Jerry Falwell calls Muhammad a terrorist

Bubba: Do you think I think anyone is "principled" in this game?

Everyone's in it for themselves... obviously.

 

In December of 1941, we were still in the midst of the Great Depression. One could just as easily infer that we entered World War II to get out of the depression, rather than respond to Japan attacking our Pacific fleet or Germany declaring war on us.

The problem is, making such an inference about 1941 or 2002 is REALLY cynical, based on no reliable evidence that I know of, and does not address the following:

If Bush were doing this for oil or for money or for "revenge" against the man who tried to kill his dad, he wouldn't be able to say so in a single meeting. He couldn't say such a thing to his inner circle, let alone his senior staff or the hundreds of people below them who make the policy. Word would get out. Opponents would leak it. Ambitious men would blow the whistle and become heroes. Decent men would blow the whistle too.

Make all the "emperor" jokes you want, but the reality is this: the network of people with whom Bush consults and with which he enacts policy - domestic and foreign - is far too big for your conspiracy theory. If Bush REALLY IS planning war to boost the economy, he would either have to hide that fact from his Administration OR convince the entire Administration to keep its collective mouth shut. Both is VERY unlikely given the stakes of this game, given that we're risking the lives of American soldiers AND civilians when we announce our intentions to topple Saddam's regime.

 

The bigger the mess... the less likely anyone will believe it.

For one hundred years we still believed that the Spanish American War was fought over a just cause. Only relatively recently has it come to light that the Maine was not sunk by Spanish forces at all.

The House Select Committee on Assassinations determined in the 1970s that there were in fact two shooters at Dealey Plaza on Nov. 22, 1963... which, by definition, constitutes a conspiracy to assassinate the President... but to this day many Americans believe Lee Harvey Oswald was the "lone nut".

Why? We don't want to know the truth... it's not as comforting.

Ignorance is bliss.

Both is VERY unlikely given the stakes of this game, given that we're risking the lives of American soldiers AND civilians when we announce our intentions to topple Saddam's regime.

Of course, you realize one has to assume that politicians are concerned about the lives of people whom they do not know or upon whom their livelihoods, their wealth and their power are not wholly dependent. Some people do not have a problem sacrificing others for their own benefit. Our current corporate crisis should be proof enough of this.

Ask Bernard Ebbers and Joseph Nacchio how many jobs they destroyed by screwing with pension funds and taking multimillion dollar compensations while tossing their companies down the toilet. Did they have a problem with this? When asked by our Congress how they felt about this, these CEOs did not empathize one bit.

 

....aaaaaand we're off topic. Sorry guys, I think this belongs more in the Iraq thread now.

Not that I remember anymore what this thread's topic was supposed to be...

 

Something about Jerry Falwell dressing in drag and doing the hula.

 

Gee, thanks for the mental image... *shudder*

 

My own interpretations? I just gave you the references. If you have such a problem with it, then refer to the Koran yourself. That goes to everybody. I do not suppose I have to spell everything out just so you people can understand it. I even posted a link to the Koran in order for all of you to read it yourself! [sarcasm]I am so irresponsible, aren't I?[/sarcasm]


That's fine. Let me walk over to my shelf and pull out my own copy of the Qur'an (which have thanks to the uni assignments on Islam). Ahh, there we are. Yes, you did (as I mentioned earlier) take a HUGE CHUNK of unrelated verses and smooch them altogether to suport what your saying - simply because you can't find a single verse that says that you will be surrounded by virgins after you die - you know why you can't find that verse? - because it ISN'T THERE!!!

[rolls eyes]

Kithera

 

Whoa! There ain't no "anti-Catholic" propaganda in my comments, ok? Let's just check the names of sources here;
Walter Laquer, Walter LaFeber, Colin Tatz, Yehuda Bauer, Michael R Marris, John S Conway.

All world-class Holocaust historians. Sorry, you don't like the message, don't shoot the messanger.

E_S

 

You seem to concentrate solely on my assertion that the promise of virgins is included in the Koran. What about my other assertions? Are you simply content to take pot shots from a distance rather than answering my primary point about Islam's bloody history?

Do you deny special rewards, be they virgins, young lads, both, etc., are awarded to "martyrs" who die in the "defense" of Islam? Did you even bother to look up all of my references?

Do you know why I posted like I did? I did it because of my belief, however erroneous, that some people on this forum will actually look things up for themselves rather than relying on me to spoon-feed it to them. Have you ever studied the Hadith? It might help you to better understand Moslem theology. Even some Moslems I have spoken with admit that the Koran is not sufficient to understand Islam.I could have mentioned some references in the Hadith, but I decided not to since so many people in these forums are apparently quite Koran-centric.

 

I suggest doing a search for a Monseignor Hugh O'Flaherty, aka The Scarlet Pimpernel of the Vatican.

There was even a movie made about him-he was played by Gregory Peck. Star War's very own Admiral Piet-Kenneth Colley-played a Nazi in the film. John Gielgud played the Pope.

From what I can recall, about, oh, 8,000 or more Jews hid out in the Vatican.

I'm not saying that more could not have been done by the Church. However, to say that the Catholic church approved of and supported the Nazis is something entirely different.

I don't agree with the church on a lot of things, but as for officially sanctioning the Nazis, no. I would say they were frightened, and perhaps did nothing out of FEAR. But I do not think they were Nazis. Or responsible. Sorry, no dice.

 

Since this thread now seems to be covering two subjects, I will address them one at a time.

Jerry Falwell Calls Muhammad a Terrorist Since this is a Star Wars website, all of us are familiar with Obi-Wan Kenobi's A Certain Point of View, this can go on for a long time. It all depends on your point of view. It is possible, if you want to, to read the Koran and if you read it a certain way, you can come up with Muhammad being a terrorist, or you can find him being a savior. I have never read the Koran so I can't really say what he found in it to understand it to read. That is just my take on it.


The Catholic Church in the time of WWII The head of the Catholic Church in the era of HItler and Stalin was Pope Pius XI. Pope Pius XI very early in his career spoke out against socialism and communism. I believe one of his quotes was "No True Catholic can be a Socialist...no believer of Christ can ever follow the dictates of COmmunism.

Pius XI issued very Anti-Nazi decrees to be read church wide in congregations in Germany prior to the election of the Nazi's.

Unfortunately, fear is a powerfull weapon. Many priests and bishops chose not to read these edicts, out of a justified fear of retaliation by HItler's forces.

Many lower ranking priests who spoke against Hitler were arrested within a month of his election, never to be seen again (ie, were put in a shallow grave somewhere). I believe they number in the low 10's or so. Several high ranking Bishops and nuns were imprisoned in Concentration Camps, for being too vocal against Hitler, and were canonized as saints in recent years too.

So I believe history shows that the Catholic Church did the best it could under the circumstances of rise of the Third Reich. Could more have been done? Certainly. Would Hitler and the Gestapo have hesitated to go after even more priests who spoke against him? Yes. Did the remaining Catholic Priesthood have a justifiable fear of speaking out against Hitler? Yes.

 

"And can you at least see that those Muslim leaders who are calling for Falwell's DEATH (see a previous post above) are SERIOUSLY discrediting the claim that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance?"

It's justified. Jerry Falwell has the intelligence of library paste. The only difference between him and "Islamic" crackpots like bin Laden is that bin Laden has power in the government.

You know what? Maybe I should put that in quotes so people don't think I support Falwell or believe such stupid things as "ISLAM IS EEEEEEEEEEEEVIL!!!!"

 

Did you just say that calling for Falwell's death is justified?


EDIT: You *do* know this isn't a game, right? That this isn't the exaggerated posturing of professional wrestlers. Muslim religious leaders are calling for the actual death of another human being because he doesn't like their religion.

And you think it's justified? Whatever happened to freedom of speech?

A few years ago, an "artist" put a crucifix in a jar of urine and deeply insulted a large part of the Christian faith. Nobody called for his death (rightly so), but what if they did? Would you call *that* justified?

Falwell's not the best representative of the Christian faith, and mainstream Christians distance ourselves from him with each instance of him shooting his mouth off. But he doesn't deserve to die.

This is deadly serious: agreeing with those who think Falwell should die because of his comments are embracing evil and threatening all our rights to say what we want.

If Muslim clerics (or anyone else for that matter) can dictate what we can and cannot say, what's next? Will asserting that the 19 9/11 terrorists were Muslim be considered an affront to their faith, punishable by death? Despite the fact that the assertion is true?

 

In any other country, Falwell wouldn't even be aloud on a public forum.

 

What's your point, Kaine? That the U.S. government should censor its media in the footsteps of Saudi Arabia? Or that other countries are nicer in that all their hate speech comes from the left?

 

I actually agree with Bubba. I do not want any censorship of that kind in the United States.

 

Yeah, I'm against censorship in the U.S. as well. I mean who are we gonna laugh at if this guy is censored? Falwell = unintentional comedy.

 

I think I know what Kaine_Damo means.

Falwell wouldn't be able to get his voice heard over here in Britain.

Why? Not because of censorship, but because the people wouldn't stand it. Because that kind of stuff doesn't get on TV, mostly because Britain seems to have much less fundamentalists - much less Christians, in fact - and that kind of talk just isn't mainstream. There may be one or two cults that think like that, but none of them get any where near the kind of air time that Falwell does, if at all.

The point is that in America, the atmosphere encourages that stuff much more than it does in many other countries. Christianity is so much more mainstream, and ultra-conservatism so much more acceptable, so when someone who believes in both strongly comes along, they're also much more likely to be listened to.

I remember when I was last in America, I ended up in Montana. If you just flick through the radio stations around there, you'd be amazed at the amount of evangelists there are on the radio (I can still hear that drawling voice compelling me to let Jesus' love wash over me). That might be the same everywhere, but I never had occasion to find out any where else.

This is all very curious, considering that Britain has absolutely no Church/State seperation (our head of state is also head of the Church of England), and America has an amazing amount of it.

- Scarlet.

 

TripleB, I don't know what history of the Holocaust you're reading, but it's pretty much inconsistent with the one's I'm looking at here. Please post some proof of this?

E_S

 

And what exactly is the history we are talking about? If you are talking about the Catholic Church during the era of the Third Reich, it has been discussed on previous pages, and that person above my previous post also talked about it too.

 

Ender Sai said

TripleB, I don't know what history of the Holocaust you're reading, but it's pretty much inconsistent with the one's I'm looking at here. Please post some proof of this?

First off, I am not a teacher and it is not always up to me to actually teach the history. IT has been a while since I have taken Third Reich era courses but here goes as I dissect the only other post I have made on this thread.


The Catholic Church in the time of WWII The head of the Catholic Church in the era of HItler and Stalin was Pope Pius XI.

Are you denying that?

Pope Pius XI very early in his career spoke out against socialism and communism. I believe one of his quotes was "No True Catholic can be a Socialist...no believer of Christ can ever follow the dictates of COmmunism.

I believe he said that before he became Pope, I believe he said that when he headed a Diocese somewhere, maybe when he was in that college thingy the Catholic Church uses to select a new pope.

Pius XI issued very Anti-Nazi decrees to be read church wide in congregations in Germany prior to the election of the Nazi's.

This I know you can find at the Vatican's official website.

Unfortunately, fear is a powerfull weapon. Many priests and bishops chose not to read these edicts, out of a justified fear of retaliation by HItler's forces.

That is a matter of history here- I shoudl have added that while many probably were unquestionably afraid of retaliation, there was no doubt some German priests whom might have actually believed in what Hitler was saying.

Many lower ranking priests who spoke against Hitler were arrested within a month of his election, never to be seen again (ie, were put in a shallow grave somewhere). I believe they number in the low 10's or so. Several high ranking Bishops and nuns were imprisoned in Concentration Camps, for being too vocal against Hitler, and were canonized as saints in recent years too.

I remember hearing about this in the news a few years back, about a bunch of Priest and Nun's being cannonized after defying the Nazi's and being executed for it.

So I believe history shows that the Catholic Church did the best it could under the circumstances of rise of the Third Reich. Could more have been done? Certainly. Would Hitler and the Gestapo have hesitated to go after even more priests who spoke against him? Yes. Did the remaining Catholic Priesthood have a justifiable fear of speaking out against Hitler? Yes.

That last part is pretty much conjecture on my part. If you want to go against it, please go ahead, but I am simply stating the obvious there: That in the era of the Third Reich, the Catholic Church Could have done more, and that lots of individual Priests and Catholics did their part, that they had a justifiable reason to be afraid of what would happen if they did anything, and that there were many within the Church who failed to act.

 

Thanks Scarlet Banner, thats exactly what i meant. I couldn't have explained it better myself. Nobody here would take Falwell seriously! Thats why he wouldn't be aloud on a public forum, unless he claimed he was a comedian. Socially, America and Britain are very different places. If Falwell tried to spout his crap over here, he would be booed and heckled off whatever podium he's on.

Furthermore, on a different subject, i believe in freedom of speech as much as the next guy. But... (bet ya didn't see the but coming) i believe that if someone is going to talk about politics in a highly public forum, such as a TV spot, they have to know what they're talking about. And, what they say shouldn't be insightfull, or hatefull, or offensive to a large group of people. Falwell doesn't know what he's talking about, and i believe on his website there's a clock that says the amount of days this dead homosexual has "been in hell", which is very hatefull and offensive and insightfull! So yeah... if it were up to me, i wouldn't let Falwell talk on such a highly public forum as he gets to.

 

There's a huge difference between public repudiation and official censorship from modes of communication.

 

I'm for private acts of shunning dispicable beliefs, to a reasonable degree: boycotts, etc. If you noticed, a large number of Christians and conservatives have contined to distance themselves from Falwell.

(Have liberals distanced themselves from those like Michael Moore and International ANSWER? Not yet...)

But the fact that Europe wouldn't put up with Falwell doesn't impress. It's one thing if they condemned all hate speech, but they only condemn hate speech from the right. If you want to slur Israel or its inhabitants, you seem to get a free pass.

 

Exactly.

It seems as if nowadays, people can get away with saying anything about Christians or Jews.

Oh, but don't you dare say a word about muslims. Don't question the sheer statistics that proove that something is amiss in the "peaceful" religion of Islam. Don't question the nebulous character traits of Muhammad, the founder of Islam. In fact, jut don't question anything about Islam, because if you do, you are instantly labeled a "racist" or a "bigot".

But if you want to say anything about other groups, then go ahead, because it's "OK". And if you do say something about Islam, you are instantly reminded of the past atrocities committed by other faiths, as if somehow the past transgressions of other religions give a "free-pass" to Islam to be violent.

As with many other things in the world right now, it seems that extreme political correctness has reared its ugly head again.