's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Why can't Falwell keep his mouth shut in the first place?(85 posts)

Why can't Falwell keep his mouth shut in the first place?ColnagoFE
Oct 14, 2002 10:02 AM
Because he wouldn't be Jerry Falwell then...PdxMark
Oct 14, 2002 10:16 AM
He and his ilk preach little more than hate and loathing. It's apparently fine and acceptable when it's directed at domestic liberals, gays, the ACLU, etc. But, surprise, surprise, other people might take deep offense and might even use such hateful gibberish to justify a violent response.

Jerry Falwell's brand of religious intolerance is no different from that of the Taliban and the Iranian ayatollahs. The only difference is that Jerry Falwell and his pals don't have the might of a government police force to impose their view of God's will. The dogma of hate is the same.
I agreePaulCL
Oct 14, 2002 11:32 AM
But I have a few concerns...

..First: He speaks for a lot of people in this country. Hard core religious right folks. They are a large voting block.

..Second: Our Attorney General seems to be a religious right winger too. I consider myself a republican, but John Ashcroft scares the hell out of me.

..Third: A crazy suggestion by a very worldly, non-American, Jewish friend. He suggests that the religious right (including our President and Att. Gen'l) wouldn't mind causing armegeddon. Why? Read the bible. THink crusades. Think: Dieing while ridding the world of the ungodly (Islamics). If you are a true believer (like our buddy Jerry Falwell), who cares what happens on this earth as long as you act in such a way to get to heaven. My friend feels that trying to get to heaven might be at least a secondary justification for stirring up such a hornets' nest.

I don't believe my friend is right, but it is an interesting concept.
Its called Dispensationalism. . .czardonic
Oct 14, 2002 11:47 AM
. . .and in a nutshell it means that if Bush can trigger a holy war between Israel and the Arabs, and make sure that Israel wins and controls the Holy Land, he and the other "true believers" will be raptured to Heaven while people like me are swallowed by the Apocalypse.
Your friend is semi-correct.Sintesi
Oct 14, 2002 11:48 AM
I saw the 60 minutes report and in effect the christian right believe in this absolutely. In fact, Israel enjoys no greater support of Zionism than from the Christian right. They believe that the establishment of Israeli state will ultimately lead to armegeddon (same region as Medigo the original "big war") resulting in the second coming of Christ, destruction of 2/3 of the Jews and conversion for the remaining lot. Essentially they believe there has to be a great conflict in Israel in order to fulfill prophecy and bring back Christ.

These people (it ain't just Falwell) say it openly. While I don't think they are into actually causing the war, they are sure it will happen as long as there is an Israeli state, hence their steadfast support of Israel.

Sick, no?
Who do you know who believes that?Kristin
Oct 14, 2002 4:08 PM
Read my post below...which is sure to start a war in this forum. How many leaders can you name who beleive what you claim they believe in your post? Please list them. (And you must have first hand knowledge that they have claimed to support the Isreali nation in order to bring Christ back.)
It was on 60 minutes I'm not pulling out of my wazoo.Sintesi
Oct 15, 2002 5:11 AM
It was on last week, I think it was 60 minutes II. One of the guys who said that was Jerry Falwell. They had two others one who is the head of some major Christian organization that said exactly that. I wasn't paying that close attention and I can't remember their names sorry. It was on last week tho, somebody must have seen it. They are staunchly pro-Israel and lobby congress aggressively because they see it as necessary for the second coming of Christ which will be precluded by a great war, the killing of most the world's Jews and the conversion of the rest.
Read it and weep.Sintesi
Oct 15, 2002 5:17 AM

Who speaks for the Christians?
Ugh...what a reportKristin
Oct 15, 2002 11:40 AM
That whole article makes me uneasy. Mostly because CBS seems to have sought out EVERY far right-wing Christian and then presented their statements as if they represent ALL of Christianity. I'll declare here and now that any "Christian" who's primary focus is to re-establish the nation of Isreal so that Christ can return has missed the entire point of thier faith and doesn't not understand what it means to trust God. They couldn't be further from the truth. Its absurd to say the least. Nowhere does the bible say that we are to be concerned with when Christ returns or that Christians have any part in bringing Christ back!! Jesus himself explains that no one will even know when he will return. (matt. 24)

Some people in the article I believe are misquoted. I have read their writings and what they believe over all isn't consistent with the way the article portrays them. The media does this all the time. Some people really do believe this stuff, but its fanatism and biblical "reaching" in the extreme. You can quote me as having said its a bunch of hogwash.
Ugh...what a reportJon Billheimer
Oct 15, 2002 11:58 AM
Kristin, I don't believe anyone, in the media or outside of it, thinks that Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority organization represents mainstream Christian thought. However, he does claim a constituency of around 70 million people, which in political terms, represents quite a clout. It is a fact that Falwell and his organization have had an impact on the organization and policies of the Republican party. Unfortunately, this gives some legitimacy to this kind of ignorant and extremist thinking. However, Moral Majoritarians do not represent Christian culture any more than Wahabbi Muslims represent Islamic culture. In fact, I think their (Falwell's) influence on Christian culture is substantially less than the current brand of Islamic fundamentalism influences Islamic culture.
So if he doesn't represent Christianity, where does hisKristin
Oct 15, 2002 12:38 PM
following come from? What 70 million people? This is where I start to get confused. And where I must admit to being politically ignorant. Gosh, I just started reading the Tribune yesterday and look at all the trouble its caused. I should have been reading the paper for years instead of watching the news.
So if he doesn't represent Christianity, where does hisJon Billheimer
Oct 15, 2002 1:23 PM
I said he doesn't represent mainstream Christian thought. Christianity, if you hadn't noticed Kristin, is as pluralistic in its theological interpretations and political ramifications, as is any other religion. Falwell and his moral majority are associated with Protestant, extremely conservative fundamentalist thinking. He claims a constituency of around 70 million people. I don't know if that's true or not, but regardless the "religious right" as it's come to be known, does exert considerable political influence in the United States.
The Pluralistic ChurchKristin
Oct 16, 2002 6:34 AM
You're absolutely right. Can anyone truly define Christianity anymore? The beliefs of Christian groups vary so vastly that it makes no sense anymore. From the 45 year old executive who has gone to church twice in his life to the 36 year old who shot an abortion doctor. They both call themselves Christians. The only belief that these two men have in common is the belief that Jesus was the Messiah from God. But what they think Jesus' believed and taught is so vastly different.

Lately, I've begun to put some distance between myself and the label of "Christian". The term has become tainted and misunderstood...just like the work "saved" did in the 80's. I don't know exactly what I am, and I'm still becoming what I will be, and I know I'm moving towards it. But its still somewhat of a blur. I know I don't agree with Mr. Falwell. I'm not sure you could find 70 million unique voices in America who'd agree with the man; but I could be wrong. They would mostly consist of retiree's in Florida.

Just a side note about that Tribulation Series. Tim Lahaye (however you spell it) stated in an interview on Moody Radio that he would write as many of these books as it takes to get his children through college. This to me, indicates motive.
The Pluralistic ChurchJon Billheimer
Oct 16, 2002 7:22 AM

You make a very valid point, as well as an honest and accepting statement about yourself. No matter who we are or what our belief system, in reality we're all a work in progress.

Second, pluralism isn't a recent phenomenon. With respect to the historical underpinnings of Christianity it existed from day one. So people who maintain that they are true believers are either woefully uninformed or intellectually dishonest. In my opinion, both.

Your perception of motive is spot on! To borrow a statement attributed to Jesus (although I'm not a Christian), you can judge a tree by its fruits.
true believerStarliner
Oct 16, 2002 8:16 AM
People who advertise themselves as "true believers" make me feel uncomfortable, kind of like picking up the telephone and getting a telemarketer on the line makes me feel uncomfortable. I worry that their sincerity in their faith is lacking, as if they feel they have to convince the world around them, when in fact the only judgement that matters is that from whom/what they purport to believe in.

For me, one's agreement with the supreme being is best kept as a quiet, personal bond whose truth is evident without resorting to in-group behavior.
A general reply...Matno
Oct 14, 2002 2:39 PM
To the entire thread...

John Ashcroft, right wing?! Have you seen what he's done since he's been appointed? Before his appointment, I thought he was pretty right wing too. Since then, he has proven the exact opposite. He is barely even "mainstream conservative." This seems to be the way of the entire Bush right, act left (when nobody is looking).

As for the idea of Christians "wanting" or looking forward to Armageddon, unfortunately, there are some of that ilk who profess to believe in Christ. However, true Christians believe that a large war will happen in spite of everything they do to promote peace. Not exactly something to look forward to (except when it's over). "Triggering" a war just to get rid of people who believe differently has never been condoned by true Christians. (And no, I don't think the Crusades were undertaken by Christians).

This "final conflict" will not "bring back Christ." It will merely be a sign that his coming is near.

Finally, "why aren't [people like Jerry Faldwell] shouted down by those they claim to represent?" That's because few Christians who disagree with them take them seriously enough to care what they say. I am Christian, but by no means does Faldwell represent me. Do I care what he says? Not really. I certainly don't feel that it reflects on my own beliefs.
I'm a true believer and I can tell you for certain that trueKristin
Oct 14, 2002 4:02 PM
believers are not looking to start wars for the sake of bringing about something called Armegedden. Some people get way too caught up in words that appear in the bible just once; yet ignore completely the ones that are written a thousand times, truth, mercy.

In every generation, a few power-craven, far-right fanatics arrive on the scene, "claiming" the name of Christ. They create these fantasic fantasies and lay plans; but all fail in the end. Then, along come a few far-left spokespersons--who would rather see Christianity and the name of Jesus swept under the rug and forgotten like a bad dream--and they stand on their soap boxes and declare that everyone who identifies themselves as a Christian embraces these wild fantacies and wants to end the world and start holy wars. And people looking for reasons to hate God believe it. But anyone who believes that God is for starting holy wars, doesn't know God, and doesn't know many true followers.

As for Chrisitianity... True Christianity. Its not going anywhere. Unfortunately, the modern church is extremely damaged. Our grandparents held onto thier Victoria values so tightly that it corrupted the church, which became more about rules and regulations than finding the forgiveness, transformation and freedom that God offers. It became fettered in its religious piety instead of embracing honest and vulnerable community.

As a result, true thinkers who desired to ask the difficult questions and were pursuing a number of possible realities found themselves turned away. Their questioning wasn't welcome. So they sought answers elsewhere and rejected Christianity because it rejected them. The church judged society and closed itself off to all who refused to obey its ways quietly--hands folded, heads bowed. Bending the rules was not allowed and weakness was shunned.

I see this is beginning to change. Spring arriving on the heals of a harsh winter. The post modern church is something quite different all together. If you're reading this and conder yourself a free spirited thrill seeker, you might decide check it out. Its not your grandmothers church experience.
Placidly elegant! Thanks. nmLen J
Oct 15, 2002 3:59 AM
Ever read Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer"?ColnagoFE
Oct 15, 2002 6:48 AM
Interesting read regarding dogmatic thinking.
With all due respect. . .czardonic
Oct 15, 2002 9:51 AM
. . .how is the "end-times" belief more a fantastic fantasy than any other religious doctrine?

I'm not a Christian, but I don't have a problem with Jesus Christ or his teachings. Nevertheless, If I did want to hate God, I wouldn't need a "far-left spokesperson" to tell me why. Any reasonable person could look at organized religion's long history of fostering hatred and intolerance and turn their back in disgust. You can say that hatred is not preached or subscribed to by "True Beleivers". Fine. But why is it left to the "far-left" to point out these lies, while those in who's name they are preached pretend that it is not their problem?
Sometimes I'm amazedMcAndrus
Oct 14, 2002 6:21 PM
Sometimes I'm amazed at the motives and motivations people will ascribe to others. Bush wants war to create the apocalypse? I'm amazed at the suggestion itself.

I suppose Bush is also a member of the secret cabal (along with Henry Kissinger if memory serves) that actually rules the world and creates all events by pulling the strings of their political puppets - who doubtless fly around in the UN's black silent helicopters. This line of reasoning fits an X-Files episode, not the world I live in.
It's the CFR...Matno
Oct 15, 2002 3:50 AM
That's the Council on Foreign Relations. Perhaps some people don't think there's anything interesting about it, but the fact that nearly every president in the last 40 years (republican and democrat) has been a member of it makes it more than interesting to some of us. The fact that the CFR makes no secret of their intentions of creating a socialist one-world government makes it downright scary. George W. Bush's father had hundreds of CFR members in his administration, as did Bill Clinton. The current administration is no different with 9 of George W's top 10 "most conservative" advisors being long-standing members of the CFR.
X-files is for paranormal stuff. This is the real world. Same world you DO live in...
Falwell makes money off of controversy.Matno
Oct 14, 2002 10:49 AM
Just like a lot of other rabble rousing "Reverends" such as Jesse Jackson. They say things that some people agree with, but in a most controversial manner. It gets them attention, which in turn creates their income. How Jesse can make it without being homeless/penniless (or in prison) is beyond me. At least Jerry Faldwell is on the right side occasionally...
Sounds like something Pilate would have said about Jesus.Alex-in-Evanston
Oct 14, 2002 12:19 PM
How does the saying go - the one about becoming what you most detest? I can't remember.

How often does one hear <i>anything</i> genuinely Christian. . .czardonic
Oct 14, 2002 1:11 PM
. . .from the self appointed spokespeople for American Christianity? Is the kind of fear, intolerance and hatred representative of the religion as a whole in this country? If not, why does it seem so endemic among the pundits, and why aren't they shouted down by those they claim to represent.
We DO!!! I just above!!Kristin
Oct 14, 2002 4:12 PM
I can't speak against Jerry Falwell because I really don't pay much attention to him. But if he believes that it is the churches job to usher in the return of Christ then I believe that he is vastly mistaken and thinks he has far greater power than he does. I it was said well above, "becoming what you most detest."
Don't know much about Fallwell, except that he's a televanelistKristin
Oct 14, 2002 3:19 PM
And I tend to dislike those guys. But you must admit a certain irony in all of this. A riot that killed five broke out because Muslims were mad that someone called there leader violent. Then Mr. Fallwell apologizes for calling the leader violent. (Now please understand, I'm not at all justifing the man's comments...just pointing out the irony.)
why should he?DougSloan
Oct 15, 2002 7:07 AM
Ain't America great? We all get to express our opinions about anything we want without fear of being thrown into jail or beaten with sticks in the street. This applies to everyone's opinions, not just those with which we agree. As to what Falwell said:

A. He has the right to free speech, just like everyone else.

B. There could be some truth to what he said; at the same time, he possibly could be viewed as a bit undiplomatic or insensitive.

C. Just because we value tolerance to a very high degree these days, that does not mean we must refrain from expressing any negative opinions about any religion, politics, or whatever; there may very well be religious practices or beliefs by some that are, in fact, bad, no matter how many people on Earth may believe in them.

D. If someone cannot stand the "religious right," or even Christians, for that matter, it seems that that person views everything said by their leadership as evil and lacking credibility, i.e., everything is tainted; one might stop and think whether what is being said has some truth to it, despite who the speaker is.

E. The "why can't he keep his mouth shut" comment is just as intolerant as anything Falwell has said. Sort of ironic that one would utilize a public forum, which exists largely by virtue of the First Amendment, to blast someone else for public speech. One might well disagree with the speaker, but indicating a desire for him to "keep his mouth shut" smacks of a desire for censorship. Now, if the true message is that "what Falwell said is wrong," that's a bit different.

God Bless the First Amendment!

Well said, Voltaire!Jon Billheimer
Oct 15, 2002 7:31 AM
BTW, Falwell in my opinion is the ultimate pharisee. And yes, Kristin, he does represent a very large, politically far right, Christian constituency who fervently support Bush, and prior to that, Reagan. Their agenda was to gain control of the Republican party. However, that doesn't make Bush some sort of a conspirator in their sick agenda. These people are, however, in my opinion, an embarrassment to America and to organized Christianity, just as Muslim extremists must be an embarrassment to mainstream Muslims.
Never said I wanted him censored--don't twist my wordsColnagoFE
Oct 15, 2002 8:11 AM
No problems with him saying it and would defend anyone's right to free speech. I was just commenting on how he's effectively hoisting himself up by his own petard with the idiotic things he's saying these days...same way that neo-nazis do the same with their hate speech. They show their ignorance. Mainly it was a question of why can't he keep his mouth shut about some of his more controversial ideas? Seems that it backfires on him bad each time and he should learn from his mistakes. Then he has to go about apologizing after the fact. Seems like someone involved with his cause would be telling him to shut up or at least monitoring his public outburtsts. I kinda like him showing his true colors if truth be told.
Well said.I understood your point w/o resorting to platitudinous128
Oct 15, 2002 8:59 AM
rhetoric. It seems some feel a need to contort every point of view into an invitation to regurgitate their own pet issues rather than address the issue presented. Rather tiresome and selfish...
sounds goodDougSloan
Oct 15, 2002 9:15 AM
>I kinda like him showing his true colors if truth be told.

There you have it. I think if more people said what they think, albeit with a little bit of diplomacy or sensitivity, everyone would be better off. We'd know who thought what, and can respond accordingly. The ones who always sound politically correct, hiding their true agendas, wavering in the winds of political change, are the ones to watch out for.

The fact is, Mohammed WAS a Terroristjromack
Oct 15, 2002 9:12 AM
Muhammad killed and plundered many people. During the Nakhla Raid, he sent some of his thugs to loot a caravan killing one man and enslaving others. This was his first battle. Do you wonder why so many terrorists are Muslims? The acorn doesn't fall far from the tree.

There are many other examples of his gang attacking and killing people.

Ever read the koran? It's full of hatred towards non-muslims.
Oct 15, 2002 9:44 AM
To say Mohammad was a terrorist is both misrepresenting what terrorism is and what Mohammad was. He was a political leader not just a prophet (as Jesus was). As such he conducted wars, made laws, etc. etc. And to this day this is why religion and government go hand in hand in the muslim world, whereas in the west we have always had the dicotomy of the state vs. the church. Did he have his soilders kill people, no doubt, but so has pretty much every other political leader in history. As a Christian, if you think that makes him less attractive as a prophet so be it. But to use "terrorist" in it's modern meaning to describe him would only be done to get people riled up not because it represents historical reality. Christians have committed probably just as many atrocious acts as muslims over the ages, and they have a peaceful prophet as their model, so I don't know how far "the acorn falling far from the tree" goes in explaining the actions of any government or group of people at a given point in history.
Well...Jon Billheimer
Oct 15, 2002 9:50 AM
If Mohammad was a terrorist then so was Moses, Joshua, David, et al in the Old Testament. If I remember correctly, there's one passage in the O.T. in which Jehovah (God) upbraided the Israelites for not killing more people in one day of battle. In another passage, God is alleged to have made the sun stand still so the Israelites could do even more killing.

So this kind of conversation and finger pointing is just absurd. Not that the likes of Falwell would ever get the point.
Oct 15, 2002 10:24 AM
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Oct 15, 2002 10:24 AM
war Pronunciation Key (wôr)

A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.

The period of such conflict.

The techniques and procedures of war; military science.

A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.
War & TerrorismKristin
Oct 15, 2002 10:37 AM
Terrorism is the act of trying to scare people. This can occur within war by one or both of the warring parties, or by a third party. Terrorism can happen independantly of war.

What Mohammed engaged in was not terrorism. It was a war campaign with a specific goal. There was an ancient leader that used to--after capturing a city--lop off the heads of all the men in the city an pile them outside the city gate. That was terrorism.

What the Isrealites did under Davids command (and in turn God's command) was also a war campaign. The goal was to capture a portion of Canaan to establish the nation of Isreal.

I think that you could call to question, based on the definition above, that what Osama did was not terrorism either. If in fact, he means to anhilate every American person. Then its just his pre-emptive strike in a new war.

There is no indication in the biblical text that God delights in war or killing. Isreal engaged in war, yes--and at the command of God. But it was only one war that was fought over many years. It was just one campaign. All other wars recorded in the bible were defensive in nature. And never, EVER is there an indication that God took joy in war, death or killing.
I've never read the Koran.Sintesi
Oct 11, 2002 8:04 AM
What sort of hateful comments does it make? I've heard this said about the Koran more than a few times but I've never heard an actual quote. I suppose I could go ahead and read it.
How dare you?DougSloan
Oct 15, 2002 9:59 AM
Don't you get it? People are only allowed to speak negatively about Christians. Never Muslims, Jews, any other religion, or even atheists for that matter.

Plus, to go beyond opinion and actually reference facts to support an opinion is simply too inflammatory for people to handle. Truth is not permitted, only antagonism of Christians, particularly by lumping in all Christians with a few vocal or visable ones.

Even worse, now you are lumping yourself in with a person (Falwell), who is so politically incorrect that he's almost viewed as Satan himself among the intelligencia of America. Man, you have guts.

As someone who...Wayne
Oct 15, 2002 10:11 AM
has no problem speaking negatively about any religion (or atheists for that matter) because IMHO, they all are based on the same faulty underpinnings, the guy didn't reference any facts to support his contention that Mohammad was a terrorist. Jon on the other hand did at least provide some good stories about the hatefulness and lust for killing that apparently pervades the bible. Although in fairness he didn't provide the references either but at least he has some specifics.
Doug, You Missed My Point...Jon Billheimer
Oct 15, 2002 10:33 AM
which is that it is absurd to label figures such as Mohammad, Moses, et al as terrorists. Kristin made the point elegantly by supplying definitions of terrorism vs. war.
Fact #1jromack
Oct 15, 2002 10:50 AM
Massacre of unarmed merchants during sacred month

Date: Late January(Rejeb), 623 A.D.

Place: Nakhla

Victims: 4 Merchants from Quraysh tribe of Mecca, the Tribe to which Mohammed himself belonged

Four UNARMED merchants were traveling to Mecca to sell their goods consisting of raisins, honey and animal skins. It was the holy month of Rejeb which was considered sacred for trade in Arabia. It was a point of honor that any form of warfare or violence was strictly forbidden in this month. Mohammed's gang attacked the helpless men from behind and stabbed two of them to death. They plundered all the goods as booty and Mohammed got one fifths of the share.

This shows the utter lack of morals or scruples on Mohammed's part. The Prophet of Islam did not possess a shred of pity or kindness, or the slightest sense of justice. He cold-bloodedly murdered two innocent people who had never done him any harm and did not even know him! All this was done in a month that the Prophet himself declared was a sacred month in which no warfare should take place. Mohammed was obviously motivated by nothing but hatred and greed.

Conveniently divine revelations came down from Allah that absolved him of all the guilt.

Koran 2:216

'Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that you hate a thing which is good for you and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, you knew not.'

Here Mohammed is completely removing all blame from himself, for having started the fighting. The most insidious and devilish implication of this verse is that Allah is completely justifying Mohammed's murder of the innocent Meccans. Over and above this Mohammed is conveniently implying that warfare is hateful to him, but he participated in it because it was ordained by Allah! What sacrifices the 'Apostle of Peace' had to make!

Koran 2:217

'They question you (O Mohammed) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great transgression but to turn men from the way of Allah and to disbelieve in Him and the inviolable place of worship and to expel its people thence is a greater transgression, for persecution is worse than killing'

Here Allah is clearly saying that to kill or create warfare in the sacred month of Rejeb is a very grave offence, but to justify his own violation of Allah's rules, Mohammed comes up with the idea that since the people killed were unbelievers, it was perfectly okay! The reason given for the horrific murder of the innocent Meccans, is the fact that they did not believe in Mohammed's version of God. How much more tolerant and kind could the 'Great Prophet' be!
Fact #2jromack
Oct 15, 2002 10:51 AM
Slaughter of Meccans who came to defend their caravans

Date: March (Ramadan) 17, 623 A.D

Place: The well of Badr

Victims: 70 merchants from Quraysh Tribe of Mecca, The Quraysh army which came to defend them

The merchandise being carried by this caravan was worth more than 50,000 Gold Dinars. Mohammed ganged up all the criminals of Medina and set out to raid the caravan with 300 men. The Meccans got word of the raid and sent out an army to protect the caravan. Throughout the entire battle Mohammad cowered in a hut which his men made for him. There he cried and prayed with feverish anxiety. At one point he came out of the hut and threw pebbles in the enemy's direction, screaming 'Let evil look on your faces!' and 'By him who holds my soul in his hands, anyone who fights for me today will go to paradise!' The Muslims killed over two hundred and took seventy prisoners. All seventy of the prisoners were ransomed, and any prisoner who did not fetch a ransom had his head chopped off.

Mohammed was gratified at the sight of his murdered victims. After the battle, he sent his followers to look for the corpse of Abu Jahal, one of the Meccans who had criticized him openly. When his corpse was found they cut off the head and threw it down at Mohammed's feet. The 'Apostle of peace' cried out in delirious joy, 'Rejoice! Here lies the head of the enemy of Allah! Praise Allah, for there is no other but he!' The Prophet then ordered a great pit to be dug for the bodies of the innocents to be dumped. The Muslims then proceeded to hack the corpses limbs into pieces. As the bloodied mass of bodies was being thrown into the pit, a feverishly excited Mohammed screamed, ' O People of the Pit, have you found that what Allah threatened is true now? For I have found that what my Lord promised was true! Rejoice All Muslims!'. One of the prisoners taken was the defiant Al Nadr Ibn al Harith, who had earlier taken Mohammed's challenge of telling better stories than him. Mohammed ordered Ali to strike off Nadr's head in his presence, so he could watch and exult in the pleasure of beheading the man who had insulted him. Another prisoner Uqba ibn Abi Muait was decapitated in front of the Prophet. Before being killed the prisoner cried out pitifully 'O Prophet, who will look after my children if I should die?' The 'Great Prophet of the Religion of Peace' coldly spat out 'Hellfire', as the blade came down and spattered his clothes with Uqba's blood.

This time Mohammed needed a revelation that would not only absolve him of all the guilt for murdering so many innocent people, but also give him the 'divine' right to get a huge share of the plundered booty. Quite a few revelations magically appeared after the battle of Badr.

Koran 8:65

'O Prophet exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you 20 steadfast, they will overcome 200 and if there be of you a 100, they shall overcome a 1000, because the disbelievers are a folk without intelligence'.

This Sura clearly exposes Islam to be a religion that not only encourages violence but actually makes it a sacred duty for Muslims to kill anyone who does not believe in the Muslim version of religion. Not only is the 'All forgiving Allah' exhorting his followers to kill anyone who is not Muslim, but he is also saying that all non-Muslims are so stupid that they will be unable to defend themselves and therefore deserve death!

Koran 8:67-68

'It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. You desire the lure of this world and Allah desires for you the hereafter and Allah is Mighty, Wise.. Now enjoy what you have won as lawful and good and keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful.'

This verse is in reference to the prisoners that Mohammed held for ransom after the battle. Allah the 'Merciful' is saying that they should all have been killed! In addition, Allah is conveniently commenting that whatever
Fact #3jromack
Oct 15, 2002 10:51 AM
Assassination of poets who criticized Mohammed's murderous ways

Date: Late March-April, 623 A.D

Place: Medinah (aka: Medina)

Victims: Two of the most famous poets of Medinah, who had the courage to criticize the murderous actions of Mohammed and his gang....

After the battle of Badr, the people of Medinah were horrified that they had given refuge to such a blatant criminal and his followers in their city. Many began protesting the presence of such violent and murderous people in their city. In a free society like Pre-Islamic Arabia, the poets acted as society's conscience and were free to criticize, satirize and examine the actions of people. The two most famous poets of this kind were Abu 'Afak; an extremely old and respected poet and Asma bint Marwan; a young mother with the gift of superb verse.

Muhammad was enraged at their criticism. When he heard the verses composed by Asma Bint Marwan he was infuriated and screamed aloud, 'Will no one rid me of this daughter of Marwan!' That very night a gang of Muslims set out to do the dirty deed. They broke into the poets' house. She was lying in in her bedroom suckling her newborn child, while her other small children slept nearby. The Muslims tore the newborn infant off her breast and hacked it to pieces before her very eyes. They then made her watch the murder of all four of her children, before raping and then stabbing her repeatedly to death. After the murder when the Muslims went to inform the Prophet, he said 'You have done a service to Allah and his Messenger, her life was not worth even two goats.

A month later the distinguished and highly respected Abu Afak, who was over a hundred years old and renowned for his sense of fairness, was killed brutally in the same manner as he slept. Once again the "Prophet" had commented that morning 'Who will avenge me on this scoundrel!'

This shows us exactly how much the tolerant and peace loving Prophet respected life. Muslims claim that Mohammed was extremely gentle and loved children. Indeed the horrifying way he had Asma Bint Marwan's five infants slaughtered certainly attests to this 'loving' side of the "Prophet".
Fact #4jromack
Oct 15, 2002 10:52 AM
The Siege of the Banu Qaynuqa

Date: April, 623 A.D

Place: Medinah

Victims: The Jewish Tribe of Banu Qaynuqa

In order to get full control of Medinah, Mohammed needed to get rid of all his opponents. The strongest of these opponents was Abdallah Ibn Ubayy, a powerful chief who was allied with the Jewish Tribe of Banu Qaynuqa. This tribe was also the weakest, because they were made up of craftsmen, in particular goldsmiths. By attacking them, Mohammed knew he could plunder a huge amount of wealth and weaken Ibn Ubayy. Mohammed needed an excuse to attack them so he made a girl married to one of his followers, pretend that she had been teased by the Jews. The Muslims blockaded the fort of the Banu Qaynuqa for fifteen days until the starving Jews surrendered. Immediately, the Prophet was ready to kill them all, but Ibn Ubayy seized hold of Mohammed and protested. Mohammed's face became black with rage as he shouted 'Let go of me', but Ibn Ubayy was adamant and shouted back 'No, by God, I will not let you go until you deal kindly with my allies. 400 men without armor and 300 with, who have always supported me against enemies. And you want to slay them all in one morning! By God, If I were in your place I would fear a reversal of fortune'.

At this threat, the cowardly Mohammed turned pale, as he realized that all the people of Medinah were against him. He hit Ibn Ubayy on the face and ordered that the Jews be kicked out of their own homes. All their property was seized and looted, many of the prettiest women were taken as prisoners to become sex-slaves. Mohammed kept one-fifths of the enormous booty for himself. This is the way he repaid the kindness of the Jews of Medina, who had given him shelter and a refuge, when Mohammed had run away from Mecca in fear.

The revelations in the Eighth Sura of the Koran were clearly in reference to the Banu Qaynuqa and anyone who opposed the Muslims.

(Koran 8:55-57)

'Lo, the worst of beasts in Allah's sight are the ungrateful who will not believe.'

'Those of them with whom you made a treaty and then at every opportunity they break their treaty and they keep not duty to Allah, If you come on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, so that they may

Here Mohammed's acts of planned terrorism against the Jewish Tribe is justified by Allah, because according to the 'Merciful' Allah, Non-Muslims are the worst of BEASTS! So it is perfectly all right to murder, rape, torture and pillage the non-believers! Not only that but Allah is advising Mohammed and the Muslims that when anyone protests against the injustices committed by Muslims, the Muslims should make sure and deal with them with such violence, that it will strike fear among anyone who may think of supporting dissent. This proves that the koran is nothing but a political manual for controlling people with terror. Not even the fascist armies of Hitler engineered such devilish ideas.
definitions of "human"DougSloan
Oct 15, 2002 11:05 AM
Throughout history, people have justified killing and slavery by defining who is "human" and who is not. Some defined blacks as not human to justify slavery. The Nazi's defined Jews as not human to justify slavery and genocide.

A simple definition makes everything easier, doesn't it? If someone is not "human," then killing them is ok.

I had a very interesting philosophy professor in college who related a definition of terrorism: "the failure to see the human in the other." Can't recall to whom it was attributed. Seems as applicable today as any time.

Can we think of another scenario where killing is justified by defining away humanity? Hmm.

That Would Be...jromack
Oct 15, 2002 11:14 AM

Really sad.

One topic you simply cannot argue on any forum. The ones defending infanticide usually get really angry and nasty.
I'll defend infanticide...Wayne
Oct 15, 2002 11:24 AM
with a smile and I see no reason to get nasty.
And thanks for the info. about Mohammed, seems like he was a real sh*t, if a tenth of that stuff is true. I still wouldn't call him a terrorist in the modern sense but it seems to be in fashion these days to call pretty much anyone committing anykind of deplorable act whenever/where ever a terrorist. You're point could have been much better made without being sensationalist about it by using "terrorist" as a label.
It all depends on the definition of "terrorist"jromack
Oct 15, 2002 11:38 AM
His acts can be considered terrorism.

The end result was to instill fear in the survivors.

PS God is Pro-Life.
Then abortion clinic bombings must be terrorism.czardonic
Oct 15, 2002 12:01 PM
And it would seem that all the terrorists in the abortion battle are Pro-Life. So, is God pro-terrorist?
yes, it isDougSloan
Oct 15, 2002 12:08 PM
No doubt about it, abortion clinic bombings are terrorism, which are almost universally condemned by Christians and most everyone else. No different than what McVeigh did. Who said God approved it, though? (other than the bombers)

You cannot attribute the acts of a few to an entire group of people, especially when the group as a whole condemns the acts. It's illogical, unreasonable, and wrong.

one exceptionDougSloan
Oct 15, 2002 12:11 PM
If the bombings are to destroy the buildings alone, with no threat to people, that might not be terrorism. That might be considered the destruction of the instrumentality of killing (still wrong and illegal, nonetheless, but not terrorism).

I agreeczardonic
Oct 15, 2002 12:53 PM
"You cannot attribute the acts of a few to an entire group of people, especially when the group as a whole condemns the acts. It's illogical, unreasonable, and wrong."

Its too bad that more people can't apply this to so-called Islamic terrorists.
"the group as a whole condemns the acts"jromack
Oct 15, 2002 1:23 PM
You mean like the muslims around the world dancing in the streets and celebrating?

I have not seen any muslim leaders coming forward and condemning the act.

Their koran urges them to kill all "non-believers" and take over the world.
Then you haven't been looking.czardonic
Oct 15, 2002 1:28 PM
Which is not surprising.
Then you haven't been looking???jromack
Oct 15, 2002 2:11 PM
Name a muslim leader (political or religious) who has condmened the terrorists acts.

None have. They are solidly behind bin laden and their hate filled koran.
Are you serious?czardonic
Oct 15, 2002 3:00 PM
You don't seem to realize the resources that are right there at your finger tips.

It took me all of a few minutes of searching to find statements condemning the attacks by the President of Pakistan, the President of Egypt, the Minister of Foregn Affairs of Sudan, the Prime Minister of Turkey, the President of Yemen, the King of Jordan, the King of Saudi Arabia, even Saddam Hussein (though I'm sure you'll refuse to recognize that one). And if you think the sentiment is limited to political leaders, Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is also on record in condemnation of the attacks.

I'm sure you'll now insist that none of these people actually meant it.

Face it, you are as much an implacable hate-mongerer as the extremists you condemn.
Show Mejromack
Oct 15, 2002 6:39 PM
Post a few weblinks to back up your statements, and please cover all 8 of the above mentioned speakers.

Otherwise I will have to conclude that you simply made this up.
Actions speak louder than wordsStarliner
Oct 15, 2002 9:09 PM
I'd take czrdonic on his word. However, words of sympathy are just words. Proof is in the action, and it's the actions that take place which drown out the impact of those words, and bring suspicion to the credibility of those who say them: dancing in the streets in glee over a terrorist action in New York; bombs exploding on city buses in Israel; nightclubs being torched in Indonesia; the thousands of civilian casualties which result.

Whose responsibility is it to deal with the problem? I do not believe it is our responsibility, and I don't agree with the direction Bush is taking us. But present reality is that we face a religiously fanatical foe whose danger stems from their inability to deal with issues in the present tense, whose actions are driven by the past and justified by their fantastical dreams of a future beyond this life. The resolution of the problems created by this scenario lie with the people who follow it, and their leaders should be asked to provide us with more than sympathetic words.
Here you go.czardonic
Oct 16, 2002 10:23 AM
Links to responses are compiled here:
maybe this is why...Starliner
Oct 15, 2002 1:46 PM
the images of Islamic people taking to their streets in joyous celebration after the buildings came down on 9/11 is not something that is easy to forget. And the apparent absence of a strong and moderate Islamic voice is not conducive to overcoming whatever fear, horror and negative feelings one might have for Islam in its entirety due to the terrorist acts committed in the name of Islam.
Perspective. Propaganda.czardonic
Oct 15, 2002 2:02 PM
The people that you saw dancing in the streets were not cheering for the murder of infidels, or rejoicing at the thought of innocent people losing their lives. These are propagandized people rejoicing at a strike against a country that they have been led to beleive is responsible for their own repression. So yes, a few misled people wer shown celebrating.

One can hardly expect a someone living in a ghetto under a repressive regime to have the resources to distinguish between reality and propaganda. As a person who obviously has access to the knowledge of the entire world via the internet, what's your excuse? How can you justify condemning an entire civiliation based on a few isolated incidents, played up to manipulate your emotions? Based on a few anti-abortion extremists hailing the bombing of clinics and murder of doctors, do you conclude that Christianity is a muderous religion?
you like to stir it up, don't you?DougSloan
Oct 15, 2002 2:16 PM
Same guy: ?

It seems your ability to stir things up is almost boundless. Congrats.

I consider it "fostering lively discussion".czardonic
Oct 15, 2002 2:35 PM
And isn't that what these boards are for?
Abortion clinic bombings ARE acts of terrorism...jromack
Oct 15, 2002 12:18 PM
That is not the proper way to stop the senseless killing of defenseless babies.

This is an act of cowardice and innocent people are harmed.

The better way is through education and lifestyle changes.
Oh, I forgot to respond to your...Wayne
Oct 16, 2002 8:17 AM
"PS God is Pro-Life", I agree that's what most conservative christians claim. Problem is I don't believe in God, so I don't care.
Fact #2bjromack
Oct 15, 2002 10:56 AM
loot Mohammed has plundered is 'lawful and good' because it was done in service to Allah. So murder, rape, plunder and destruction are all perfectly fine with Allah as long as they are done in the name of Islam! Mohammed is also insidiously making himself seem very kind for having spared the lives of the prisoners, when in fact he only let them live so he could get more money from the Ransom for them. In today's world this is called 'Terrorism' of the worst kind.
while you might be rightweiwentg
Oct 15, 2002 5:23 PM
in that there is much violence in Islam, the fact is there is much violence in Judaism (read the Old Testament again) and Christianity (Crusades, the forced conversions of Native Americans, etc). yes, if you go by the book, rape, plunder and destruction are fine with God/Jehovah/Allah.
in present times, there is indeed much violence done by fundamentalist Muslims. the problem is fundamentalism, not Islam. as posted above, far-right 'Christians' basically would support war in the mid-East (rest assured they do not represent the majority of Christians). as for Judaism, I would point to the ideologically motivated settlers in occupied Palestinian territory, who believe that the land is theirs by God's law (probably the majority of settlers are there because of government policy; settlements are heavily subsidized).
you're basically right in your criticism of the Koran, but you could say the same about the Torah and the Bible. we all have a propensity to violence, and in some people this propensity is less restrained. if you ever get the chance, talk to a moderate Muslim and see if s/he condones the slaughter of innocents in what is supposedly the name of Allah. the answer might surprise you.
The bottom lineEager Beagle
Oct 16, 2002 12:43 AM
Stick a bunch of religious nuts of any flavour in a room together with an arms budget and the support of a few idiot western governments one way or the other, and you'll eventually have a war or some sort.

Biggest bunch of hypocrites on the face of the planet.

Give me atheists any day - at least they generally quit when they have taken a beating.

Oct 16, 2002 3:41 AM
Hitler was an atheist. I think he started a minor skirmish a few years ago.

And of course all communist countries deny God.
Why Incorrect?Eager Beagle
Oct 16, 2002 3:49 AM
I didn't say atheists don't start wars. I just said that they tend to quit when they are beat - c.f. Hitler.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong on that one...Wayne
Oct 16, 2002 4:03 AM
or at the very least the NAZI party was a Christian party. In fact, I'm pretty sure one of the things that the NAZI's found so detestable about the Communists was their Godlessness.
Don't fall for that myth!DJB
Oct 16, 2002 6:48 AM
Hitler had every intention of wiping Christianity out after he was done with the Jews.
Oct 16, 2002 7:34 AM
I went and looked at a bunch of websites and found similar things. I also found some quotes that would seem to indicate Hitler believed in God. But he clearly had it in for organized churches. Which makes perfect sense if you're a (paranoid) meglomaniac concerned with staying in power. You would naturally want to remove any organization that could oppose you. That doesn't make you an athiest though.
Just answering your claim.DJB
Oct 16, 2002 7:54 AM
that the Nazi party
They do thoughEager Beagle
Oct 16, 2002 7:56 AM
you should see the amount of chamgange and caviar they got through in the war :-)
Yeah, but what a hangover! (nm)DJB
Oct 16, 2002 8:12 AM
At least caviar's easy to hurl...nmEager Beagle
Oct 16, 2002 8:14 AM
Oct 16, 2002 7:58 AM

Meant to say that I was responding to your claim that the Nazi party was Christian.

It wasn't.
After a little more digging....Wayne
Oct 16, 2002 8:23 AM
I agree Christianity didn't have much or anything to do with NAZI policy, nor did I see anything about it being atheist either. Nonetheless, I'd be quite surprised if the majority of Nazi's weren't Christians. Any evidence they were atheists or something else?
None that I know of.DJB
Oct 16, 2002 10:04 AM
But then again, I'm not the one that made that claim.

It doesn't make any difference to me if they were atheists, or pagans, or howled at the moon at midnight.

But were they Christians? I'd say definitely not.

From the article:

Hitler was indeed a baptized Catholic, but his rejection
of the faith was profound. "My pedagogy is strict," he
once explained. "I want a powerful, masterly, cruel and
fearless youth... There must be nothing weak or tender
about them. The freedom and dignity of the wild beast
must shine from their eyes... That is how I will root out
a thousand years of human domestication."

That domestication, of course, was in large part due to
the influence of Christianity. Hitler was blunter still
on other occasions. "It is through the peasantry that we
shall really be able to destroy Christianity," he said in
1933, "because there is in them a true religion rooted in
nature and blood." His countrymen would have to
choose: "One is either a Christian or a German. You can't
be both."

Now, were there those that had exposure to the church when they were little, or who chose to renounce what faith they had simply to survive? I would think it very likely.

But to me, that's different that saying they were Christians.
That's "good" stuff...Wayne
Oct 16, 2002 10:33 AM
I knew that German nationalism (and blaming the Jews for all of Germany's ills) was at the heart of his and the Nazi belief system but I didn't realize it was that radical. I can see why he is so attractive to white supremacists.
Muslims are the nicest people on earth.Sintesi
Oct 16, 2002 11:39 AM
But get a bunch of them together and stick a Koran down their pants - LOOKOUT!!
No they are not..Eager Beagle
Oct 17, 2002 1:24 AM
They pester you to death at every market you stroll through to buy tea and perfume, all coz they have a "cousin learning English in New York" blah blah blah.

And they make awful tea.