OK, but please explain to me then the relative peacefulness of Indonesia, mostly Muslim, but tolerant of Hindus and Christians. The US by contrast, long considered a predominantly Christian nation has a war budget greater than all other countries combined. We kill remotely, and with pages of justifications, but we remain as blood thirsty and trigger happy as the most radical Islamic countries - we simply hide it better.
Which do you think is more damaging in the long-term, a suicide bomber, or a foreign policy designed to repress a country's inhabitants, so they remain willing fodder for slave-like industrial production to serve those repressing them? Gee, that sounds like what the Nazis did, but no, it is actually standard practice for the US. Gotta keep those manufacturing costs down, and profits, up, at any cost. "Christian values". Isn't that an oxymoron? It should be. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote : Well... sometimes we say things to give the appearance of altruism and open mindedness at the expense of our common sense and intelligence. As I've said, Islam or for that matter, any religion, in the hands of a thoughtful, intelligent and reasonable person is one thing. Islam in the hands of the masses with lower educations, influenced by their fundamentalists, is another. It is the only religion today focused on expansion via violence and intimidation. It is the only religion that openly advocates a death sentence if you leave the faith. More importantly, it's a political and judicial system, enforced from a religious perspective with religious zeal. It's dangerous for a society. Even the thoughtful, open minded, Muslim is intimidated by the fundamentalist who commands the ignorant masses. Muslims don't hesitate to kill their own if they aren't fundamental enough. Power is in the hands of the simplest interpretation of the Quran and Haditha. From: feste37 <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 10:32 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Religion of peace? Ollie says: "Make no mistake, the fundamentalist Christians are as scary and unhinged as their fundamentalist Muslim brethren. Different book cover is all." This is sheer nonsense. Were I a peace-loving Muslim living in the US, it would not bother me if there were several fundamentalist Christian churches nearby. I would be more concerned about being harassed on the street by ignorant American louts who have no religion in them. But if I were a peace-loving Christian, and there was a Muslim mosque nearby preaching fundamentalist, radical Islam, I would be worried. The difference is simple: the propensity to use deadly violence against innocent people. Christians neither advocate it nor do it; some Muslims, unfortunately, do. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <olliesedwuz@...> wrote : Right, we didn't invade "Islam". No, it was sovereign nations we invaded. No bigee, right? Yep, I would expect this intemperate reaction from you, Mike. As I said, and you are proving, the mindset between the fundamentalist Christians and the fundamentalist Muslims, is EXACTLY THE SAME. Of course you would see all bad in them, and all good on your side. Identical to the way they feel. Make no mistake, the fundamentalist Christians are as scary and unhinged as their fundamentalist Muslim brethren. Different book cover is all. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote : We didn't invade *Islam*. Secondly, Islam's history is one of violence, conversion by the sword, nearly everywhere it has spread. Apostasy from Islam is punishable by death according to Sharia which is observed in many Islamic nations. no... it's not violent! From: "olliesedwuz@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 7:34 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Religion of peace? It is a BS argument to begin with, the crap about Islam being an innately violent religion. For one thing, WE invaded THEM. Imagine this scenario - A well trained force of overwhelming military might begins bombing Britain, landing ground forces, and exterminating the populace. Martial law is declared, and freedom along with any civil rights vanishes. Then when you strike back, the occupying army blames your religion for your "emotional" reaction. Pretty f'ing sick, if you ask me. Demonic even. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <s3raphita@...> wrote : Suppose I were to say to you: "If you see a group of Germans you should a toss a grenade into their midst and let them share it out between them." Would not that be a vile piece of advice? But if you were a G.I. about to land on a Normandy beach in 1944 could that not be just the sort of advice to perk you up before the attack? A lot of Mo's sayings could be (possibly) excused on the grounds that Muslims were engaged in a war with Jews and infidels. The problem is that we are talking about a struggle a long, long time ago and many Muslims don't seem to realise that the connected world we now live in is nothing like seventh-century Arabia. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <hepa7@...> wrote : The Quran's Verses of Violence http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx The Quran's Verses of Violence http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx A sampling of violence in the Quran. View on www.thereligionofpeace.com http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx Preview by Yahoo The reasons are obvious and begin with the Quran. Few verses of Islam's most sacred text can be construed to fit the contemporary virtues of religious tolerance and universal brotherhood. Those that do are earlier "Meccan" verses which are obviously abrogated by later ones. The example of Muhammad is that Islam is a religion of peace when Muslims do not have the power and numbers on their side. Once they do, things change.
