torture techniques

Originally Posted by Ramrod

um......nope........you can assume I have heard of them but that is different on so many levels........they are home grown nutters of the same religion trying to foist their extreme interpretation on (broadly speaking) their own kind.
And as for missionaries, hardly in the same league. I mean......does the Pope pontificate over how there is a plan for catholics to take over the world.....hardly. Does the archbishop of canterbury do likewise? Nope!
Meanwhile we have some iman spouting off on a popular al-jazeera tv show to millions of arabs about how islam is going to take over by stealth or force.
Try again.

I`m sorry, but I see no validity in your rebuttal.

The example you gave, which I replied to, was an organisation that was attempting to convert states to Islam through political means. I see absolutely no difference between that and missionary activities. If they are going to attempt to do this through political means that actually makes them better than a lot of historical Christian attempts to spread the "good" word.

Executing homosexuals? Sounds like a typical deep-south American response? Could also be a Christian attitude if the bible is taken literally. You cannot sieze on the statements of a few when those statements are common among a certain percentage of the supposed "good guys".

It may, to put it crudely, be a case of "them" vs "us", but in many respects "us" use the tactics of "them", but that's ok, because we're not "them".

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

I`m sorry, but I see no validity in your rebuttal.

The example you gave, which I replied to, was an organisation that was attempting to convert states to Islam through political means. I see absolutely no difference between that and missionary activities. If they are going to attempt to do this through political means that actually makes them better than a lot of historical Christian attempts to spread the "good" word.

Executing homosexuals? Sounds like a typical deep-south American response? Could also be a Christian attitude if the bible is taken literally. You cannot sieze on the statements of a few when those statements are common among a certain percentage of the supposed "good guys".

It may, to put it crudely, be a case of "them" vs "us", but in many respects "us" use the tactics of "them", but that's ok, because we're not "them".

So your argument against the points raised in my links consists of pointing out that we have our own homegrown nuts? So what if we have? Whats your point?

Ok, lets say that there is an equal proportion of christian nuts out there engaged in plotting their master plans of world christianization (which I don't believe but you obviously do)....well, they are not a threat to us and our way of life. Islamic fundamentalism does appear to be trying to be.

[Maggy J]

How did torture techniques get to a theological discussion?

[punky]

Originally Posted by Graham

And how different is that from the Christians who want (hell, are *required*) to "spread the good word"??

And, of course, Islam is *already* here, even though it hasn't "conquered" the place.

There is a difference between "speading the good word" (converting individuals to a religon, I presume) and wanting/trying to overthrow a democracy with an Islamic theocracy.

A Christian theocracy hasn't existed for hundreds of years, and for a good reason. The only exception to that I can think of, is the Vatican City, which is technically a Catholic theocracy (although it sees itself as a monarchy, with the Pope as monarch). Still, as virtually all its citizens worth within the church, they are quite happy, and wern't taken by force.

It is a bit unrealistic, (like it is with a establishing a dictatorship with the parliment act), but it is something that needs some attention. Some powerful people are considering it anyway.

[Maggy J]

Originally Posted by punky

There is a difference between "speading the good word" (converting individuals to a religon, I presume) and wanting/trying to overthrow a democracy with an Islamic theocracy.

A Christian theocracy hasn't existed for hundreds of years, and for a good reason. The only exception to that I can think of, is the Vatican City, which is technically a Catholic theocracy (although it sees itself as a monarchy, with the Pope as monarch). Still, as virtually all its citizens worth within the church, they are quite happy, and wern't taken by force.

It is a bit unrealistic, (like it is with a establishing a dictatorship with the parliment act), but it is something that needs some attention. Some powerful people are considering it anyway.

I think that we should be a secular state.I'd hate to think we were going to retread some old paths again.
__________________

RAMMY!! STOP THAT!!!! I hate it when you post and I get the email notification and then you just delete the post.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

The difference is that they are small scale nutters who don't have an agenda to take over governments in muslim countries and make those countries entirely christian. Neither are they hell bent on killing the muslims if they don't convert.

I suggest you take a closer look at certain members of the United States Government and electorate!!

There are some in the "Religions Right" who consider that to be *exactly* their aim!
__________________

Originally Posted by punky

There is a difference between "speading the good word" (converting individuals to a religon, I presume) and wanting/trying to overthrow a democracy with an Islamic theocracy.

As opposed to, say, overthrowing an Islamic theocracy or a Communist Government or any other and wanting to replace it with a democracy?

How arrogant is it to decide that *our* form of government is *so* much better that *they* would be better off having it and we'll use whatever methods we can (political influence, bribery, assassination, espionage etc) to make sure they get it?!

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Graham

There are some in the "Religions Right" who consider that to be *exactly* their aim!

Yes, the minority thankfully.

Originally Posted by Russ D

Yes, the minority thankfully.

Just like the *minority* of Islamic fanatics who want to destroy the West and turn us into a fundamentalist Sharia state...!

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Ok, lets say that there is an equal proportion of christian nuts out there engaged in plotting their master plans of world christianization (which I don't believe but you obviously do)....well, they are not a threat to us and our way of life.

Maybe not you, but they would be a threat to my way of life, seeing as I am an avowed aetheist.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

Maybe not you, but they would be a threat to my way of life, seeing as I am an avowed aetheist.

I'd like to see a Christian world. Do you feel threatened by me?

[punky]

Originally Posted by Graham

I suggest you take a closer look at certain members of the United States Government and electorate!!

There are some in the "Religions Right" who consider that to be *exactly* their aim!

'scuse me for barging in. I should point out though that democracy in Iraq would always lead to a more Islamic theocratic state, because of the sheer numbers of Shias. Hence the need for a quad-partisan national assembly. Still the ruling party will nearly always be Shia. You could argue then that Christian-fundamentalist (he isn't really, look up Jerry Falwell, or Pat Robertson, they are try Christian fundamentalists, with ephasis on the mentalist part) Bush, actually fought to establish an Islamic theocracy rather than trying to establish a Christian one.

Originally Posted by Graham

As opposed to, say, overthrowing an Islamic theocracy or a Communist Government or any other and wanting to replace it with a democracy?

They didn't overthrow an Islamic theocracy in Iraq - it was a sectular democracy (but considering each voting paper had the citizen's address on it, and voting was compulsary, didn't seem all that democratic to me). They merely removed a throughly dispicable person, that noone in the world could be arsed to, and that his own citizen's did have the fight to.

How arrogant is it to decide that *our* form of government is *so* much better that *they* would be better off having it and we'll use whatever methods we can (political influence, bribery, assassination, espionage etc) to make sure they get it?!

There is no change in the form of government, only the leader.

Originally Posted by Russ D

I'd like to see a Christian world. Do you feel threatened by me?

Not at all as I know full well that you don`t fall into the category of the zealous Christian right. There is a great difference between simply liking to see a Christian world and being one of the zealots. Further, I can state that it would be a threat but not feel threatened as I see it as a purely hypothetical scenario, I don`t believe that we will ever see a single religion.

But your comment does raise an intesting question, and please don`t take this as a personal attack. To see a Christian world would mean that all other religions would have been eliminated, and I know that you mean through peaceful methods, but I can't see how this goal could be achieved without active effort. However, you've also struck me as a person that, while holding strong personal beliefs, is tolerant of other's beliefs. These two points seem somewhat contradictory to me.
__________________

Originally Posted by punky

'scuse me for barging in. I should point out though that democracy in Iraq would always lead to a more Islamic theocratic state, because of the sheer numbers of Shias. Hence the need for a quad-partisan national assembly.

But if the Iraqi people voted democratically for an Islamic theocracy, surely that must be acceptable. We can't claim to be trying to democratise a country and then decide we are unhappy with what they vote for.

[NitroNutter]

Personally Id say the universe is better off without humans, as they are in a large way, delusional, self righteous, two faced bunch that I would not wish upon any planet or other being. Lets face it in reallity the human society is in no land, sect, culture or religion any better than it was ever, it has developed technologically but such intelligence in the hands of a bunch of dumb animals is not deserved and a downright danger to all.

[punky]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

But if the Iraqi people voted democratically for an Islamic theocracy, surely that must be acceptable. We can't claim to be trying to democratise a country and then decide we are unhappy with what they vote for.

Dubya has definitely said that if a strongly Islamic theocratical-style party gets voted in, then he'll stand by it. I have seen the quote himself. He used the whole "I'll be disappointed, but that's their choice" bit.

The whole idea of the national assembly though was noone was marginalised and regardless who won, everyone would be represented in some way.

Hopefully though, it shouldn't happen. There are radical Shia parties running, but there are secular Shia parties too, like Allawi's one. He is tipped to carry on.

And again, we didn't democratise the country, it already was. There was an election ia couple of years ago, we only removed the man who intimidated the voters.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by punky

<snip>

And again, we didn't democratise the country, it already was. There was an election ia couple of years ago, we only removed the man who intimidated the voters.

That's even more worrying. We have now invaded a democratic country with no WMD...