Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Boston Marathon Explosion (Page 11)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 23 pages: 1  2  3  ...  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  ...  21  22  23   
Author Topic: Boston Marathon Explosion
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"In the course of the fifth century the Roman system of schools was entirely destroyed."

Linux, having done a teeny bit of research on the matter in the last couple hours, I have to admit that I was wrong and that you were right about literacy being higher in ancient Rome. However, you remain absolutely wrong to assume that Pagan Romans were less "religious"! [Big Grin]

I didn't actually say that Pagans were less religious either... I didn't notice you mention that before. Indeed they were probably equally if not more religious... so much so that Christianity had to incorporate considerable amounts of the Pagan traditions into their own in order to gain popularity. Christmas, Easter, etc, etc... all Pagan holidays.

Just because religion exists doesn't automatically mean it will do bad things, but the potential is always there because of the mindset that you shouldn't question the beliefs... it sort of ends up like a game of telephone where you end up with these crazy ideas at the other end and nobody knows how it happened, but in the case of religion people are expected to simply accept at face value, and the more faith you have, the "better" you are as a person pretty much.

[ April 21, 2013, 08:02 PM: Message edited by: LinuxFreakus ]

Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
Linux

For a start you're totally ignoring Byzantium, the Pandidakterion was founded in 425 CE

These were eastern areas which fortunately survived largely unperturbed for some time without suffering so many of the effects seen in the rest of Europe.... but how did it go after the fourth crusade? If I recall, I think there was a period of sharp decline under the subsequent Church management, but the universities did survive more intact than other areas... but were not truely restored until much later. Constantinople didn't really come back until the 1400-1500's

I might also add, since you mentioned the Franciscans... they didn't really come to prominence until the Renaissance when Europe was benefitting from the influx of knowledge from the east where the ancient knowledge had been cultivated and preserved. Indeed things didn't go very well for the Franciscans during the inquisition either.

[ April 21, 2013, 08:28 PM: Message edited by: LinuxFreakus ]

Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Christianity had to incorporate considerable amounts of the Pagan traditions into their own in order to gain popularity. Christmas, Easter, etc, etc... all Pagan holidays."

I can give you a stronger argument than that [Big Grin] The very word "Christ" came from an indo-european Pagan concept, which was used to loosely translate the Jewish "Messiah" concept to Gentiles, through a reference to a term from Pagan mythologies. I suspect that the term has the same etymology as "Krishna."

Christianity didn't "have to" borrow such things, but it did, and we're the richer for it. Some Christians are in denial over that borrowing, but other Christians have acknowledged it openly, e.g. both the Monk that wrote the manuscript we know as Beowulf, and the lay cleric that wrote Sir Gawain in the Green Knight, acknowledged and honored Pagan origins of things which Christians should preserve and admire.

"but the potential is always there because of the mindset that you shouldn't question the beliefs..."

But that mindset isn't an inherent part of religion, nor is it exclusive to religion. The Old Testament is filled with examples of people arguing, even with God. Abraham haggled with God over whether Sodom and Gomorrah should be destroyed. Jacob wrestled with an angel to obtain a blessing. Gideon demanded proof after proof from God, before he agreed to fight for him. Those that read these stories and get the impression that we're just supposed to believe and not ask questions, IMO aren't really thinking about the stories seriously enough to form genuine faith.

Anyway, I'm enjoying this argument with you, and apologize for giving you the face-palm over the Roman literacy, especially since I turned out to be wrong. [Embarrassed]

[ April 21, 2013, 08:23 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Pete:] "I know enough about the Florida situation to say that whether you know it or not, you're passing on Al Qaeda propaganda."

This kind of response is what makes it unpleasant to "debate" with you.

[Pete:] "I've seen interview after interview of his former American friends that he rejected when he turned into a sicko fundy. He rejected them, and of course they didn't understand him then."

My comment went to state of mind. Your comment supports that, although I'm not willing to call him a sicko fundy. Do you have to always make such strident claims? I think they weaken your argument rather than reinforce it. Look back over your comments in this thread and you'll see that you've done it time after time.

[VL:] "Al three of the most prominent Islamaphobes in the US were the late Christopher Hitchens and Bill Maher, both atheists, and Pam Geller, a Jew. So I still think this is an ecumenical phobia."

None of them are the kinds of people I was talking about, since none of them are legislators or otherwise political or religious leaders. They're just pundits who never carried out any of the actions I described. Geller accuses Obama of being a Muslim who "kowtows to his Muslim overlords", which doesn't speak well to her authority to speak on Islam in general.

I'm not sure that Hitchens or Maher serve your point, either, since both are staunchly anti-Christian, as well. Their themes are anti-all religions.

Hitchens:
quote:
The Bible may, indeed does, contain a warrant for trafficking in humans, for ethnic cleansing, for slavery, for bride-price, and for indiscriminate massacre, but we are not bound by any of it because it was put together by crude, uncultured human mammals.
Maher:
quote:
Rational people, anti-religionists, must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves. And those who consider themselves only moderately religious really need to look in the mirror and realize that the solace and comfort that religion brings you actually comes at a terrible price.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There should be some investigation force you can call when your sister or daughter turns into some fundy's 24/7 bitch

quote:
Katherine Russell, the widow of Boston bomb suspect, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was 'an all-American girl who was brainwashed' by her extremist husband according to one schoolfriend.

Today MailOnline has gained the first glimpse and pictures of the early life of the woman who, according to those who knew her best, was 'totally transformed' by Tsarnaev.
...
By the time she was 21 she had married him and borne his child, Zahara, now three. She had converted to Islam, hidden her tumble of chestnut hair beneath the hijab and undergone a change so profound that today few friends profess to truly understand it.

Yesterday Katherine, who has been staying at her parents’ home in Rhode Island, returned to the Cambridge, Massachusetts home which she shared with her late husband.

Dressed in a leopard print hijab she darted into the white shingle house to collect some belongings and her pet cat while her daughter waited in the car.
...
As a girl growing up in Rhode Island Katherine was known to her friends as Katie. One school friend who asked not to be named recalled: ‘I saw her like a few months ago and she was just totally transformed. She was not the same person at all.’
...
Katherine was astudent at Sussex University, Boston, when she met Tsaraev, then a promising boxer and athlete.

It was during that time that she converted and her youthful priorities appear to have changed as she left in 2010 without graduating.

By then her relationship with Tsaraev was intense. Not even his arrest for violently assaulting her in 2009 could change that.

According to Cambridge City Police Department reports of the incident which took place in July at the Massachusetts home she once shared with Tsaraev, when interviewed she described Tsaraev as ‘a very nice man.’

Certainly he was a man whose influence on Katherine's life would prove profound.

There is only one odd and unsettling inclusion in her own entry in her graduation High School Yearbook.

Asked to provide a quotation she settled on one that would surely chime with the extremist views of her late husband.

‘Don’t take anything for granted,’ she advises, before quoting a line from David Bowie's 'Quicksand': ‘Don’t believe in yourself, don’t deceive with belief,’ the baffling lines run. ‘Knowledge comes from death’s release.’

I've seen people lose their kids in family court for less. While I was disgusted by the heavy hand of the state in such cases, I suspect that someone in CPS turned a blind eye and failing to ask questions, in order to be politically correct about Islam.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
[Pete:] "I know enough about the Florida situation to say that whether you know it or not, you're passing on Al Qaeda propaganda."

This kind of response is what makes it unpleasant to "debate" with you.

[Pete:] "I've seen interview after interview of his former American friends that he rejected when he turned into a sicko fundy. He rejected them, and of course they didn't understand him then."

My comment went to state of mind. Your comment supports that, although I'm not willing to call him a sicko fundy. Do you have to always make such strident claims? I think they weaken your argument rather than reinforce it. Look back over your comments in this thread and you'll see that you've done it time after time.

He beat his wife, who covers her head, doesn't leave the house, and writes about looking forward to the release of death, but says her hubby is really a nice guy. Hmm.

Oh yeah, and he murdered a bunch of people at the Olympics, murdered a cop, and threw hand grenades out of a car window. Why do I need to pussyfoot around calling him a sicko fundy?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
[Pete:] "I know enough about the Florida situation to say that whether you know it or not, you're passing on Al Qaeda propaganda."

This kind of response is what makes it unpleasant to "debate" with you.

Note to Linux: here, it's Al, an atheist, using the "unpleasant" card to avoid my challenges to Al's claim about Florida.

Again, Al, you could admit you were wrong on Florida, or you could produce some actual facts (rather than recitations of what people are reported to think) to show that the Florida law was in any way unfair to Muslims.

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Al:

"They passed a law to affirm that US laws govern the country. What would be different in Florida today if they hadn't passed it?"

To understand the answer to that question, you need to understand the three different types of law in the USA:

1. SUBSTANTIVE LAW.

2. Procedural law.

3. Choice of Law provisions.


This law affects which types of foreign SUBSTANTIVE law can be enforced or respected under US choice of law provisions, and also under the Hague Convention on family law.

For example, if a court in France awards sole custody to dad, finding that mom is unfit, then if Mom grabs the kids, a Florida court will find against Mom for kidnapping under the Hague Convention. However, per this law, if a Saudi Arabia court awards kids to dad, based on some misogynistic Sharia law which violates the US constitution, Florida says screw the Hague Convention, we're giving Mommy a day in a real court. And I think that's entirely reasonable.



[ April 21, 2013, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
djquag1
Member
Member # 6553

 - posted      Profile for djquag1   Email djquag1       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just dropping by to WTF at the outrage over outlawing Sharia law. It's so prejudiced that we require women not to be treated like animals, and outlaw honor killings.

This is the United States. That crap doesn't fly here, and you're damn right we should take a stand, legislatively and symbolically, against it.

Posts: 769 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
political correctness foils prior Russian warning re Islamic militant counseling Marathon Bomber
quote:
It has emerged that Russian authorities alerted the FBI about their concerns over Tsarnaeva's links after he was spotted speaking to an Islamic militant six times at a mosque in Dagestan last year.

...
‘The FBI did not find any terrorism activity, domestic or foreign, and those results were provided to the foreign government in the summer of 2011. The FBI requested but did not receive more specific or additional information from the foreign government,’ the bureau’s statement read.

‘They were all afraid of Tamerlan’ his mother told ABC News referring to the U.S. government.

‘They wanted to eliminate him as a threat because he was in love with Islam. For the last five years they were following him.’

Surviving brother (the one who ran over his brother and shot his own face out to avoid interrogation) was thrown out of his own mosque for being a sicko fundy 3 months ago

quote:
Boston marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev was thrown out of his local mosque for 'crazy' behavior after getting involved a 'shouting match' with his imam according to one member of the congregation.
Tamerlan Tsarnaev was ejected from his Boston mosque for aggressive behavior after insulting Martin Luther King Jr. during a Friday prayer service three months ago

Tamerlan Tsarnaev was ejected from his Boston mosque for aggressive behavior after insulting Martin Luther King Jr. during a Friday prayer service three months ago

Described as being full of rage by a worshiper who would give his name only as Muhammad, Tamerlan was ejected from the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center three months ago for claiming that Martin Luther King Jr. was not a man Muslims should look to emulate.

This revelation comes as Ruslan Tsarni, an uncle of Tamerlan, claimed that his nephew had fallen under the spell of a mysterious religious leader in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who radicalized him and his brother Dzhokhar into committing Monday's terror outrage.

The dramatic confrontation between Tamerlan and his imam began when the 26-year-old interrupted a solemn Friday prayer service three months ago.

The imam had just offered up assassinated civil rights icon Martin Luther King Jr. as a fine example of a man to emulate - but this reportedly enraged Tamerlan.

'You cannot mention this guy because he’s not a Muslim!' Muhammad recalled Tamerlan shouting, shocking others in attendance according to the LA Times.

Kicked out of the mosque for his outrageous behavior, Tamerlan did return to the prayer service after his outburst according to Muhammad.

Thank heavens for folks in the Muslim community that are coming forward and giving us the best leads so far on what motivated these chumps. I suspect that if anyone helps us find the "mysterious religious leader in Cambridge, Massachusetts," it will be Muslims.

[ April 21, 2013, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wow, I hadn't yet seen that stuff about Tamerlan's wife, I continue to be amazed that nobody said anything or raised more alarms... again this underscores my thoughts about people doing nothing and not questioning crazy ideas for fear of "offending someone" or being accused of not "respecting" religious beliefs.

If that were my Daughter, things would have turned out different, at least for her, though I'm not sure Tamerlan's path would have changed as it may have already been too late to reach him by then. I suspect we'll find out that this started much earlier in his childhood and nobody in his life felt compelled to step in and course correct.

Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LinuxFreakus:
Wow, I hadn't yet seen that stuff about [Tsaraev]'s wife, I continue to be amazed that nobody said anything or raised more alarms... again this underscores my thoughts about people doing nothing and not questioning crazy ideas for fear of "offending someone" or being accused of not "respecting" religious beliefs.

If that were my Daughter, things would have turned out different, at least for her, though I'm not sure Tamerlan's path would have changed as it may have already been too late to reach him by then. I suspect we'll find out that this started much earlier in his childhood and nobody in his life felt compelled to step in and course correct.

I'm all with you, Linux. We need to be able to ask questions when loved ones start getting visibly brainwashed by wackos, whether religious or not.

Edited to correct -- Tsaraev is the dead one who abused his wife, Tamerlan is the bastard that ran over his brother Tsaraev, shot out his own mouth to avoid being interrogated, and had a screaming fit in his mosque when an Imam brought up Martin Luther King in a sermon.

[ April 21, 2013, 09:17 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
political correctness foils prior Russian warning re Islamic militant counseling Marathon Bomber
quote:
It has emerged that Russian authorities alerted the FBI about their concerns over Tsarnaeva's links after he was spotted speaking to an Islamic militant six times at a mosque in Dagestan last year.

...
‘The FBI did not find any terrorism activity, domestic or foreign, and those results were provided to the foreign government in the summer of 2011. The FBI requested but did not receive more specific or additional information from the foreign government,’ the bureau’s statement read.

‘They were all afraid of Tamerlan’ his mother told ABC News referring to the U.S. government.

‘They wanted to eliminate him as a threat because he was in love with Islam. For the last five years they were following him.’

Surviving brother (the one who ran over his brother and shot his own face out to avoid interrogation) was thrown out of his own mosque for being a sicko fundy 3 months ago

quote:
Boston marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev was thrown out of his local mosque for 'crazy' behavior after getting involved a 'shouting match' with his imam according to one member of the congregation.
Tamerlan Tsarnaev was ejected from his Boston mosque for aggressive behavior after insulting Martin Luther King Jr. during a Friday prayer service three months ago

Tamerlan Tsarnaev was ejected from his Boston mosque for aggressive behavior after insulting Martin Luther King Jr. during a Friday prayer service three months ago

Described as being full of rage by a worshiper who would give his name only as Muhammad, Tamerlan was ejected from the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center three months ago for claiming that Martin Luther King Jr. was not a man Muslims should look to emulate.

This revelation comes as Ruslan Tsarni, an uncle of Tamerlan, claimed that his nephew had fallen under the spell of a mysterious religious leader in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who radicalized him and his brother Dzhokhar into committing Monday's terror outrage.

The dramatic confrontation between Tamerlan and his imam began when the 26-year-old interrupted a solemn Friday prayer service three months ago.

The imam had just offered up assassinated civil rights icon Martin Luther King Jr. as a fine example of a man to emulate - but this reportedly enraged Tamerlan.

'You cannot mention this guy because he’s not a Muslim!' Muhammad recalled Tamerlan shouting, shocking others in attendance according to the LA Times.

Kicked out of the mosque for his outrageous behavior, Tamerlan did return to the prayer service after his outburst according to Muhammad.

Thank heavens for folks in the Muslim community that are coming forward and giving us the best leads so far on what motivated these chumps. I suspect that if anyone helps us find the "mysterious religious leader in Cambridge, Massachusetts," it will be Muslims.

Holy smokes... again, with all this stuff coming out, how did nobody take action after all these clear warning signs that he was either mentally ill or otherwise in need of serious help.

Society has got to change, and we need laws or services or something to start reaching out and helping these troubled individuals. Right now we have basically nothing in place to reach such people. We don't even have full medical coverage. We could be doing so much more, but we do not.

At least in terms of the law, I am not sure what can be done because it would have to fit within the constitution too... but there must be something

Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Care to attack me for referencing the Oklahoma law?

No, I would not. I think you're RIGHT about Oklahoma, though dead wrong on Florida.

quote:
An amendment that would ban Oklahoma courts from considering international or Islamic law discriminates against religions and a Muslim community leader has the right to challenge its constitutionality, a federal appeals court said Tuesday.

The court in Denver upheld U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange's order blocking implementation of the amendment shortly after it was approved by 70 percent of Oklahoma voters in November 2010.

Muneer Awad, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma, sued to block the law from taking effect, arguing that the Save Our State Amendment violated his First Amendment rights.

The amendment read, in part: "The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law."

My interpretation there is that OK legislators are riding on a wave of fear against Sharia, in order to pass a reactionary anti-international law bill. Sharia is just the way they duped legislators to vote for that turd of a law. The international law provisions are arguably unconstitutional, though not for the reasons that Muneer Awad cited. [Big Grin] There is no first amendment right to have the court consider your holy writ as authority.

I agree with you that the passage of the law was based on fear, and that it's a stupid law. However, if you think that it's wrong to fear Sharia, then you are wrong, my friend.

The recent horror against Sharia was entirely justified by a number of public cases in Northern Nigeria and in Saudi Arabia that highlighted the horrors of the Sharia system with regard to women and with regard to the weight of testimony of muslim witnesses vs non-Muslim witnesses. Particularly nauseating was a pregnant woman in Northern Nigeria who was sentenced to a flogging for getting pregnant out of wedlock. As a defense, she said she'd been raped by two farmers. Since the farmers were Muslim, her flogging was DOUBLED, since Sharia law imposes penalties on anyone who accuses a Muslim of such a crime, unless they can produce four Muslim eyewitnesses to the crime.

The Northern Nigeria case evokes particular fear, since it was only in recent years that the northern Nigerian provinces obtained the right from the central government to impose Sharia law. And Canadian legislators were flirting with the idea of allowing Muslims to opt into Sharia marriage laws, which among other atrocities give men substantive rights which are denied to women. Contempt of adopting Sharia law isn't Islamophobia, it's a well earned disgust for a legal system which no civilized society should contemplate in this day and age. No doubt it was an improvement back in the days of Mohammed. But I doubt that Mohammed himself would want it implemented in the modern context.

Anyway, Al, wouldn't you be concerned if the Court used Leviticus or the Gospels as a source of law? In that light, I don't understand why Sharia should be in the mix ...

[ April 21, 2013, 09:39 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:


Edited to correct -- Tsaraev is the dead one who abused his wife, Tamerlan is the bastard that ran over his brother Tsaraev, shot out his own mouth to avoid being interrogated, and had a screaming fit in his mosque when an Imam brought up Martin Luther King in a sermon.

Aw damnit, no, that's wrong; it's the other way around. Sorry.

Praise the FBI! The kid brother is writing out answers to question, despite shooting out his stupid face to avoid confession.

Why do I have to go to the British press to get useful details?

quote:
The alleged Boston Marathon bomber is awake and responding to questions in his hospital bed.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is responding sporadically in writing to questions from investigators regarding other cell members and other unexploded bombs, law enforcement sources told ABC News.

The 19-year-old shoved his pistol in his own mouth and pulled the trigger as SWAT officers and federal agents closed in on the boat where he was hiding on Friday night. However, instead of killing him, the bullet simply tore through his neck.

Authorities initially said they couldn't question him because of the throat wound. CNN reports earlier today that Tsarnaev was 'intubated and sedated' at a Boston hospital.

The Boston police commissioner said Tsarnaev is in 'critical but stable' condition on Sunday - which appears to be a downgrade from reports earlier this weekend that his condition was only 'serious.'

Boston Mayor Tom Menino had earlier feared that federal agents would never be able to interview Tsarnaev but it seems that investigators may already be making progress.

Police sources told MailOnline that investigators are looking into the possibility that Tsarnaev and his older brother Tamerlan had a suicide pact so that neither of them could be taken alive and put on trial. Authorities believe Dzhokhar likely killed him brother, who was handcuffed, when he ran over him.


Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LinuxFreakus:
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
Linux

For a start you're totally ignoring Byzantium, the Pandidakterion was founded in 425 CE

These were eastern areas which fortunately survived largely unperturbed for some time without suffering so many of the effects seen in the rest of Europe.... but how did it go after the fourth crusade? If I recall, I think there was a period of sharp decline under the subsequent Church management, but the universities did survive more intact than other areas... but were not truely restored until much later. Constantinople didn't really come back until the 1400-1500's

I might also add, since you mentioned the Franciscans... they didn't really come to prominence until the Renaissance when Europe was benefitting from the influx of knowledge from the east where the ancient knowledge had been cultivated and preserved. Indeed things didn't go very well for the Franciscans during the inquisition either.

Since I'm Orthodox I'm not sympthetic to the Catholics regrding the 4th crusde, but that's not really relevant to my point. Until the 1100s there was only one church.
Anyway you're not going to consider want I'm saying about the Catholics and I've spent enough time doing a job Paladine should be here doing himself.


Look you came in talking about crazy religous beliefs based in no reality and showing them less tolerance. That's like coing in saying we need to be more careful about the influence of the Jews in government in Hollywood and government. Even if you don't think you're being offensive to the people who've been on the receiving end of institutional persecution that's going to ring the warning bells.

I don't have any problem with questioning people about their beliefs, but if you start out by saying those beliefs are crazy and have no basis in reality then you sound hostile. Of course the walls go up.

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al my point is that Islamaphobia isn't so much a religous position in the USA as it is a political one. Islamaphobic American Christians aren't afraid of Islam because its a religous competitor, they're afraid muslims are a threat to our lives. In that they're on the same page as Maher and Hitchens.

To repeat you're not rebutting my point. You're talking about your own point. You're welcome to do that, but you're not addressing my point in anything other than a tangential way.

To rebut me you'd have to demonstrate that there are a majority of Catholic Republicans that oppose their party on the issues (war, torture, the death penalty) where their clergy disagree with the church, and/or demonstrate that evangellical Christian ministers are arriving at political/social positions before conservative pundits consistently. (Which is hard because evangelical ministers have the same opinion leaders most of their congregants do.)

Until you manage that I'm going to stick with my opinion that religion is less a social binder than politics in our society.

[ April 21, 2013, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by djquag1:
Just dropping by to WTF at the outrage over outlawing Sharia law. It's so prejudiced that we require women not to be treated like animals, and outlaw honor killings.

This is the United States. That crap doesn't fly here, and you're damn right we should take a stand, legislatively and symbolically, against it.

I don't think it was ever a threat here to begin with, our constitution doesn't allow for it. But maybe we should thank Al for finding common ground for you and I so quickly. [Razz]
Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I don't think it was ever a threat here to begin with, our constitution doesn't allow for it."

It does pose a constitutional threat, through the "Law of Nations" clause, which courts have sometimes perversely misinterpreted as a right for US courts (rather than Congress, as stated in the constitution) to recognize aspects of the Law of Nations. With Canada and some European & African countries getting browbeaten by Muslim minorities, into recognition of Sharia law in various contexts, it's entirely possible that some US judges might recognize that trend as part of a Law of Nations issue that requires recognition. And an act of Congress might explicitly bypass other constitutional protections. That's not been tested. A stronger theory would be bypassing of constitutional protections through recognition of some Treaty.

With that said, there are SOME portions of Sharia law that were groundbreaking in their time, e.g. certain provisions against aggression, and against certain things that we'd call war crimes today. Mohammed was ahead of his time in many respects. Today, not so much.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:

Look you came in talking about crazy religous beliefs based in no reality and showing them less tolerance. That's like coing in saying we need to be more careful about the influence of the Jews in government in Hollywood and government. Even if you don't think you're being offensive to the people who've been on the receiving end of institutional persecution that's going to ring the warning bells.

I don't have any problem with questioning people about their beliefs, but if you start out by saying those beliefs are crazy and have no basis in reality then you sound hostile. Of course the walls go up.

I did no such thing. I admit I did make a blanket statement regarding "crazy beliefs", when perhaps I should have just used a few examples but again, if someone tells me something that is blatantly not true or obviously unknowable, why should I just let it fly without pointing it out? Why is it considered rude or offensive to question someone's beliefs when they are tied to religion?

Why is it automatically considered hostile if you question something someone tells you?... its just like telling people to be careful of the influence of Jews? are you joking? That isn't even close to what I said. I didn't single out anyone, or any group.

Just a simple concept. When outlandish claims are made, we should be questioning them. Simple.

Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think that it's the blanket statement that offended Viking.

I generally agree with you that when outlandish claims are made, we should question them.

The reason that I said "generally" is that unfortunately, there are instances where folks have power over us, e.g. are our teachers, our bosses, or hold a gun to our heads, where it's not such a good idea to question their outlandish claims. My son has a teacher that told the whole class (during a discussion of To Kill a Mockingbird) that those who oppose same-sex marriage no different morally from the racist townspeople in To Kill a Mockingbird. I told my son that when your high school teachers say something vicious and unreasonable like that, better not to argue with them, otherwise you're painting a big target on yourself. The teachers willing to be questioned don't start out by making such broad accusations. Don't argue politics or religion or sports with some bastard that has a gun to your head.

[ April 21, 2013, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:

Anyway you're not going to consider want I'm saying about the Catholics and I've spent enough time doing a job Paladine should be here doing himself.

I would consider anything you have to say. I'm not sitting here thinking I know everything there is to know about this period of history. I've never studied it in extensive detail as some may have done. I have just studied enough to have drawn the conclusions that I've drawn.

I'm sure not every since person in the entire catholic leadership for 1000 years followed the general trend of destruction of knowledge calling it the work of the devil, etc... but as far as I'm concerned the evidence shows that as a whole, the Papal rule was a disaster for Europe which set back the advancement of civilization by a thousand years (maybe not quite that much since the east was still advancing and this knowledge was later transferred... but it was pretty grim for a very long time). When you get to the point where you actually kill off your own language, and the monks have no idea what the Latin works they are speaking actually mean, they just have them memorized... in fact I forgot to mention that another reason many of the ancient works were preserved was just because they were written on valuable parchment which they decided to save... so that it could be scrapped and reused for the scribbling of the precious monkish chronicles and theological folderol... they made copy after copy of these works, in the process defacing the old volumes of neglected authors... a practice which continued until sixteenth century! It is pretty incredible if you as me.

I mean seriously, how can you look at that and with a straight face claim that Christianity gave us schools? Or did I misunderstand you? Were you just claiming it was religion in general and not Christianity? You might have a case for religion in general (as I've already recounted, in high level detail previously)... but I just don't currently see how you could hold early Christianity up as a beacon for schools and education. Feel free to enlighten me if you have credible contradictory historical evidence.

Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In my own view, Linux, Christianity was intended to be a religion, not a form of government. So I agree with you that theocracy was a bad thing. With that said, Viking is right that we owe the Catholic and Orthodox monks a debt of gratitude for all the scholarship that they preserved through years of barbarism. Sadly the Western church destroyed a great deal of that in the 4th Crusade, which was certainly one of the most shameful moments in the history of the Christian community ... but every community has its nadir.

The Roman Empire was heading towards an inevitable implosion. It could not have been sustained much longer even if Christianity hadn't made an appearance.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Linux you partially misunderstood me. The modern university system ws developed in the middle ages by the Franciscans. Again, that's why a proffesor's dress robe has the hood.

Linux the only way your point of view makes sense is if you're presuming that without the Catholic church the Roman empire would have continued for another thousand years or so. Are you making some version of that presumption?

I don't share your fetish for Latin either. It's just a language, one half the Empire rejected in favor of Greek.

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[djquag1: ]
quote:
Just dropping by to WTF at the outrage over outlawing Sharia law. It's so prejudiced that we require women not to be treated like animals, and outlaw honor killings.

This is the United States. That crap doesn't fly here, and you're damn right we should take a stand, legislatively and symbolically, against it.

So, when or where has Sharia law been applied in the US so that it now has to be banned? I heard of one municipal judge who implied that he wanted to let two parties work out their differences without him having to make a court ruling and report back to him, but otherwise I've never heard of it happening.

If you're so offended by that practice or any other non-American practice, why don't you try to have *all* non-American forms of law explicitly outlawed instead of just Sharia law? Maybe you should be even more outraged that that hasn't happened.

[Pete:] "It does pose a constitutional threat, through the "Law of Nations" clause,..."

It's interesting how many arguments you can summon up, each one drifting further afield. If you're right about some of them, the entire US judicial system is hanging by a thread as the world takes over our legal processes. I can begin to see how rabid 2A'ers think the UN will take away their guns.

[VL:]
quote:
Al my point is that Islamaphobia isn't so much a religous position in the USA as it is a political one. Islamaphobic American Christians aren't afraid of Islam because its a religous competitor, they're afraid muslims are a threat to our lives. In that they're on the same page as Maher and Hitchens.

To repeat you're not rebutting my point. You're talking about your own point. You're welcome to do that, but you're not addressing my point in anything other than a tangential way.

My point is that you're picking up on only part of the issue. In the sense that all religions encompass social and political agendas you're trying to focus on just the social/political side of the issue. That you've found 2 atheists who hate Christianity to make your point because they might also hate Islam isn't terribly convincing, because they hate all religions. The Facebook group "Christian and jewish crusaders united against radical islam" isn't a politically oriented group, for instance:
quote:
Christian Defence League is an informational page giving information about the dangers of Sharia to Christians worldwide. Saying no to Sharia Law worldwide one Christian at a time. Please refrain from criticizing other Christian denominations here or our Jewish friends.
It's apparent that we won't see eye to eye, so I'll let this drop.

One last comment on this thread for a while. First there was a rush to judgment about who was behind the bombings, and most of the opinions expressed here were wrong. So far, I don't think anyone has actually come forward and said, "gee, I guess I really didn't know what I was talking about." Now, people (Pete in particular, but others as well) are confidently pushing their explanations for why the bombers did it, but once again before enough information has come out to really know. Way too much expertise and special insight here for me to argue against.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
Linux you partially misunderstood me. The modern university system ws developed in the middle ages by the Franciscans. Again, that's why a proffesor's dress robe has the hood.

Linux the only way your point of view makes sense is if you're presuming that without the Catholic church the Roman empire would have continued for another thousand years or so. Are you making some version of that presumption?

I don't share your fetish for Latin either. It's just a language, one half the Empire rejected in favor of Greek.

Again, the Franciscans did not really appear until very late in the game towards the end of the middle ages. They gained prominence during the Renaissance. Their existence is more attributable to the cultural shift caused by the influx of knowledge from the east. The Church leadership tried to stop it, inquisition, etc, but eventually they could no longer resist change.

I don't see why the only way this makes sense is if the Roman Empire would have continued for another 1000 years (or indeed until the present day if that had actually happened). I very much doubt that would have occurred, but what did happen was the active destruction of schools, libraries, books, etc. It was a full frontal assault on knowledge and it was quite effective in places where this theocracy was in full control. There is no certainty that this would have happened regardless of whether christianity had risen. Indeed it is fairly clear that in the east the same did not occur as the ancient works were cultivated and preserved...

I don't have a "fetish" for Latin, I'm just saying it was widely used in the west until it was killed off when they destroyed the school system and its use greatly declined. There is little debate over these facts historically. The vast majority of monasteries were nothing but peasant colonies, in many locations none of the monks could read or write.

If you call that "giving us schools" then I just think you have a very funny definition, or you are choosing to ignore large swaths of what happened prior to the end of the middle ages.

[ April 22, 2013, 07:47 AM: Message edited by: LinuxFreakus ]

Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al We can't see eye to eye if you're providing both sides of the discussion.

I really wish you'd listen to what I'm actually saying instead of just presuming you know what a person like me says about these things and responding accordingly.


quote:
In the sense that all religions encompass social and political agendas you're trying to focus on just the social/political side of the issue.
I'm saying the religion isn't setting the political and social agenda of the believers except in a very narrow way.
Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al, I know from experience that it's tough to be the one person arguing a point while everyone argues against you, but you can get through it better better if you don't panic and stick to stubborn and absurd positions. Stick to the essential points of your position so you don't get overwhelmed.

quote:
I can begin to see how rabid 2A'ers think the UN will take away their guns.
Yes, that is a plausible threat, although it would have to happen by treaty. The President and Senate could ratify a treaty, and that would bypass Congress, and arguably bypass the amendment process. It's a valid constitutional theory, and it's unclear how SCOTUS would treat it.

quote:
If you're right about some of them, the entire US judicial system is hanging by a thread as the world takes over our legal processes.
No. You have grossly misunderstood.

First of all, the world or the UN can't "take over our legal processes;" the issue is that Congress and our Courts might decide to follow international trends. With guns, it's a plausible danger that an entire right might be lost across the board. With Sharia, that's not plausible; however, it's quite possible that a judge here or there might try to "follow the international trend" and apply Sharia to some case, creating injustice in that one case.

Second, there are things which the legislature can do against it. Laws like the one in Florida are an excellent example.

quote:
So, when or where has Sharia law been applied in the US so that it now has to be banned?
Two points again:

First, it's a foolish question to begin with, since these laws are preventative in nature. We don't want to wait until AFTER some asshat judge has sent a kid back to her abusive Saudi father, until we pass some law saying don't do that. We don't want to wait until our constitution "hangs by a thread" to fix things. That would be stupid. If the international community starts heading towards hell in a handbasket, we pass laws saying clearly that we're going the opposite direction, so that asshat judges don't have the leeway to follow Canadian Judges down the Sharia-hole.

Second, I HAVE read a case where a Federal Judge applied Sharia law, because the contract was made in Saudi Arabia. The result was unjust according to the American point of view, one party got out of what it had agreed to pay while retaining the benefit of the other party's work. But it wasn't the sort of atrocity that we're ultimately concerned about here. If it would actually make a difference, I might be able to look up the case for you, or find others like it.

quote:
If you're so offended by that practice or any other non-American practice, why don't you try to have *all* non-American forms of law explicitly outlawed instead of just Sharia law? Maybe you should be even more outraged that that hasn't happened.
[DOH] Al, djquag is Canadian. djquag has NEVER spoken against "non-American" law. NO ONE HERE has spoken in favor of that stupid Oklahoma law. Slow down if you need to. Your panic is getting the better of you. You just accused a liberal Canadian of being a right-wing American hyperpatriot. [LOL]

You don't have to be a Christian to find Sharia threatening. I suspect that if we ran a survey of Atheists on this board, most would not take your side in this argument.

And as Viking has pointed out, many Muslims don't want to live under state-enforced Sharia either.

[ April 22, 2013, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
One last comment on this thread for a while. First there was a rush to judgment about who was behind the bombings, and most of the opinions expressed here were wrong. So far, I don't think anyone has actually come forward and said, "gee, I guess I really didn't know what I was talking about." Now, people (Pete in particular, but others as well) are confidently pushing their explanations for why the bombers did it, but once again before enough information has come out to really know. Way too much expertise and special insight here for me to argue against.

This from someone, who proclaimed Breivik was motivated to kill Norwegian children through his belief in God, despite the fact that Breivik himself said that he did not believe in God.

But what you said doesn't quite fit my statements here. This is the third time that I've reiterated my agreement with Aris that 80% it's an attack motivated by extremist Islam and inspired by Al Qaeda, 20% it's an FSB plant to trick us into supporting some atrocity against the Chechens. Although I might be down to 19% at this point. That's hardly an assertion that I "really" know. And it's much better founded than your claims on Breivik's motivation.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
BBC: Boston attacks reignite debate on Islam and terror

quote:
As Boston mourns, as Massachusetts holds a minute's silence, the Marathon bombing has reignited a fierce political debate.

It is a hugely sensitive tussle over the nature of Islamist terrorism, Islam itself and how America responds to terrorism and a religion it doesn't truly understand.

In many ways it is a replay, a reflection, and occasionally a distortion of the major disagreement between supporters of George W Bush and Barack Obama.

President Obama's opponents portray him as reluctant to use the word terrorism, overly sympathetic towards Islam, and insufficiently focused on the dangers of violent expressions of militant Islam. On the fringes, some accuse him of being a willing sympathiser.

But, more generally, there is a feeling on the right that liberals are too willing to bend over backwards to disconnect the religion from the violence.

This makes liberals hot under the collar. They see it as sheer bigotry, and point out that there is in fact no connection between millions of peaceful followers of a religion and a violent fringe.

It is not a debate restricted to politicians.

I, and I am sure other BBC colleagues, have received quite a lot of messages accusing us of, from one side, wilfully ignoring the role of radical Islam in this attack and, from the other side, saying we are fanning the flames of intolerance.

Some of the attacks on Obama are crudely party political.

He claimed that after the killing of Bin Laden and other major leaders al-Qaeda was "degraded" and by implication close to collapse.

His enemies say that is untrue, and he has failed. They want to argue that the strong hand of al-Qaeda is behind every attack.

The truth, I think, is somewhere in the middle. The US' strong attacks on AQ, largely if not mostly thanks to Barry, HAVE weakened AQ to the point where its structure is close to collapse. But the VOICE of Al Qaeda (if not the actual structure) is behind every attack. If you read AQ's explicit plan of attack, this is how they set out to operate: by inspiring others to act on their own or with marginal assistance and direction.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete what news outlets do you frequent? I still haven't heard/read about the younger brother hitting the older with a vehicle, let alone while cuffed or even being cuffed. Then the only mention of the face/throat wound being self inflicted was speculation last I heard, and that was this morning.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Pete what news outlets do you frequent?

Quite a variety. For this, I've found most info from a UK site called Daily Mail

quote:
I still haven't heard/read about the younger brother hitting the older with a vehicle,
I've read that from a few sources. Here's the Daily Mail source:
quote:
Police sources told MailOnline that investigators are looking into the possibility that Tsarnaev and his older brother Tamerlan had a suicide pact so that neither of them could be taken alive and put on trial. Authorities believe Dzhokhar likely killed him brother, who was handcuffed, when he ran over him.

A suicide pact could also explain why 19-year-old Dzhokhar ran over his own brother in his stolen Mercedes SUV as he escaped from the scene, the sources added.

Tamerlan was killed early Friday after a running gun battle with police. Doctors say he appeared to have multiple gunshot wounds, blast injuries and major trauma from being hit and dragged by his brother's car.

Don't know what you mean by "while cuffed" ... I've heard nothing about that.

quote:
Then the only mention of the face/throat wound being self inflicted was speculation last I heard, and that was this morning.
I got that from DailyMail last night. Links above.

Looks like some authorities are coming around to my theory that Joker ran over his big brother on purpose:

quote:
The crush injuries are thought to have contributed to his death but police have yet to reveal an exact cause of death.

'These guys did not have an exit plan after the bombing, and from they way they have both ended up it looks like they planned on never being taken alive,' said a law enforcement source.

'Why else would this kid drive over his brother. It does not make any sense until you realize he also tried to take his own life. They had some sort of suicide pact worked out so they would not be taken alive.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2312486/Dzhokhar-Tsarnaev-Bomb-suspect-wakes-answers-FBI-questions-writing-shooting-mouth.html

("Joker" as best I can tell, is how you pronounce "Dzhokhar")

[ April 22, 2013, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Last not of the quote you provided, about mid page Pete. RE: the cuffs.

Also, Joe Car?

[ April 22, 2013, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Joe Car may be a slightly more faithful transliteration. I like "Joker", for a psycho that puts a nail bomb in a crowd at a Marathon, runs over his brother, and mutilates his mouth ... the batman villain moniker fits.

[ April 22, 2013, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Can't argue that...
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If you call that "giving us schools"
I am looking for where I used the phrase you keep saying I used. If I had said or implied that there was no educational system prior to the Catholic Church I certainly did not mean that.

What I said was that the Catholic church founded the modern university system. I also said that the Catholic Church, the Byzanines and the Islamic caliphate, all highly religous societies, were the ones who preserved what remains of antiquity.

As an Orthodox Christian I'm perfectly happy with the idea that once again the Byzantine east was good and wise and the Latin west again turned out to be ignorant and beastly, but I really don't believe that's a fair picture.

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, and in response to someone who suggested that it's just Christians picking on Muslims, here's a clip from today's news where cops stood by and took pictures while a crowd of BUDDHISTS burnt a Muslim man alive.

this link takes you to pictures of Muslim victims of Hindu mobs in Guyarat. Warning: images of naked women and children who have been burnt alive.

Here's a picture of a Muslim man on his knees begging for his life in Guyarat.

The only good thing I can say about that dark day is that the US put the Hindu governor of Guyarat on a watch list and banned him from entering the USA.

DW, since you ask me about sources, I strongly recommend you add some non-US sources to your daily diet.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
As an Orthodox Christian I'm perfectly happy with the idea that once again the Byzantine east was good and wise and the Latin west again turned out to be ignorant and beastly, but I really don't believe that's a fair picture.

The Fourth Crusade was the nadir of the Western Church; it certainly had better moments. OK, they lost schools. They also eliminated the gladiator games and public torture, and reduced infanticide and the slave trade down to a trickle.

But it's without question that the Byzantines were relatively tolerant for their time. IIRC one of the pretexts for the Fourth Crusade was that the Byzantines allowed their Muslim minorities to have their own mosques.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Pete:] "Al, I know from experience that it's tough to be the one person arguing a point while everyone argues against you, but you can get through it better better if you don't panic and stick to stubborn and absurd positions. Stick to the essential points of your position so you don't get overwhelmed."

Thanks for the advice, which is not needed here. There's nothing absurd in my positions, since Oklahoma explicitly outlawed Sharia law and Florida passed a law modeled on what Oklahoma did.

[Pete:] "This from someone, who proclaimed Breivik was motivated to kill Norwegian children through his belief in God, despite the fact that Breivik himself said that he did not believe in God."

You persisted in misinterpreting what I said then, which was:
quote:
It will be interesting to find out if he actually is an atheist, especially since we don't typically try to pin down whether a person who is insane really believes in God or not for the obvious reason.
In other words, when a crazy person says they believe in God or they don't, it's hard to draw a conclusion about what they believe. You insisted then and bizarrely resurrect my statement now in order to insist that I said he did believe in God.

Again, it's no fun discussing things with you when you insistently, repeatedly, purposely tell me I meant something I had to repeatedly, insistently and quite purposefully tell you I hadn't said or meant.

[Pete:] "Al, djquag is Canadian. djquag has NEVER spoken against "non-American" law. NO ONE HERE has spoken in favor of that stupid Oklahoma law."

Pete, in response to my pointing out that those two states had outlawed Sharia law, he said:
quote:
This is the United States. That crap doesn't fly here, and you're damn right we should take a stand, legislatively and symbolically, against it.
[Pete:] "I suspect that if we ran a survey of Atheists on this board, most would not take your side in this argument."

Also not interesting, since I'm only expressing my opinion and challenging others to support theirs. But for contrast, should we take a poll of how people feel about Lisa's support for extreme Israeli tactics regarding the destruction of Palestinian neighborhoods? Should we use extreme examples of Israeli violence toward Palestinians to also become advocates to have states outlaw Israeli law?

[VL:] "I'm saying the religion isn't setting the political and social agenda of the believers except in a very narrow way."

I'm not telling you what you do or should think. I'm simply disagreeing with you and saying that from my perspective there is considerable religious intolerance toward Islam that is manifested in the social and political realms. Telling me that two atheists who hate Christianity as much as they hate Islam means that hatred of Islam a political issue and therefore not a religious issue is simply not convincing.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"There's nothing absurd in my positions, since Oklahoma explicitly outlawed Sharia law and Florida passed a law modeled on what Oklahoma did."

That's a foolish statement, since I've already shown that Oklahoma's law (by saying that the law of nations must not be considered) was unconstitutional, while Florida's law explicitly protects the constitution. The laws are polar opposites. Florida's law says nothing about Sharia law. It simply said that no foreign law shall be used if it cuts into constitutional rights. You were wrong. You hurt your credibility by standing by an position that is not only absurd, but morally repugnant.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I appreciate the link Pete. BBC was really my only "foreign" news source. Just found it quite striking that car incident had not been covered at all in what I had seen to date. Nor had the attempted suicide been anything close to confirmed and was only mentioned very cautiously by reporteres who seemed terrified to imply something they hadn't confirmed.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 23 pages: 1  2  3  ...  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  ...  21  22  23   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1