i assume you're referring to the crusades, which were mainly political ventures in fact. i was talking about how the initial method of spreading these two religions were oppositeB.Schuss wrote:
what ? you have got to be kidding me, right ?clogar wrote:
muhammad spread islam himself by killing... it's funny how people say it's a religion of peace, and then they put down Christianity even though we spread our faith from 3000 to 3 million in 200 years, all this done non-violently.Spark wrote:
You're insane. Really.
You say that the moderates aren't following their own religion?
And you would know... how?
christian history is full of examples where we spread and "defended" and enforced our religion with the sword.
So inquisitions and torture out of religious means, or prosecute someone for having different beliefs does not count right? Every religion has it's downsides, and Christianity wasn't really much of a free, peace loving religion in the middle ages. far from. It's ok to me if you believe in it but get your facts straight.clogar wrote:
i assume you're referring to the crusades, which were mainly political ventures in fact. i was talking about how the initial method of spreading these two religions were oppositeB.Schuss wrote:
what ? you have got to be kidding me, right ?clogar wrote:
muhammad spread islam himself by killing... it's funny how people say it's a religion of peace, and then they put down Christianity even though we spread our faith from 3000 to 3 million in 200 years, all this done non-violently.
christian history is full of examples where we spread and "defended" and enforced our religion with the sword.
inane little opines
once again i was not talking about the middle ages, i was talking about the early church. it's ok if you disagree but read what i said at least.dayarath wrote:
So inquisitions and torture out of religious means, or prosecute someone for having different beliefs does not count right? Every religion has it's downsides, and Christianity wasn't really much of a free, peace loving religion in the middle ages. far from. It's ok to me if you believe in it but get your facts straight.clogar wrote:
i assume you're referring to the crusades, which were mainly political ventures in fact. i was talking about how the initial method of spreading these two religions were oppositeB.Schuss wrote:
what ? you have got to be kidding me, right ?
christian history is full of examples where we spread and "defended" and enforced our religion with the sword.
edit - note: i'm not denying the fact that the church in the middle ages was corrupt, but let me remind you that the popes afterward have not only reformed but also apologized several times, the vatican councils are examples of these reformsclogar wrote:
once again i was not talking about the middle ages, i was talking about the early church. it's ok if you disagree but read what i said at least.dayarath wrote:
So inquisitions and torture out of religious means, or prosecute someone for having different beliefs does not count right? Every religion has it's downsides, and Christianity wasn't really much of a free, peace loving religion in the middle ages. far from. It's ok to me if you believe in it but get your facts straight.clogar wrote:
i assume you're referring to the crusades, which were mainly political ventures in fact. i was talking about how the initial method of spreading these two religions were opposite
That is true, but the old testament of which the bible first occured was also filled with bloodshed. That's the really early days of christianity, however when jezus first appeared it seemed to be more of a religion based on peace. It's a good thing the popes apologize, but I've seen imams do exactly the same here and preach for peace. Not every person in a religion is bad, it's the way the person perceives things that actually make the religion imo.clogar wrote:
edit - note: i'm not denying the fact that the church in the middle ages was corrupt, but let me remind you that the popes afterward have not only reformed but also apologized several times, the vatican councils are examples of these reformsclogar wrote:
once again i was not talking about the middle ages, i was talking about the early church. it's ok if you disagree but read what i said at least.dayarath wrote:
So inquisitions and torture out of religious means, or prosecute someone for having different beliefs does not count right? Every religion has it's downsides, and Christianity wasn't really much of a free, peace loving religion in the middle ages. far from. It's ok to me if you believe in it but get your facts straight.
inane little opines
false, the old testament was not about Christianity, it was about the Jews. the prophets were not prophesying about Jesus, they were prophesying about the near future.dayarath wrote:
That is true, but the old testament of which the bible first occured was also filled with bloodshed. That's the really early days of christianity, however when jezus first appeared it seemed to be more of a religion based on peace. It's a good thing the popes apologize, but I've seen imams do exactly the same here and preach for peace. Not every person in a religion is bad, it's the way the person perceives things that actually make the religion imo.clogar wrote:
edit - note: i'm not denying the fact that the church in the middle ages was corrupt, but let me remind you that the popes afterward have not only reformed but also apologized several times, the vatican councils are examples of these reformsclogar wrote:
once again i was not talking about the middle ages, i was talking about the early church. it's ok if you disagree but read what i said at least.
edit: though it turns out that Jesus fulfills many of the prophesies
Last edited by clogar (2008-01-25 13:59:54)
what happened to the talk about how evil the WBP scumbags are...?
Love is the answer
lowing hijacked the thread.[TUF]Catbox wrote:
what happened to the talk about how evil the WBP scumbags are...?
.............But you can not say that about Jesus and his teachings..This is the point.Dersmikner wrote:
I have to say that unless history has been re-written and I've been reading bullshit (which is entirely possible but unlikely that it's ALL bullshit), Muhammad was a brutal killing cockstain. He was basically a tyrant whose particular path to control was religion. He was a thug who thought he could take control and expand his sphere of influence through violence and justify it with religion.
The same can probably be said about a bunch of "Christians" (the Spanish Inquisition, et al), but I don't use them as my example for quality living.
They are scumbags....who can really defend them and how? They are also self proclaimed Christians which allows Christianity and its teachings fair game, which then of course allows the same with other religions.[TUF]Catbox wrote:
what happened to the talk about how evil the WBP scumbags are...?
Hmm... Australia eh? Too far and i hate travel.
I'm wondering:
Does the US have any laws against inciting hatred? I know that the First Amendment protects free speech, and rightly so, but even in countries with Free Speech there are often laws against the incitement of hatred.
I know that when the WBC set up godhatesireland.com in response to us electing a gay senator, one of them was asked by one of University College Dublin's debating societies to speak on their "position", they refused because they said it was a trap to get them arrested under anti=hate-speech legislation, which I'm not even certain we have (though it's quite possible). I remember the UK instituting something like it after the terrorist attacks in London to try and reign in Al'Qaeda recruiters who were spouting hate diatribes from mosques, like that hook-handed, one-eyed lunatic, whateverhisnamewas.
So, does any such law exist in the US? If not, does anyone think it might be useful? Or is it too contradictory with the First Amendment? (I'm pretty certain that if you're a convicted criminal you should have trouble legally owning a firearm, which is a similar contradiction of the Second Amendment).
While I love free speech, I find it hard to fathom that a group of people whose main agenda is hatred of a specific group of other people can walk up to the funeral of anyone and protest, telling the greiving family that their departed loved on is burning in hell for their sins. That's just fucked up, and it's bound to cause serious suffering on the behalf of the bereaved family, surely?
Does the US have any laws against inciting hatred? I know that the First Amendment protects free speech, and rightly so, but even in countries with Free Speech there are often laws against the incitement of hatred.
I know that when the WBC set up godhatesireland.com in response to us electing a gay senator, one of them was asked by one of University College Dublin's debating societies to speak on their "position", they refused because they said it was a trap to get them arrested under anti=hate-speech legislation, which I'm not even certain we have (though it's quite possible). I remember the UK instituting something like it after the terrorist attacks in London to try and reign in Al'Qaeda recruiters who were spouting hate diatribes from mosques, like that hook-handed, one-eyed lunatic, whateverhisnamewas.
So, does any such law exist in the US? If not, does anyone think it might be useful? Or is it too contradictory with the First Amendment? (I'm pretty certain that if you're a convicted criminal you should have trouble legally owning a firearm, which is a similar contradiction of the Second Amendment).
While I love free speech, I find it hard to fathom that a group of people whose main agenda is hatred of a specific group of other people can walk up to the funeral of anyone and protest, telling the greiving family that their departed loved on is burning in hell for their sins. That's just fucked up, and it's bound to cause serious suffering on the behalf of the bereaved family, surely?
I think we have laws concerning inciting a riot, but hate I do not think so. We do not have thought police..........................yetMrE`158 wrote:
I'm wondering:
Does the US have any laws against inciting hatred? I know that the First Amendment protects free speech, and rightly so, but even in countries with Free Speech there are often laws against the incitement of hatred.
I know that when the WBC set up godhatesireland.com in response to us electing a gay senator, one of them was asked by one of University College Dublin's debating societies to speak on their "position", they refused because they said it was a trap to get them arrested under anti=hate-speech legislation, which I'm not even certain we have (though it's quite possible). I remember the UK instituting something like it after the terrorist attacks in London to try and reign in Al'Qaeda recruiters who were spouting hate diatribes from mosques, like that hook-handed, one-eyed lunatic, whateverhisnamewas.
So, does any such law exist in the US? If not, does anyone think it might be useful? Or is it too contradictory with the First Amendment? (I'm pretty certain that if you're a convicted criminal you should have trouble legally owning a firearm, which is a similar contradiction of the Second Amendment).
While I love free speech, I find it hard to fathom that a group of people whose main agenda is hatred of a specific group of other people can walk up to the funeral of anyone and protest, telling the greiving family that their departed loved on is burning in hell for their sins. That's just fucked up, and it's bound to cause serious suffering on the behalf of the bereaved family, surely?
We may be having something along those lines coming in over here soon.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/p … 617655.ece
I can't see it as a bad thing, it'd do away with the likes of The WBC at least, if you want to hate someone for whatever reason, fine go ahead, don't try to tell the world they should hate them too. I'd classify The WBC as lower than degenerate scum, a prison sentence would be a small compensation for the misery they have caused, I just hope they enjoy their stay in their precious Hell (not that I believe in it, but they obviously do).
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/p … 617655.ece
I can't see it as a bad thing, it'd do away with the likes of The WBC at least, if you want to hate someone for whatever reason, fine go ahead, don't try to tell the world they should hate them too. I'd classify The WBC as lower than degenerate scum, a prison sentence would be a small compensation for the misery they have caused, I just hope they enjoy their stay in their precious Hell (not that I believe in it, but they obviously do).
Abu HamzaMrE`158 wrote:
... like that hook-handed, one-eyed lunatic, whateverhisnamewas.
Last edited by TheEternalPessimist (2008-01-26 05:45:02)