you can't laugh at yourself, you have no business laughing at anyone else.

[flip]

Speaking as a christian redneck I learned a long time ago that arguing over morality is senseless. The bible says to judge not lest you be judged, so if you have the confidence go ahead, but I say, your conscience bears witness and if it does not, go out and enjoy every pleasure this world has to offer you. I'm of the opinion that only the Holy Spirit can condemn someone of their sins, so what is left for me as a christian to do?

[CUDA]

Uh-huh.

ya that's what I thought.
it's easy to criticize a person and see fault in them and to call them names such as Redneck and Bigot, but it's not so fun to have to look in the mirror and see those same traits in yourself is it?

[Top Gun]

If I saw said traits, I might agree with you. But the tactic of decrying those who point out bigotry as bigoted themselves is as old as bigotry itself, and it's rather laughable to expect it to work now.

[Heretic]

"The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract."

[CUDA]

You're not alone because there are millions of drooling rednecks like you out there, making life hell for people who just want to be able to live regular lives. "Indefensible" my ass...you're the bigot here. Your viewpoint is wrong. You lose. Accept it and get over it.

AH but you didn't point out Bigotry, you name called, you started out by calling him a drooling Redneck. that sir is Bigotry in it's purest form.

Your viewpoint is wrong.

in your opinion, and your inability to listen to his viewpoint is where your bigotry comes in. isn't the left supposed to be all about tolerance??

tol·er·ance
   [tol-er-uhns] Show IPA
noun
1.
a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry

it's seems that you might be missing that trait

“If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.”

Elbert Hubbard quotes (American editor, publisher and writer, 1856-1915)

[Sergeant Thorne]

@Thorne, I'm a little bit curious why you say homosexuality is indefensible/immoral, beyond any reasons that have to do with religion or biology/dimorphism. Personally I don't see anything morally wrong with it so I'd kind of like to understand the reasons someone would see it as wrong.

When I said "indefensible" I was referring to Top Gun telling me to "Grow up".

"Immoral" is kind of a tricky subject to tackle, for a couple of reasons. Primarily if you believe that morality is derived apart from the intentions or laws of a creator, then we're in two very different worlds. Secondarily I would have to call a person's conscience to bear on the subject, and it's not uncommon for people to be largely deaf to their conscience--that small nagging thought or voice (if you will) when everything they "know" or have been taught consciously says there's nothing there. Suffice to say, just as you know that theft, or fornication, or adultery is wrong, if you pay your conscience any heed, you would know that there is something wrong with being intimate with someone of the same sex. This isn't something that's possible to demonstrate, but it's true nonetheless so I submit it. That's one of the problems with children being taught that homosexuality is ok, or sex outside of marriage is not a moral wrong, or anything else that is not an accurate representation of reality--when a person is taught things against their conscience, it causes confusion and ultimately leads to their not being able to listen to their conscience in rationalizing their actions to the best of their educated ability. I have some experience with ultimately having to reject things that I reason out, because it just doesn't sit well with my conscience, so I speak from some experience there. The fact is that our best reasoning is based on an imperfect ability to calculate using an imperfect/incomplete set of data, and for whatever reason sometimes our conscience knows things our head cannot entirely grasp or arrive at.

Just to throw this out, for what it's worth, Top Gun likes to reference new understanding in the area of sexuality, and particularly homosexuality, but the whole subject is and has been emotionally charged, and there is pressure to arrive at a conclusion that allows for the acceptance of homosexuals and their activities as socially acceptable (you don't want to be some kind of bigot, do you?). That whole situation is no good, IMO. That's not a recipe for arriving at the truth. So now something that has always been odd, unnatural, and shameful is more and more acceptable. Should I be blind in order to get along? Should I not pay attention to these outside influences which conveniently coincide with this new understanding? Homosexuality is "ok" because they WANT it to be ok. That's the truth of it. They will have what they want, and they will ignore and vilify the detractors. Take me--I'm not immature, and I'm not anywhere close to a redneck, and that's the label assigned to me by Top Gun because I have a contrary opinion and don't accept the conclusions of his studies.

Ultimately if we're not getting anywhere here it's because Top Gun is so sure he's right, and I'm an idiot, and Ferno is so sure he's right and I'm an idiot that they will operate not from a position of fairly considering and debating the thoughts put forth, using the perfectly fair assumption that if it is put forth it has not been satisfactorily dealt with in any past debates, but instead will consider the subject finalized and content themselves with sniping and belittling the opposition. I wouldn't rule out my own shortcomings in an inability to reach a true consensus (a true consensus being an ideal, rather than an actual goal), but I also don't believe I am guilty of actively thwarting the debate.

I also suspect that you can get nowhere with anyone who cannot concede that the fact that men and women were clearly DESIGNED to be intimate with the opposite sex is a huge problem for the homosexual acceptance movement. That alone clearly puts it in the place of unnatural and unhealthy, aside from any moral considerations--clearly a point in Capm's favor. Myself, I believe that there is a spiritual factor to homosexuality, so while I don't doubt that there are medical factors, I wouldn't look to the medical community for a complete solution.

[roid]

your changing the subject, we are talking Bigotry

to take that further, we are talking about Jason Alexander's cool apology - that's what this thread is THEORETICALLY about.
But no-one is talking about it.
Everyone ITT thinks the subject is either the initial slur (ie: they must have skimmed Jason's apology*), OR they think the subject is why homosexuality is wrong.

For some reason no-one is talking about the content of Jason's apology.


*

It is not a question of oversensitivity. ...
I asked a few of my gay friends about it. And at first, even they couldn’t quite find the offense in the bit. But as we explored it, we began to realize what was implied under the humor.
...all kinds of abuse from verbal to physical to societal. They are being demeaned and threatened because they don’t fit the group’s idea...

wiki/Category:Persecution_of_gay_and_lesbian_people
wiki/Violence_against_LGBT_people

Jason seems to get it, that's what i thought was great.

[snoopy]

I agree with TG's viewpoint if not with how he expresses it.
@Thorne, I'm a little bit curious why you say homosexuality is indefensible/immoral, beyond any reasons that have to do with religion or biology/dimorphism. Personally I don't see anything morally wrong with it so I'd kind of like to understand the reasons someone would see it as wrong.

Cannibals don't see anything morally wrong with eating people, does that mean that it's okay?

Point being... in general, people's view of morality is a subjective thing. A definitive, un-changing, authoritative standard is needed to define right and wrong. That's one of the roles that God fills. If you don't acknowledge such a standard, then arguments about morality boil down to arguments about subjective opinions.

TLDR: There's no point, Alter, because without God defining morality, it's just your opinion against his.

[Foil]

Just now reading this thread. Apparently a reminder is in order: Keep it civil folks.

Debate and disagree as vehemently as you would like... but leave the personal shots out (TG, you've been warned before). By the way, I appreciate the cool heads keeping the thread from devolving to flames.

----------

Back on topic:

For some reason no-one is talking about the content of Jason's apology.

In a sense, they are. But I see what you're saying - his apology was more about relating his personal experience of "putting oneself in another's shoes".

Therein lies one of the difficulties, I think - homosexuality seems extremely foreign to many hetero folk. I can personally work through the moral issues in principle, but still feel that personal interactions aren't as easy, even with family. Plus, I think the "after-school-special" nature of some tolerance programs are actually working against them; people don't always react well to celebrities or contrived stories telling them what to morally feel.

[Tunnelcat]

big·ot
   [big-uht] Show IPA
noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion

Bigot

so lets get back to that Pot meet kettle thing again

He's just passionate when he's calling the kettle black

Passion is one thing Bigoted passion is something else

Christian Bigot - Conversion or invisibility, the only choices for any gender variant person to be considered as a normal human being. Or perhaps the Uganda or Fred Phelps way, death to all homosexuals for sins against God.

Sounds a little intolerant to me. Oh wait, Christian's wanting to follow their beliefs are not being bigots.

[Jeff250]

Point being... in general, people's view of morality is a subjective thing. A definitive, un-changing, authoritative standard is needed to define right and wrong. That's one of the roles that God fills. If you don't acknowledge such a standard, then arguments about morality boil down to arguments about subjective opinions.

They do anyways. It's just your subjective opinion that God should be the standard versus mine that any directive I've received from fortune cookies forms the authoritative standard.

[CUDA]

big·ot
   [big-uht] Show IPA
noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion

Bigot

so lets get back to that Pot meet kettle thing again

He's just passionate when he's calling the kettle black

Passion is one thing Bigoted passion is something else

Christian Bigot - Conversion or invisibility, the only choices for any gender variant person to be considered as a normal human being. Or perhaps the Uganda or Fred Phelps way, death to all homosexuals for sins against God.

Sounds a little intolerant to me. Oh wait, Christian's wanting to follow their beliefs are not being bigots.

way to totally post a bunch of drivel TC. this has NOTHING to do with Fred Phelps, but in your usual approach you try to deflect from the issue at hand. your Christian hatred is showing again
this is about TG and ST ONLY.

Fred Phelps is a Bigot and a racist... and so are some other Christians, but we don't have the market on the issue do we. too bad you don't have the courage to call out those on the left that use the same tactics like out call out those on the right

Have the courage to say no. Have the courage to face the truth. Do the right thing because it is right. These are the magic keys to living your life with integrity.

W. Clement Stone

[Capm]

Hey, we have to deal with that guy here, and I don't think even the Devil wants to be associated with that psychopath. They're freaking just... crazy.



The rest of this thread has just turned into a pissing match that no good can come of...

[flip]

Hey, I think I resemble that remark

[Tunnelcat]

Fred Phelps is a Bigot and a racist... and so are some other Christians, but we don't have the market on the issue do we. too bad you don't have the courage to call out those on the left that use the same tactics like out call out those on the right

Have the courage to say no. Have the courage to face the truth. Do the right thing because it is right. These are the magic keys to living your life with integrity.

W. Clement Stone

Glad you agreed about Phelps. I guess I shouldn't label ALL Christians bigots, there are quite a few nice ones that do many good things, and you sound like one of them. But there ARE enough out there now to swing elections to their way of thinking about how their form of morality should be enforced against a minority in this country and how accumulating massive wealth for wealth's sake is now a Godly thing. Despite the fact that more and more people are falling into poverty and fewer and fewer are getting a good education under all this wealth. I think that is just twisted.

And for the record, I think there are quite a few lefties, especially most of the bunch that are in Congress now, that are outright hypocritical, pandering jerks.

[Foil]

Point being... in general, people's view of morality is a subjective thing. A definitive, un-changing, authoritative standard is needed to define right and wrong. That's one of the roles that God fills. If you don't acknowledge such a standard, then arguments about morality boil down to arguments about subjective opinions.

They do anyways. It's just your subjective opinion that God should be the standard versus mine that any directive I've received from fortune cookies forms the authoritative standard.

Unless I misunderstood, I think what Snoopy is saying is that unless one acknowledges some definitive authoritative standard (e.g. God), moral arguments are subjective. I think that holds, by definition.

Of course, the specific authoritative standards vary.

[Tunnelcat]

So who's authoritative standard is the right one in all cases and to all people? All that man does is driven by 2 things, dominance and submission. Someone will always chaff under the dominance of another and no one authority will always satisfy all.

[snoopy]

Point being... in general, people's view of morality is a subjective thing. A definitive, un-changing, authoritative standard is needed to define right and wrong. That's one of the roles that God fills. If you don't acknowledge such a standard, then arguments about morality boil down to arguments about subjective opinions.

They do anyways. It's just your subjective opinion that God should be the standard versus mine that any directive I've received from fortune cookies forms the authoritative standard.

I'll give you that. I'll also say that different standards can be passed through a logical test, and that ones that aren't at least self-consistent can be deemed inferior to the ones that hold up to their own standards.

Foil: I think we're all understanding each other.

[roid]

counter-intuitively, self-consistency can have it's own problems as it is the cornerstone of fundamentalism.

there's a famous saying (or at least, i hear it a lot but can't track it's original source) that to be a well-adjusted modern human is to have the ability to hold multiple contradictory viewpoints at the same time without losing your mind.

afaik much of philosophy can be described as an attempt to fix those contradictions, a task apparently as easy as defeating a hydra via decapitation.

(And then there's always those who put their fingers in their ears "lalala there are no contradictions my brand of fundamentalism is the best the best".)

[Tunnelcat]

counter-intuitively, self-consistency can have it's own problems as it is the cornerstone of fundamentalism.

there's a famous saying (or at least, i hear it a lot but can't track it's original source) that to be a well-adjusted modern human is to have the ability to hold multiple contradictory viewpoints at the same time without losing your mind.

afaik much of philosophy can be described as an attempt to fix those contradictions, a task apparently as easy as defeating a hydra via decapitation.

Intelligence verses ignorance.

[roid]

haha, yeah. while you posted that i was just editing in an extra bit at the end of my post

:3

[Tunnelcat]

[snoopy]

counter-intuitively, self-consistency can have it's own problems as it is the cornerstone of fundamentalism.

there's a famous saying (or at least, i hear it a lot but can't track it's original source) that to be a well-adjusted modern human is to have the ability to hold multiple contradictory viewpoints at the same time without losing your mind.

afaik much of philosophy can be described as an attempt to fix those contradictions, a task apparently as easy as defeating a hydra via decapitation.

(And then there's always those who put their fingers in their ears "lalala there are no contradictions my brand of fundamentalism is the best the best".)

You and TC have me confused. Are you saying that "fundamentalism" does have logic on its side, because it puts a high value on self-consistency? I thought that was one of the trump cards that secular humanism was supposed to have over religious beliefs. Are you saying that the well-adjusted modern human needs to be willing to suspend logic?

[Tunnelcat]

Everything has it's own "logic". It just depends on what set of rules that particular logic follows. It all depends on the frame of reference.

Fundamentalism can have it's own logic. But it's logic is defined by it's rigid beliefs in one particular thing, idea or dogma. To a fundamentalist, everything that conforms to their logical rule set is held inside their frame of reference as the absolute truth and is thus logical to them. Anything that falls outside their particular logic rules cannot conform and is thus illogical to their beliefs which then must be ignored or destroyed.

EDITED for CUDA:

Ignorance leads to rigidity in thinking. Fundamentalism requires rigidity to a certain set of beliefs. Connect the dots.

[CUDA]

That has to be one of the most bigoted things I've ever read on this dbb

edit: since you changed your post after I posted, people cant see what I was talking about.

[Tunnelcat]

If you took exception to the ignorance part, what can I say. Those who are ignorant are usually the most unwilling to except other evidence to the contrary with their beliefs, while those who are intelligent tend to accept differing ideas more readily, IN GENERAL. However, fundamentalists can be intelligent, just as secularists can be ignorant. No one fits nicely into a box. I'm ignorant to a great many things myself, but I'm not a fundamentalist.

fun·da·men·tal·ism (fnd-mntl-zm)
n.
1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
2.
a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fundamentalism

[CUDA]

If you took exception to the ignorance part, what can I say. Those who are ignorant are usually the most unwilling to except other evidence to the contrary with their beliefs, while those who are intelligent tend to accept differing ideas more readily, IN GENERAL. However, fundamentalists can be intelligent, just as secularists can be ignorant. No one fits nicely into a box. I'm ignorant to a great many things myself, but I'm not a fundamentalist.

I took exception with your ad-hominid attack on conservatives calling them ignorant and un-intelligent

FYI I lost a bit of respect for ya TC with the stealth edit

fun·da·men·tal·ism (fnd-mntl-zm)
n.
1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
2.
a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.

and WTF is this liberalpedia.com??
An Organized MILITANT Evangelical movement???? why is it that I feel you chose that definition because of the militant aspect when there is NO OTHER definition that describes fundamentalism in that manner.

try a real dictionary definition

fun·da·men·tal·ism
   [fuhn-duh-men-tl-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
( sometimes initial capital letter ) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
2.
the beliefs held by those in this movement.
3.
strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.

Definition of FUNDAMENTALISM
1
a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs
2
: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles <Islamic fundamentalism> <political fundamentalism>

Pronunciation: /fʌndəˈmɛnt(ə)lɪz(ə)m/
noun
[mass noun]

a form of a religion, especially Islam or Protestant Christianity, that upholds belief in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture: there was religious pluralism there at a time when the rest of Europe was torn by fundamentalism
strict adherence to the basic principles of any subject or discipline: free-market fundamentalism

Modern Christian fundamentalism arose from American millenarian sects of the 19th century, and has become associated with reaction against social and political liberalism and rejection of the theory of evolution. Islamic fundamentalism appeared in the 18th and 19th centuries as a reaction to the disintegration of Islamic political and economic power, asserting that Islam is central to both state and society and advocating strict adherence to the Koran (Qur’an) and to Islamic law (sharia)

[roid]

counter-intuitively, self-consistency can have it's own problems as it is the cornerstone of fundamentalism.

there's a famous saying (or at least, i hear it a lot but can't track it's original source) that to be a well-adjusted modern human is to have the ability to hold multiple contradictory viewpoints at the same time without losing your mind.

afaik much of philosophy can be described as an attempt to fix those contradictions, a task apparently as easy as defeating a hydra via decapitation.

(And then there's always those who put their fingers in their ears "lalala there are no contradictions my brand of fundamentalism is the best the best".)

You and TC have me confused. Are you saying that "fundamentalism" does have logic on its side, because it puts a high value on self-consistency? I thought that was one of the trump cards that secular humanism was supposed to have over religious beliefs. Are you saying that the well-adjusted modern human needs to be willing to suspend logic?

yes and yes, but it's certainly debatable.
there are a lot of horrible things which are logical, it's not a good universal fundamental to base all decisions on.
we humans are not very logical, we try, but we're often confronted with some inhuman jarring truths/conclusions we find unacceptable.
i think a lot of fictional "robots destroying/enslaving humanity" tales explore the concept of hard logic vs the complexity of humanity. 2001 a Space Odyssey (film), iRobot (film), etc.

[Tunnelcat]

That has to be one of the most bigoted things I've ever read on this dbb

edit: since you changed your post after I posted, people cant see what I was talking about.

OK. For everyone else, in essence I called "fundamentalists" mostly ignorant because of their rigid beliefs that don't allow more open thinkers or new ideas to be incorporated into their belief system and I was using a broad paintbrush. I WAS thinking about Islam (from the other thread) at first when I made the original comment, because they are the most repressive of all the religions and the least likely to accept new ideas or change. Guess I should have said that outright in the original post to avoid confusion before deleting it.

As for that first definition, I picked the wrong one, it was late. But hey, it still does apply to the modern militant sect of Christians who preach death to any doctor or clinic personnel that performs abortions, and then go around bombing abortion clinics and murdering abortion doctors, all in the name of Jesus, like good little fundamentalist Christian Warriors.

As for the definition from that website, they also had this one. So they can't be too liberal.

fundamentalism
1. a conservative movement in 20th-century American Protestantism in reaction to modernism, asserting especially the inerrancy of the Scriptures as a historical record and as a guide to faith and morals, and emphasizing, as matters of true faith, belief in the virgin birth, the sacrifice and death of Christ upon the cross, physical resurrection, and the Second Coming.
2. an adherence to the doctrines and practices of this movement. — fundamentalist, n., adj.

Is that better? Even in your definitions, the rigid adherence to principle still speaks of ignorance. Intelligent people wouldn't except out of hand the rigid adherence part. Intelligent people always seek new knowledge and ideas. Things always change. When someone refuses to accept that, they are clearly ignorant.

As for my slant, Conservative used to be intelligent and I even voted for them at one time. The modern version is becoming more and more ignorant to the fact that they're being used. I stand by my ad hominid remark.

roid, you do know that there is a form of emotional logic don't you. It's so convoluted that it defies mathematical logic. But it does have it's own logic because it runs the standard human being, although sometimes quite weirdly.

[roid]

...

roid, you do know that there is a form of emotional logic don't you. It's so convoluted that it defies mathematical logic. But it does have it's own logic because it runs the standard human being, although sometimes quite weirdly.

It's only vaguely universal though. Rather than "logic" it'd be more apt to refer to it as... neural mechanics or something, as that's about the limit to the extent that it's universally* predictable. I mean every person has their own unique connectome ( ) which dictates how concepts relate and associate to eachother in their mind. The logic being only universal within the construct of each mind, each mind having it's own system of logic.
To some people, hippys make them insanely angry. It's logical to them, not logical to the rest of us.

*if you take the "universal" stipulation out though and just accept it as "vaguely" predictable instead, then it becomes a lot more interesting, useful and fun. But it sadly becomes less of a science IMHO.

Psychopaths are still human, and still have an "emotional logic", even though it's an inhuman brand of logic in comparison to the rest of us. The logic is so foreign to the rest of us (mainly because our our [perhaps illogical, perhaps not] empathic resistance on accepting a fellow MONSTEROUS human as one of our own) that it's hard to put it into context a notion of "emotional logic" which covers most people. It's hard to understand these people.

[Sergeant Thorne]

As for that first definition, I picked the wrong one, it was late. But hey, it still does apply to the modern militant sect of Christians who preach death to any doctor or clinic personnel that performs abortions, and then go around bombing abortion clinics and murdering abortion doctors, all in the name of Jesus, like good little fundamentalist Christian Warriors.

Yeah, we're doing that after church Sunday. Kind of a popular activity around here. You wouldn't understand.

[roid]

you're saying that even though Christian militant fundamentalist wackos exist, not all Christians are actually militant fundamentalist wackos?
hmm.... wonder if the same could be said about.... Islam.

nah what a preposterous thought , best we not consider it lest it instantly auto-invalidate every Thunderbunny thread ever made.

oh wait.

[Tunnelcat]

Zing!

When you have religious ignorance of science, adherence to dogma, rigidity of belief and resistance to change and new ideas, why, just create your own "scientific study" to counter it when something disagrees with your held beliefs.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wayne-bes ... 92989.html

[Sergeant Thorne]

you're saying that even though Christian militant fundamentalist wackos exist, not all Christians are actually militant fundamentalist wackos?
hmm.... wonder if the same could be said about.... Islam.

nah what a preposterous thought , best we not consider it lest it instantly auto-invalidate every Thunderbunny thread ever made.

oh wait.

The same could be said, but it's painfully obvious. I think what troubles TB is that Muslims in general, aside from the very liberal, pretty much subscribe to the conquer the infidel philosophy as a primary tenet of Islam--manifested where it may as convert or die. I wouldn't be so quick to equate Christianity with Islam in saying that this is not true Islam, just because militant Christianity is not true Christianity. A Christian who kills in the name of Christ must ignore large portions of scripture in order to justify their actions. I will say that these "Christians" are much more direct, and their cause more noble (if you can call it that), than people who kill indiscriminately in order to draw attention to a cause.

[flip]

I think what Thorne is trying to say, is that Islam as a religion is strict and unforgiving causing it's followers to be the same way, so a much greater percentage of muslims are likely to be militant. Unless they lack full and total commitment. It's in people's darkest hour that their true nature and beliefs are made evident. Some cry out and curse God, some cry out and say "though you slay me, yet will I praise you" These teachings take root in people but through complacency and lack of need, alot of people adhere loosely. Until they are in their darkest hour. Anyone that kills in the name of God, profanes His name and are murderers, no matter what their intentions.

[Tunnelcat]

.....A Christian who kills in the name of Christ must ignore large portions of scripture in order to justify their actions. I will say that these "Christians" are much more direct, and their cause more noble (if you can call it that), than people who kill indiscriminately in order to draw attention to a cause.

Those who kill for the sole reason they think they doing a greater good by stopping something they see as evil, are doing actions no different than that of their intended victims. Until abortion becomes illegal, they are murderers. Worse, they are Holy Warriors.

[CUDA]

Those who kill for the sole reason they think they doing a greater good by stopping something they see as evil, are doing actions no different than that of their intended victims. Until abortion becomes illegal, they are murderers. Worse, they are Holy Warriors.

Do you see the GLARING contradictions in what you just posted??

[Tunnelcat]

OK, point them out to me. As of the moment, abortion is a legal procedure. It doesn't violate the law. So when those Christian Holy Warriors go out and kill doctors that are NOT violating the law, all in the name of preventing murder, they are themselves murderers.