What would Jesus do?

[arclighter]

Not least of all because Nationalist Socialist ideology was vehemently anti-Christian, following Nietzsche in dismissing Christianity as a slave morality invented by Jews to subvert the Aryan master race and clear the path for Bolshevism.

Yeah, like he said.

 

[sorely]

Everything evolves from what happened in the past. Why not use your brains a bit and predict what will happen in the future instead of trying unsuccessfully to impress a bunch of johns with regurgitated horse shit, most of which you guys seem to get wrong.

 

[feminista]

You conveniently forgot to mention the part where the old fool apologized for his irresponsible remarks.

Robertson did it AGAIN after his "apology". But you likely wouldn't know because there was virtually no publicity.

 

[Meister]

The religious wars of the 16th and 17th Centuries set the stage
for conflict in Europe culminating in the end of the Cold War in
1989.

Are you suggesting that WWI and WWII can be separated from
the previous centuries of conflict that date back to the 1500s?
Do you have a myopic view of history? Apparently history
is of little use to you.

As I previously stated, the scism that divided Europe since
the 15th Century began with a religious division. Treaties and
conflicts can be seen in light of the dominant religious traditions
in those countries.

The Middle East is going through its current turmoil as a result
of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the resulting instability
in the entire region. But, the Ottoman Empire began its decline
in the 1800s when Napoleon conquered Egypt and made it painfully
obvious to the Arab peoples they could no longer stand up to the
emerging European nations with their advanced industrial development.

Step back and view the big picture. The sequence of events will
become more clear to you. Think in terms of centuries and not
decades.

Hitler's goals can be traced back to WWI where he was disappointed with Germany's loss and soon after came into contact with anti-communist and anti-semitic circles. He was a fanatic preaching to people about the Versaille rip off. He used the turmoil and poor conditions in Germany to his advantage, which culminated in massive demonstrations such as in Nuremberg. You can say his religion was the old Roman empire, which he adored (see Triumph des Willens for similarities). Hitler tried to align his party with the Protestant church for recruitment purposes and had some success even though he himself was catholic. However, there was still a fair amount of criticism coming from both churches regarding race (Dietrich Bonhoeffer). Then, Hitler even went as far as to denounce Christianity as traitors in the later stage.

Good luck trying to blame Christianity for WWII.

So, yes, I can view the big picture, but your argument is like saying the current conflict between whites and hispanics in California is due to the Spanish imperialists, who happened to be catholic, conquering Latin American countries centuries ago, so let's blame catholics again. It solves nothing.

 

[arclighter]

Robertson did it AGAIN after his "apology". But you likely wouldn't know because there was virtually no publicity.

Obviously senile, and not to be taken seriously.

Ps Do you have a link quoting him in the first person with this second offense? Not that I doubt your word it's just that I am shocked that our religion loathing press would skip a chance to knock Roberton.

 

[arclighter]

I must not be explaining myself very well, or you're refusing to
understand my point. There was a deep division in Europe that
dates back to the 1500s that was the underlying tension that
affected treaties, alliances, business and all forms of activity.
This division was originally very deep and resulted in near
constant warfare on the Continent through the end of the
20th Century. The Holy Roman Empire collapsed in the
mid 1500s, and were replaced by the Empirical Monarchies
that followed in its wake including the Spanish, French, English
Austro-Hungarian, Russian and other lesser monarchies.
Those imperial monarchies finally ran their course and began
to collapse and crumble in the 20th Century. Those monarchies
were generally aligned with royalty of the same religious and
cultural background. As a result Protestant monarchs married
Protestant royalties as did the Catholics.

WWII was the end of the imperial monarchy states and by the
mid-1960s even the British and French were releasing their
colonies to rule themselves.

That division was based on religious prejudices of their rules.
The last of the imperial

But much more than just religion. As the lunatic Michael Savage woud say - "borders, language and culture".

 

[ocean976124]

I disagree.

The 20th Century was the bloodiest century in the history of mankind.
The Christian Nations had a major hand in that terribly inhuman
Century. The Western European Nations and their derivatives, US
included, didn't just kill families; we destroyed entire cities in the
process. Your ethnocentric prejudices are showing.

I think the atheistic Communists had something to do with bloodshed in the 20th century. I also would have a hard time classifying the Nazis as a Christian government...

 

[ocean976124]

Rather convinient that all this mess about a cartoon that ran 4 months ago only became a battle cry when Iran is about to be brought to the UN Security Counil and Hammas is about to lose the Palestinian Authority's international money flow...

 

[sorely]

I think the atheistic Communists had something to do with bloodshed in the 20th century. I also would have a hard time classifying the Nazis as a Christian government...

Like most western extremist groups, they think they are christian.

By the way, what's a christian

 

[ocean976124]

Robertson did it AGAIN after his "apology". But you likely wouldn't know because there was virtually no publicity.

Yes, and Christian leaders around the world made no objection and the Christian populations of many nations rioted demanding their government follow through with Robertson's decree.
Oh wait, they didn't happen? So, just how is it the same as Muslim fundamentalisms decrees?

 

[arclighter]

Borders are always being redefined by whoever is the more powerful
neighbor. Just ask the Mexicans about the land they lost to the US.
Culture is clearly defined by the dominant religion of the country.
Nationalism and religion are two defining points in a culture of
a country.

And what is the "dominant" religion of China? How about Stalinist Russia? How about modern Russia? What is currently the dominant religion of Western Europe, and how much does it influence European thought and practice?

 

[arclighter]

Yes, and Christian leaders around the world made no objection and the Christian populations of many nations rioted demanding their government follow through with Robertson's decree.
Oh wait, they didn't happen? So, just how is it the same as Muslim fundamentalisms decrees?

Robertson was censored by liberals and conservatives, just like the moderate Muslims did with.... Wait a second.

 

[ocean976124]

Once again my point is missed. Jeesh.

The communists were the antithesis of the imperial monarchs.
They replaced the divinely enlightened European monarchies
of the 17th and 18th centuries. They were both the high priest
and imperial king, replacing the Czar/King who controlled church
and state of the previous regimes. Remember, Henry VIII and
his lineage were both temporal ruler and leader of the Anglican
Church. Hitler and Stalin effectively became the leaders of a
previous period without coronation by the pope.

Does this help the confusion?

OK, and before that something else happened. And before that something else happened. And before that, something else happened. Hell, we can blame all this on the Visigoths if we wanted to.

 

[feminista]

next time Arc find it yourself.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200602030003?offset=20&show=1

 

[arclighter]

next time Arc find it yourself.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200602030003?offset=20&show=1

Here is your original quote: "Not to be outdone, his even more irrational fellow right-wing septuagenarian renewed his call for the United States to assassinate Chavez."

And here is your new smoking gun:

"COLMES: Do you want him taken out?

ROBERTSON: Not now, but one day, one day, one day. My premise is, and I think as -- you know, until that comment came out, everybody thought Chavez [added link] was a fellow having to do with table grapes in California. Now --"

Robertson is not calling for the US assassination of Chavez, he simply has no problem if is he is "one day" "taken out".

I am sure he has no problem if Fidel is "one day" "taken out". Or if Kimg Jung Il is "one day" "taken out". This isn't the same as calling for a US backed assassination.

Thank you for the link, it is very informative. Look at how Colmes relentlessly tries to get Robertson to admit that he wants Chavez assassinated. What an ass clown.

 

[The Mugger]

You truly are a nut-bar, aren't you? Tell me, are all Palestinians radical Islamics? I mean, a major of them just voted in a party many around the world would call radical Islamics. Or are they just fed up and want real change? I think the latter. But by your post, you must think the first. And then there's Iran, Syria, Iraq -all at one time were called by the west as the axis-of-evil. What do you think all the citizens(Muslims/radical & moderate) of those countries most feel? Accepted by the west? The west is empowered with access to the levers of power, media and judiciary. But are the majority of the Muslims and Arabs empowered? I will never condone violence, but at least I understand the disastrous avenue many Arabs are choosing to find that empowerment.

Your the most foolish and hypocritical idiot on the board. Well I'm sorry you at least to appear to have something of an education over Cyrus but you are both fellow travellers. The link you moron to radical Islam is that while the moderates condemn violence they always qualify the condemnation by saying they do however understand their (radicals) frustration with the policies of the US Government and the Israel Government, a position by the way shared by the White Supremacist. This clearly ignores that both Israel and the US enjoy "Governments by the people, for the people". You in the past have aligned yourself with the people of the middle east, ignoring the simple fact the greatest threat to most of those people are their own Governments.

But your post is blatantly hypocritical, as is the position of the Arab governments, the Mullahs and other fools promoting or making excuses for this unbelievable violence against the West.

You really should do your homework. For years Arab Nation's newspapers have been publishing some of the most vile cartoons. Here is a sample of the anti-Jewish types:

http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ArabCartoons.htm

You really should see the ones about Pope John Paul II and the ones about Americans (the people not government) are unbelievable.

What bothers me the most about this episode is that people like me who are genuinely upset with what the Danish and Arab papers have published have to listen to apologists like you who somehow try to blame others for this problem and those who are clearly showing their contempt for all things Western are given a pass because of so-called pent up rage. It is plain simple BS on your part to state this is pent up rage by the public. These are not free States and clearly this anger is being fueled by an educated elite.

Deal with reality *d* this is not some geopolitical exercise and is a clear demonstration of the hatred and contempt for all things non-Islamic in the Arab world.

 

[rogerstaubach]

My thesis is that the Christian
peoples and nations of Europe have a bloody history and
criticizing the Middle East Muslims is hypocritical since
we've killed more in the name of God and country than
they ever could imagine or accomplish.

My thesis is that Muslims are murdering people under the "cloak of Allah" in the present.

Present day "sanctioned by Allah" murder-to-order by Muslims vs. Western historical hypocracy. Murder wins the "seriousness" litmus test.

Your "waxing apologetic" skills are waning.

 

[arclighter]

You're moving further and further away from my
main premise, that is the division and reintegration
of Europe.

Russia is a border nation-state with Europe and is as much
Asian as European. In any event it was never part of the
Holy Roman Empire. The dominant religion in Russia
is Russian Orthodoxy which still survives despite the
crackdowns by the Soviets.

China is primarily a Buddhist country though other religions
are also present. Obviously, it wasn't part of the HRE.

The current dominant religious tradition in Europe is still
Christianity though it morphed and merged at various times
with the Enlightenment and humanism. But, both the
Enlightenment and humanism are built on the foundation
laid down by Christianity and its basic tenants.

The pope and high priests may have been replaced, but
the zeitgeist of the people, their cultural foundations, are
still based on the tenants of that religion.

Religion is the first among ideologies that transcends tribalism.
Religion links people of different tribes together in a common
value system. From that common community value comes
education, economics, governance, etc.

I hate Wiki, but I am so damn lazy:

The Communist Party has said that religious belief and membership are incompatible. Party membership is a necessity for many high level careers and posts. That along with other official hostility makes statistical reporting on religious membership difficult. There are five recognized religions by the state, Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Catholic Christianity, and Protestant Christianity.

Most people report no organized religious affiliation; however, belief in folk traditions and non-religious spiritual beliefs, such as ancestor worship and feng shui, along with informal ties to local temples and unofficial house churches is in the hundreds of millions. The United States Department of State, in its annual report on International Religious Freedom [1], gives possibly the most reliable statistics about organized religions. In 2004 it reports the following:

* Buddhists 8%, with more than 200,000 monks and nuns. This value is seen as extremely low because the more than 16,000 Buddhist temples do not maintain traditional congregations.
* Taoists, unknown as a percentage, there are more than 25,000 Taoist monks and nuns at more than 1,500 temples. Taoist belief is often intertwined with both Buddhism and traditional folk religions.
* Muslims, 1.4%, with more than 45,000 Imams. Other estimates are much higher.
* Protestant Christians, 1.2% with official churches. It is estimated that another 2.5% of the population is a Protestant Christian worshipping through an unofficial house church.
* Catholic Christians, 0.4% with official churches, and the Vatican claims up to another 0.8% who are Catholics attending Catholic services at underground churches.

The People's Republic of China remains an officially atheist state, as reported by the CIA Factbook.




Doesn't look like organized religion is much of a factor in Mainland China.

 

[*d*]

Yes, I hate cold blooded murderers of innocents. Don't you?

So you condone hate? Tell me, do you use this hateful line of thought of yours as the only judge on who is right and who is wrong? War must be an everyday event in your household.

 

[arclighter]

So you condone hate? Tell me, do you use this hateful line of thought of yours as the only judge on who is right and who is wrong? War must be an everyday event in your household.

Do I "condone hate"? What does that mean? Do I condone hate crimes? Do I condone hate speeches? Hatred is real, and my hatred for those who knowingly slaughter innocents is certainly real. From this you infer that I "condone hate"? Okee Dokee. I will be moving along now. (whistling noise)