BF2S Forums Obama's New Pastor Views Islam as Violent Faith

Shahter wrote:

Red Forman wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Change Obama to Bush and restate the question.

Then you'll see the inconsistency.

people cant.  they are too wrapped up in their blind hate/love.

you are confusing me with somebody here, gentlemen. i don't give a flying fuck about bush or obama (i do like the way obama speaks a lot better though ). so, yeah, obama's pastor is a raving lunatic - now, most of those religious cretins are either coocoo's or cinical abusers of others faith, imo, but the question still stands - what does that have to do with obama himself?

The point being...it doesn't.

But if it had been Bush just a year ago, it would've been proof. PROOF I tell you! of his religious nuttery...as evidenced by some of the completely outlandish posts just in this thread regarding "crusades" and "God and his angels" backing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I mean, really...

The only "side" that is waging any war in the name of their religion is the Islamic fundamentalist nutjob side. And everyone knows they are just using Islam as a crutch and that the West isn't actually waging war in the name of Christianity on Islam or any other such nonsense.

rammunition wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BttAQopz … re=related

Bush is President again?   When did that happen?
I thought this was about Obama liking his new pastor who thinks that Islam is violent...?

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

so, yeah, obama's pastor is a raving lunatic - now, most of those religious cretins are either coocoo's or cinical abusers of others faith, imo, but the question still stands - what does that have to do with obama himself?

The point being...it doesn't.

But if it had been Bush just a year ago, it would've been proof. PROOF I tell you! of his religious nuttery...as evidenced by some of the completely outlandish posts just in this thread regarding "crusades" and "God and his angels" backing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I mean, really...

really? ok, i don't think we should get started on what usa went to ME for again - that would undoubtedly result in another clash of completely incompatible word views, but, for what's is worth, i don't think bush went to war because he's a religious nutjob. he probably is, but these days wars don't happen because of one person's personal beleafs, even if that person's a president of the usa - that's for sure.

FEOS wrote:

The only "side" that is waging any war in the name of their religion is the Islamic fundamentalist nutjob side. And everyone knows they are just using Islam as a crutch and that the West isn't actually waging war in the name of Christianity on Islam or any other such nonsense.

yeah, right - nobody but islamic fundamentalists use their religion to justify wars... /sigh
we sure don't agree on much, but you going all lowing-like on me here would be... unfortunate, man.

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

yeah, right - nobody but islamic fundamentalists use their religion to justify wars... /sigh
we sure don't agree on much, but you going all lowing-like on me here would be... unfortunate, man.

Right now, in this war that we are discussing, the only side using their religion to justify their actions are the Islamic fundamentalists. The West is not doing that, no matter how much Ramm wishes otherwise. I'm not going "all lowing-like". I'm stating a fact.

orly? why is there a "naval chaplain" in us army then? and is there a naval rabby? what about naval imam or naval voodoo priest? why's that dude from OP - an army officer, right? - allowed to spew that crap about bloody angels and what not, and nobody condemns him for that? if that stuff does not instigate for even more religion-based hatred then i don't know what does. bush - the bloody president - spoke a lot of religious crap too ("gog and magog" my butt). and don't get me started on palin - that crazy bitch rocked them all. so, yeah, nobody uses religion to justify war in the west - nobody whatsoever.

you see, religious propaganda is very effective way to get people behind an idea. i've been reading a lot of posts here by some undoubtedly very informed people about how stalin "destroyed" all religion in soviet union. let me tell you a story: in 1941, when nazies attacked ussr and were on their way to moscow, everything looked as grim as it gets and morale in soviet army went down the toilet. it was then when stalin ordered gulag to have all them priests and imams and rabbies and i dunno whom else they had in there released, issued their "tools of trade" and brought to the front lines. the results were, reportedly, incredible - those religious psycho's were sometimes more motivating than squads of nkvd machinegunners positioned behind the firing lines with orders of gunning down anybody who tried to back off.

what i'm trying to say here is that everybody uses their religion to justify war - as long as some people are dumb enough to need a religious crutch to support them in their lives it would be very stupid not to use that to motivate those people. the problem with bush and the likes is that they do it wrong.

FEOS wrote:

I'm not saying Islam is evil. I'm saying the Islamic fundamentalists are the only ones using their religion to justify their actions (fatwa much?). I'm not saying they are in line with their religion's tenets by doing so.

oh, that again. there's no right or wrong way to follow religion's tenets, man - that's the whole point of organized religion: it's ment to be twisted and adjusted to the situation - and that's exactly what's being done with islam by those "fundamentalists" you mentioned.

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

but these days wars don't happen because of one person's personal beleafs, even if that person's a president of the usa - that's for sure.

That's 100%, undeniably, completely, hands-down...spot-fucking-on.

Aside from the misspellings and improper capitalization, of course.

i said numerous times my english was poor, man, apologized and all that, you know. i'll tell you what: let's see you try and say that^ in russian .

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

yeah, right - nobody but islamic fundamentalists use their religion to justify wars... /sigh
we sure don't agree on much, but you going all lowing-like on me here would be... unfortunate, man.

Right now, in this war that we are discussing, the only side using their religion to justify their actions are the Islamic fundamentalists. The West is not doing that, no matter how much Ramm wishes otherwise. I'm not going "all lowing-like". I'm stating a fact.

orly? why is there a "naval chaplain" in us army then? and is there a naval rabby? what about naval imam or naval voodoo priest? why's that dude from OP - an army officer, right? - allowed to spew that crap about bloody angels and what not, and nobody condemns him for that? if that stuff does not instigate for even more religion-based hatred then i don't know what does. bush - the bloody president - spoke a lot of religious crap too ("gog and magog" my butt). and don't get me started on palin - that crazy bitch rocked them all. so, yeah, nobody uses religion to justify war in the west - nobody whatsoever.

Perhaps you are being affected by translation problems.

The guy is a chaplain in the US Navy. Hence the term "Naval Chaplain".

The Chaplain Corps in all services is allowed quite a bit of latitude in the practice of their faith. But their faith is not endorsed by nor does it drive policy. The two are completely divorced, whether you choose to believe it or not.

Shahter wrote:

you see, religious propaganda is very effective way to get people behind an idea. i've been reading a lot of posts here by some undoubtedly very informed people about how stalin "destroyed" all religion in soviet union. let me tell you a story: in 1941, when nazies attacked ussr and were on their way to moscow, everything looked as grim as it gets and morale in soviet army went down the toilet. it was then when stalin ordered gulag to have all them priests and imams and rabbies and i dunno whom else they had in there released, issued their "tools of trade" and brought to the front lines. the results were, reportedly, incredible - those religious psycho's were sometimes more motivating than squads of nkvd machinegunners positioned behind the firing lines with orders of gunning down anybody who tried to back off.

what i'm trying to say here is that everybody uses their religion to justify war - as long as some people are dumb enough to need a religious crutch to support them in their lives it would be very stupid not to use that to motivate those people. the problem with bush and the likes is that they do it wrong.

Thanks for the history lesson. I suppose if the Islamic fundamentalist hordes were overwhelming our shores, the same might happen here.

But the former hasn't happened, so neither has the latter.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I'm not saying Islam is evil. I'm saying the Islamic fundamentalists are the only ones using their religion to justify their actions (fatwa much?). I'm not saying they are in line with their religion's tenets by doing so.

oh, that again. there's no right or wrong way to follow religion's tenets, man - that's the whole point of organized religion: it's ment to be twisted and adjusted to the situation - and that's exactly what's being done with islam by those "fundamentalists" you mentioned.

You've just contradicted yourself.

That's why there's a distinct difference between fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist--what is viewed as right and wrong ways to follow/interpret the tenets of the religion.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

but these days wars don't happen because of one person's personal beleafs, even if that person's a president of the usa - that's for sure.

That's 100%, undeniably, completely, hands-down...spot-fucking-on.

Aside from the misspellings and improper capitalization, of course.

i said numerous times my english was poor, man, apologized and all that, you know. i'll tell you what: let's see you try and say that^ in russian .

Meh. If my interest weren't in Chinese, I would've chosen to take Russian as an elective in my new coursework.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The Chaplain Corps in all services is allowed quite a bit of latitude in the practice of their faith. But their faith is not endorsed by nor does it drive policy. The two are completely divorced, whether you choose to believe it or not.

it doesn't matter if it's endorsed or not - they are allowed in to preach their bullshit while voodoo priests aren't.

If there were enough followers of voodoo in the service or on that base, they would. There are wiccan chaplains in addition to catholic, protestant, jewish, and muslim.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I suppose if the Islamic fundamentalist hordes were overwhelming our shores...

religious propaganda works and is being used regardless of cirsomstances by everybody. not to use such a powerfull tool would be outright stupid, and you know it.

It's also illegal. At least in the US. Thus all the "separation of church and state" lawsuits.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

oh, that again. there's no right or wrong way to follow religion's tenets, man - that's the whole point of organized religion: it's ment to be twisted and adjusted to the situation - and that's exactly what's being done with islam by those "fundamentalists" you mentioned.

You've just contradicted yourself.

That's why there's a distinct difference between fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist--what is viewed as right and wrong ways to follow/interpret the tenets of the religion.

i don't get it: i contradicted myself? when? i said that those you call "fundamentalists" use their religion the way it's ment to be used. ???

No, you said there's no right or wrong way to follow a religion's tenets. Then you give an example of extremism where that is exactly what has happened. You have a personal belief that organized religion is somehow designed to be twisted and adjusted to a situation to justify just about anything...when if you bothered to actually learn the tenets of a given religion you would see is a highly uninformed opinion. Do something more than just reading one or two or a dozen verses out of context of the larger work, then develop an opinion on what the deeper meaning of the tenets of the religion are, not the twisting of that religion by man.

FEOS wrote:

It's also illegal. At least in the US. Thus all the "separation of church and state" lawsuits.

Strange then that an extremist pastor is paid and free to convert soldiers during a war.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

If there were enough followers of voodoo in the service or on that base, they would. There are wiccan chaplains in addition to catholic, protestant, jewish, and muslim.

i see. so us army allows religious dudes in to preach. so, tell me: what for, exactly?

For the same reason they have psychologists and psychiatrists.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

religious propaganda works and is being used regardless of cirsomstances by everybody. not to use such a powerfull tool would be outright stupid, and you know it.

It's also illegal. At least in the US. Thus all the "separation of church and state" lawsuits.

well... why don't they make the likes of bush and palin stfu?

Because we also have freedom of speech.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

i don't get it: i contradicted myself? when? i said that those you call "fundamentalists" use their religion the way it's ment to be used. ???

No, you said there's no right or wrong way to follow a religion's tenets. Then you give an example of extremism where that is exactly what has happened. You have a personal belief that organized religion is somehow designed to be twisted and adjusted to a situation to justify just about anything...when if you bothered to actually learn the tenets of a given religion you would see is a highly uninformed opinion. Do something more than just reading one or two or a dozen verses out of context of the larger work, then develop an opinion on what the deeper meaning of the tenets of the religion are, not the twisting of that religion by man.

you've no idea how much time i spent researching this stuff, man. i was always fascinated by religion, was always curious why so many people on this bloody planet allow themselves to be fooled with stories about talking snakes and some dude who sit up there on a cloud waving his skinny feet. how any organization based on such petty beleafs could grow to something as influential and powerfull as catholic chirch, for example. now, don't get me wrong - i'm not attacking your personal faith, whatever it might be, not at all, because that i simply cannot understand. i'm just saying that organized religion, imo, could only be that - information manipulation tool, there's no other purpose to it i can come up with. those "tenets" you speak of are so obscure and self-contradicting, yet so obviously manufactured (in my opinion, of course) - it's not even funny.

Again, you are focusing on what man has done with it, rather than the message it is trying to relay. They are very often not even close to each other, resulting in contradiction between the message and the teachings. Hence my disillusion with organized religion in general.

FEOS wrote:

Again, you are focusing on what man has done with it, rather than the message it is trying to relay. They are very often not even close to each other, resulting in contradiction between the message and the teachings. Hence my disillusion with organized religion in general.

Some sense for once, applies to all religions about equally IMO.
The problem I have with religion is how people use/abuse it.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-10-21 16:27:27)

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

If there were enough followers of voodoo in the service or on that base, they would. There are wiccan chaplains in addition to catholic, protestant, jewish, and muslim.

i see. so us army allows religious dudes in to preach. so, tell me: what for, exactly?

For the same reason they have psychologists and psychiatrists.

man, you understood exactly what i asked... but, if you insist, here we go: tell me, what exactly can those religious psycho's do that psychologists and psychiatrists can't?

Spiritual counseling. Spirituality is a key piece of the whole person's psyche, for a majority of the population. Keep in mind that the demographics of this forum are not necessarily reflective of the demographics of the respective populations of the countries represented--particularly with regards to religious views.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

well... why don't they make the likes of bush and palin stfu?

Because we also have freedom of speech.

this time i thinks it's you who contradicted yourself. how can you have freedom of speech and have religious propaganda illegal at the same time?

Freedom of speech with regard to private matters. Religious propaganda illegal in public policy. Two completely different areas of operation. Not contradictory at all.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Again, you are focusing on what man has done with it, rather than the message it is trying to relay. They are very often not even close to each other, resulting in contradiction between the message and the teachings. Hence my disillusion with organized religion in general.

well, this was bound to end this way i guess. you approach those "religious tenets" from the point of your personal faith - you intend to find stuff that correlates with your pre-disposition towards them. you use your religion the same way everybody else does - interpret it in your own way so that it starts looking like it actually re-inforces something you take for granted in the first place. i don't do anything like that - i try to see that religious stuff for what it actually is, and i simply don't see how can any kind of "universal message" be derived from it. everybody does whatever they want with that nonsence, including all them priests, imams, fundamentalists and presidents of the united states - and religion serves them all just fine, regardless of their intentions.
i guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. again.

Then you are purposefully ignoring the central purpose and message of the religion(s) in question and focusing on man's manipulation thereof. I guess the difference between you and I is that what I take for granted is that man will twist an inherently beneficent message to suit his own non necessarily beneficent goals. You view the message itself as non-beneficent from the beginning.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

For the same reason they have psychologists and psychiatrists.

man, you understood exactly what i asked... but, if you insist, here we go: tell me, what exactly can those religious psycho's do that psychologists and psychiatrists can't?

Spiritual counseling. Spirituality is a key piece of the whole person's psyche, for a majority of the population.

now you are speaking in tongues, man. define "spiritual counceling" for me. in rational terms, please (you said it yourself - us army does not endorse religious stuff, so their reasons to have them chaplains must be purely rational, right?).

Or you could use that new-fangled "Google" thing.

http://www.goarmy.com/chaplain/about_army_chaplain.jsp

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Keep in mind that the demographics of this forum are not necessarily reflective of the demographics of the respective populations of the countries represented--particularly with regards to religious views.

oh, i see. thanks for the info, but i do know that most people on this planet have some sort of religious bug in their heads, and you know what? - it has nothing to do with what we are discussing here.

Eh...what?

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

how can you have freedom of speech and have religious propaganda illegal at the same time?

Freedom of speech with regard to private matters. Religious propaganda illegal in public policy. Two completely different areas of operation. Not contradictory at all.

that's why we are talking about them bloody presidents and the likes here - c'mon, just how many things about those individuals are actually their "private matters", man?

Plenty. Personal feelings about a certain topic. Policy that is at odds with that. It happens all the time.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

well, this was bound to end this way i guess. you approach those "religious tenets" from the point of your personal faith - you intend to find stuff that correlates with your pre-disposition towards them. you use your religion the same way everybody else does - interpret it in your own way so that it starts looking like it actually re-inforces something you take for granted in the first place. i don't do anything like that - i try to see that religious stuff for what it actually is, and i simply don't see how can any kind of "universal message" be derived from it. everybody does whatever they want with that nonsence, including all them priests, imams, fundamentalists and presidents of the united states - and religion serves them all just fine, regardless of their intentions.
i guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. again.

Then you are purposefully ignoring the central purpose and message of the religion(s) in question and focusing on man's manipulation thereof. I guess the difference between you and I is that what I take for granted is that man will twist an inherently beneficent message to suit his own non necessarily beneficent goals. You view the message itself as non-beneficent from the beginning.

i'm not ignoring anything, i'm just not assuming that religion must have some sort of "beneficial message" before i actually see it for myself - and i only see complete and utter nonsence.

Because that is what you choose to see. Because it is easier for you.

FEOS wrote:

Because that is what you choose to see. Because it is easier for you.

At least he can choose, better than being told what to think by some 2,000 year old dead guy who wiped his bum with his hand.