What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
My wife likes to take pictures of everything. Got any ideas? view!
bestbuy.com - With a Kodak(r) EasyShareTM 3X Zoom, she'll have impressive 10.2-megapixel performance, right at her fingertips
160 Comments
- Klisk, on 10/12/2007, -17/+70I agree fully with Schroeder.
Right now we have a man who claims to speak to Jesus in the white house. Christian or not, that's just plain horrifying. - stou, on 10/12/2007, -21/+68yea and last I heard... it was christians that were bombing abortion clincs...
- digitalsatori, on 10/12/2007, -10/+52Na.. instead they go blow up some other country.
- Phatt138, on 10/12/2007, -3/+42The oft-quoted but eternally important statement of Sir Peter Ustinov would apply to BigGreasy's understanding (or lack thereof) of the world:
"Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich."
Islamist terrorists 'blow themselves up' primarily because they have no other way to attack. They don't have ICBMs or a Navy or an AirForce, so they do it the only way they can. Their view is that they can either sit back and be pushed around by those who DO have such military might, or focus their fight on the few gaps in the armor of 1st-world countries.
We've killed far more civilians in hunting terrorists than have been killed by every single modern Islamic attack put together. If the DEA shot more innocents than drug-dealers, wouldn't you think that something was amiss? Is terror something that bad people set out to do to good people, or is it raining bombs down from the sky and destroying an entire country to protect yourselves?
I tend to think that terror is both of those things. By its very definition, terror is in the eye of the terrorized. - cmdrNacho, on 10/12/2007, -13/+50No Christian extremists.. pour large amounts of money into the government to change laws and attempt to get amendments written... to force their agenda on the other half of the people that don't care whether gays get married, or the fact that women should be allowed to choose.
- HemlockUltimate, on 10/12/2007, -12/+47Since they are part of the majority in this country - they don't have to blow themselves up. They just send the sons of the poor overseas to do their dirty work.
- misterpony, on 10/12/2007, -5/+39Many fanatics are the same, regardless of their side: fiercely devoted and unreasonable. It's the incredulous and deceitful you have to really watch out for.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30"Most European countries require a majority of a particular religion in their congress."
That's weird, I lived in Europe for 8 years and never heard this. Got any sources? - MaddDog, on 10/12/2007, -11/+39You're right, Christian extremists aren't about to blow themselves up. That is the difference between the cultures - while an exploding Muslim is seen as a martyr to recruit additional terrorists, an exploding Christian just creates a bloody mess that no one really cares about. The Christian would be much better employed going door to door, bringing their message, or leaving flyers on car windshields or slipping notes in open car windows.
- dshPls, on 10/12/2007, -11/+36And then god said, "George, kill all em terrorists in Iraq"
- HemlockUltimate, on 10/12/2007, -7/+31YES! Keeping them separate benefits everyone!
- WiseWeasel, on 10/12/2007, -7/+30Rest at ease, foreigners; it creeps us Americans out as well... The president shouldn't speak like that and divide our country along religious lines. He should assume a secular constituency and address all Americans equally. The first thing I think when a politician mentions God is "OK, what's this creep trying to sell me now?".
- tz1024, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18@harrisbradley
Schroeder is a social democrat - that means he's liberal-left wing, not extreme-right wing. Maybe you should do some research before you post. In addition to that, extreme right wing parties are banned from politics in Germany. - KennyF, on 10/12/2007, -7/+22Why would Christian extremists blow themselves up? They're winning. They control the most powerful country in the world. Suicide missions are usually an act of desperation.
- dargon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20Clinton kept his religious views to himself and didn't openly let them show through his policies
- anagoge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Do you think it's possible to seperate religion and politics? To me, it always seems like unfortunately, the two are combined in the US, at least.
- VelcroMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16"Most European countries require a majority of a particular religion in their congress."
List please? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Conservatism as we know it today is a corrupt shadow of its former self. Like a professional athlete a few years after they give up the exercise but not the calorie intake.
Politics + Religion = Corrupt politics + Faithless religion - Zique, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@mirunit
There's a big difference in the way the right wing parties do their politics in Europe and America. Basically in Europe the parties keep their political papers and speech free of references to God or faith, but you'll hear a lot of talk about what is fair, right etc. In America the Republican Party is more directly involved with the religion itself and isn't much afraid to talk about it. I guess you could say European conservatives are guided by the morals and ethics of their religion, while American conservatives are guided by the religion itself. - ProximaC, on 10/12/2007, -11/+21Herr Schroeder, most of America sides with you on this one. The truth is that Mr Bush only does it to snag extra votes from the bible thumping far right. He doesn't really believe what he's saying, and that makes it even more scary cause we can no longer tell fact from fiction when it comes to our president.
- oxyrubber, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Your link points to an aritcle covered by Yahoo! News and written by an AP reporter. This article is by the Washinton Times. Not exactly a dupe (but close).
Also, this article has gained more traction so far. Also, considering you were th efirst person to comment on the other story, I would guess that you are a friend of the submitter. - digitalsatori, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12@iceperson - As long as the news is popular enough for South Park to make fun of it!
Kidding aside, and to answer your question, yes. That would make a valid topic of discussion. Talk about it all you want, as a religion does not bomb an abortion clinic or molest children, a person does.
The frustration exists is that said person killed someone while saying he did it for a religion that specifically states one should not kill... and this is not the only case.
Hypocrisy tends to irritate people. - mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12So the democrats dont use minorities totally for their votes?
- donloper, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I'd rather our politicians state who they are and what they believe in no uncertain terms, and if people don't like them they can vote against them. The last thing I want is politicians who hide who they really are. We've got enough of that going on already.
- Phatt138, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12...hence the problem with electing a leader for his "Christian values." If Bush's claim of ethical superiority didn't factor so heavily into his success in Conservative America, we wouldn't be having this discussion. If voters (and campaigners) abided by the spirit of Constitutional separation between religion and government, there would be only policy left to look at.
Ya know, policy: something that can be refined, adapted, and suited to actually solve problems instead of striking out with blind, 'righteous' anger. - Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"I'm curious, if I find a secularists/athiest/whatever who molests children does that make the statement 'athiests molest children' a valid topic of discussion?"
Sure, but where are you going to find a atheist priest?????
/kidding (mostly) - civdis24, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11@Subiklim:
It doesn't matter if the president is religious or not--I would not label it as a shame. However, the president should not express his religious views in the practice of his authority. He should not impose his views upon the public in speeches, etc. - drgori, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12"I'm curious, if I find a secularists/athiest/whatever who molests children does that make the statement 'athiests molest children' a valid topic of discussion?"
As soon as some start committing such acts with the sole intent of displaying their lack of religious faith, yes.
Until then, it's a dumb, straw man argument. And, even if such people exist, it wouldn't make other violent zealots (whether Muslim, Christian, or whatever) any less reprehensible. - Joe_rigby, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13Bush is an Evangofacist, and so are some of his ilk.
Get out and vote! - KennyF, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Again, who needs to engage in terrorist acts such as kidnappings, public beheadings, and suicide bombings when you have the most powerful military on Earth behind you?
- maukdaddy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Interesting that this was posted in a self-proclaimed conservative newspaper.
- digitalsatori, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8This is precisely where the conflict arises. Do you sacrifice the well-being of a nation of 300,000 "free-willed" people, or do you subject them to a dogma (this removing their god-given "free will")? Why, as president, is "the people" not his highest authority?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10"Most European countries require a majority of a particular religion in their congress."
LOL. Who told you so? Your hairdresser with a PhD in political science? - digitalsatori, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7In a perfect world, we could look at the best choice for all people involved. But we seem to desperately need a "greater power" to make us think we're doing the right thing. There isn't personal responsibility anymore because people can simply be "redeemed" later.
It's easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I voted for the guy and his references to God make me wary. Generally we should be able to justify our actions, not because God said so, but because it's a good idea. God's got a decent track record for determining what is or is not a good idea, but it would be nice to offer the same justification that led to God's decision.
"Mr. Schroeder also suggested that America's Christian conservatives are not much different than Islamists who impose their beliefs."
Not sure I buy that. The biggest thing we're attempting to impose right now is democracy. That's a tough one to talk about because the only way to protect the democratic rights of one group of people is to kick the crap out of the ones who are trying to take it. So sure, you can say we're forcing democracy on all the guys who don't want democracy, but I'd say that's fundamentally different from forcing Islamic practices the way these guys are doing.
We force democracy on those who don't want it because we put priority towards the people who DO want it. We're helping those guys, but hurting some bad people in the process.
The Islamists force religion on others out of some need to save the people they're opressing. "If that woman doesn't cover her face, she'll go to hell!"
Christianity had some problems with that kind of thing in the past, but what we're doing now is different.
One could also speculate that Islamists do it as a means of population control, and the same could be said about our domestic policies. Neither side will admit to that however, and it's a separate issue.
Our foreign policy isn't designed to force rights on people who disagree with us, but to protect the rights of people who agree with us. And there's a very notable difference between the two. - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Mao Tse-Tung and Joseph Stalin, the two biggest mass murderers of all time, were atheists. Hitler comes in third using the Jews as a scapegoat for Germany's problems.
- mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12I hope nobody has forgotten how corrupt schroder was, example: how much money he made from the russians and certian oil pipelines.
- whoatemytuna, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Re: Subi, Just because our system may be a little better than the competition does not make it right. I am sick of how every time when someone raises a valid point in this country, someone is right there to shoot him down with how bad it is elsewhere. Why don't we try setting an example for once instead of being just a little less evil than everyone else?
- ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7No, they wage wars killing tens of thousands people instead.
- mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10In control, you have to be kidding me. GW is far from a christian extremist, maybe a globalist and oil baron but it no way a christian extremist. To control a country you would have to be in control of the media, government and military. The military does what it does, kills. The government has large numbers of vocal dissenters in congress. The Media bashes Pat Roberson almost every chance they get (which is justified). If you consider that control, wow.
- mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8"The Christian Democratic Union of Germany (CDU - Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands) is together with the CSU the largest political party in Germany. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Democratic_Union_(Germany)
Talking about integrating religion into politics, just another chance for alot of you to bash America, disregarding that alot of powers in the world integrate religion into their politics. - schnuck, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10oh yes, let's compare schroeder's corruption to bush corruption. errr... who will win?
- adb22791, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11It's not like Bush is going to read it anyway, so we shouldn't be freaking out.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/22/bush-books/ - labmouse42, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8For good fun value, replace all refrences to "God" in Bush's speeches to "The Mothership"
It makes them much more entertaining. - nalf38, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"The biggest thing we're attempting to impose right now is democracy."
I struggle with that idea a lot, going back and forth. Obviously I prefer our system of govt. over a theocracy, so you've got me there.
The Bushies have discovered a new catch phrase in 'democracy' that somehow intellectually disarms Americans into thinking that what they're is doing is just fine. In that way, spreading 'democracy' today is the same as 'civilizing' and 'Christianizing' countries that we wanted to invade a hundred years ago. Somehow everyone agrees it's a good thing even if they haven't really thought it through, because 'civilize' and 'Christian' and 'democracy' are comfort words to most Americans.
Also, I'm not sure you can ever "impose democracy," as the idea is oxymoronic, and the very idea of forcing something on someone is inherently undemocratic. The Muslim world hears our words, but they see our hypocrisy when they compare those words to our actions. - derkaas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You forgot the millions of dead on Mao Zedong's head. He was of the mind that a little death--or in the case of China, a lot--could not reasonably be expected to hold back human "progress." That's fanatical in my view.
Stalin, Lenin and Mao were most certainly fanatics, and their devotion was not to any religion but rather to an expressly areligious ideology.
Fanaticism is a human problem, not one of religion. - satipip, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Nearly.
My guess is God said: "George, kill all 'em terr'rists in Iraq. Failing that, try Iran next." - member57, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@digitalsatori
I am a Christian and I do firmly believe in Separation of Church and State. However, I do not believe that the President's right to freedom of religion be taken away. He is allowed just like any other citizen of this great nation to profess his faith publicly if he so chooses. Last time I checked, the President wasn't forcing you to join a local church, was he? So I don't see how the President professing his faith is threatening you or anybody else. Now the questionable war in Iraq is another story, we should not have went without more support, that is true. We are there now, so what now? We can't just leave like we did in Somalia now can we? - Koosebane, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10It's not just the winning or losing thing that causes public bombing. There are cultural differences that prohibit a great most Christians from purposely murdering their own people or using their wife and kids to shield their illegal explosives stash.
Muslim terrorists have extensive support networks that have undeniably extended into civilized countries through their Muslim populations.
Abortion clinic bomber Eric Rudolf was forced to live in the wilderness by himself and was caught out behind a Save-A_Lot scrounging for food in the garbage cans.
Don't compare the two as if they are an equal threat. The support levels are completely different.
Christians want their murderers in jail and go to great lengths to make sure they end up there. Muslims are not trusted to turn in their own criminals and are known to publicly teach and support martyrdom.
They are NOT the same.
If Muslims want trust, they need to stop supporting and aiding the butchers who tell them to teach their children to die for the cause. - nalf38, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Schroeder makes a good point. It's not that Christians think Islamic fundies are wrong for persecuting non-members, it's that they think Muslims are simply on the wrong side.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 161 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is