What is it that terrorists have in common?
Posted by AmericanGreatness 10 years, 1 month ago to Ask the Gulch
Hint: it's not that they're all named Bob.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Some piece of garbage walks into a Wednesday night prayer meeting at a predominately black church prayer meeting and shoots the place up, killing 9 and wounding others. Everyone from the President on down busts a gut to get on TV to slam presumably everyone south of Pennsylvania, and I can't go into Wal-Mart and buy a Dukes of Hazzard Hot Wheels car because it has (GASP!) a Confederate battle flag on it.
Fast forward: Some islamist suck hole shoots up two recruiting centers, killing four and wounding several others. The White House and the media seem oddly reluctant to condemn anyone. Why isn't there an outcry to remove Islamic banners and signs from everywhere? Why aren't leftist groups howling for mohammadeans to repent their evil ways? What about the centuries of hate from them against westerners being thrown up in everyone's face ad nauseum? After all, they've been targeting Americans since the days of the Barbary Pirates!
.
Remember that the Constitution specifies that if our government ever gets too "big for its britches", that it's up to the citizenry to replace it, if necessary. The only way to do this will be for us to remain better armed than the government. After all, our government should both fear and respect us.
There is no modern example of Christian armies slaughtering innocents. Quite the contrary, Chrsitians advocate for the preservation of life. radical Islam has declared war on us.
There are plenty modern examples of Christians killing innocents under the cover of their definition of war. Drones get the passers by as well as the alleged, unconvicted terrorist leader. Villages were wiped out in Vietnam due to suspected enemies. bombs were dropped on cities during WW II killing thousands of women and children. What is the difference between a political war and a holy war? I do not say any of this because I believe I have the answer but until we look at this subject fro mall angles we will never reach a solution.
And Christianity is not a fellow traveler of Islam. To begin with, Muhammad was a warrior and Christ preached peace. Muhammad was a child rapist. Islam does not allow for other religions and preaches jihad. Chrstiainity teaches to love their neighbor and forgive your enemies.
Again, this is an attempt at moral relativism and unravels immediately for lack of factual accuracy.
An interesting hypothesis and probably one of the coolest book titles ever.
http://www.countercurrents.org/lucas2...
The only real difference is the Islamic fanatics are willingly violating their prohibition of committing suicide just as Christians have violated thou shalt not commit murder
As for your last statement it may preach it but that's only on Sunday. What it teaches tells me they are not followers of Jesus Christ but play pretends secure in a belief of last second redemption as an excuse for the other six days Just another version of Mohammeds Paradise for those who commit suicide and call it martyrdom.. The two have a lot in common. Now follow your own request and procide examples to the contrary.
Where were your jumps?
Christians ran Nazi death camps??? Had you actually studied Hitler/Nazi's you would know, that Hitler outlawed Christianity and had a preternatural hatred for it. Your assertion is as wrong as wrong can be.
I defy you to find a call to arms/advocacy for war anywhere by Jesus.
Again, you're unable to provide examples of Christian armies committing jihadist atrocities, because the don't exist.
"After the city fell, the Imperial soldiers went out of control and started to massacre the inhabitants and set fire to the city. The invading soldiers had not received payment for their service and took the chance to loot everything in sight; they demanded valuables from every household that they encountered. Otto von Guericke, an inhabitant of Magdeburg, claimed that when civilians ran out of things to give the soldiers, "the misery really began. For then the soldiers began to beat, frighten, and threaten to shoot, skewer, hang, etc., the people." [7] It took only one day for all of this destruction and death to transpire. Of the 30,000 citizens, only 5,000 survived. For fourteen days, charred bodies were carried to the Elbe River to be dumped to prevent disease.
In a letter, Pappenheim wrote of the Sack:
I believe that over twenty thousand souls were lost. It is certain that no more terrible work and divine punishment has been seen since the Destruction of Jerusalem. All of our soldiers became rich. God with us.[8]
And history is full of such examples. I know of no major religion that is exempt. This does not make a religion right or wrong, it just makes it human.
Jan
Jan
If the extremists have any intelligence, they're keen to make the narrative about outsiders vs in-group rather than law and modernity vs mideval barbarism. Setting up a pointless contest of which religion has the most barbarians in modern times helps the extremist narrative.
There's a reason why there aren't examples of Christian armies slaughtering innocents. It's because it's antithetical to the teachings of Christ.
By contrast, jihad is a core principle of Islam.
Attempting to establish a moral equivelance argument is dangerously naive.
I took this journey myself, just to see what was there and was properly shocked.
It will require those of us to who do understand the world we live in to make it safe for you.
Again.
Many say that Christianity 'matured' in the past hundreds of years, while Islam hasn't. Your comparison request is irrelevant at best.
A better question might be to inquire as to what inspires CURRENT Imams and their followers to join the War Against The West and what might be able to be done to reverse the trend.
And, my question is absolutely relevant. The rebuttal of Crusades is absurd. Christianity had its reformation hundreds of years ago. When will Islam join the 21st century?
The question is, why do up to 25% of Muslims support violent jihad?
In spite of that, fundamentally why anyone supports violent jihad is because they believe they are right and others are wrong...just as you believe your beliefs are superior to theirs. A man's life is not valued for what it is, rather its value is determined by the jihadist's belief. That belief, like any other, is a crisis away from establishing its position of superiority with force...which is the ultimate way to win an argument when reason and existence have been abandoned.
Western civilization, which is based on Judeo-Christian beliefs, is fundamentally antithetical to their beliefs.
So, if you're 'pushed' by the others, God will be on your 'side'. Your justification doesn't originate from the natural rights of man, it comes from your subjective beliefs...just as the jihadist.
You may not like the equivalence of your beliefs, stripped of their particulars, but at that level the jihadist justification is equal to yours.
The two of us may find ourselves on similar sides of an issue, but I don't think beliefs are a valid defense of war, even in cases where military action is warranted.
The unfortunate flaw is that an understanding of right and wrong can be achieved without a moral compass. The understanding of man's natural rights came as a result of his understanding that they (natural rights) were endowed by his Creator. It was this realization/understanding that formed the bedrock on which western civilization was built.
Freedom and liberty are inextricably tethered to morality (particularly Judeo-Christian principles), and it provides the ability to objectively discern what's morally/fundamentally right and wrong behavior.
However, I arrived at my "conclusion" via reason and rational thought, not beliefs endowed by anyone.
Denying that fact is akin to denying gravity. You can personally choose not to believe it exists, but it's not dependent on your acceptance.
Things are so much clearer, now.
Good luck, AG.
Best of luck to you as well.
When will Islam join the 21st Century? How old is Christianity versus how old is Islam?? It may take another couple hundred years and some bloody wars before 'they' grow up.
And a 25% number might depend on who's asked and where they live?
It is ISLAM. Everything he did is outlined in the Koran. It is indeed an act of war by Islam. Muhammad required Muslims to war with non-Muslims.
Not all Muslims are terrorists/warriors/Jihadi but Islam REQUIRES it of all Muslims. There are no Radical Muslims only religious Muslims carrying out what is required of them to achieve eternal reward.
The US (and literally Obama) is bowing to the Saudis, who fund terrorists at war with us, to minimize mention to Islam in exchange for Saudi allegiance and oil.
ISLAM IS THE ENEMY. There is no placating it. It has been at war with the world since the 7th century and always will be unless it is completely reformed or defeated utterly.
And the PC patrols who look at the "what's not clear" question and can't see the forest OR the trees of intolerance and violence.
Islam.
Correctamundo.
Islam Delenda Est.
What do they have in common? Eric Hoffer's The True Believer gave a good summary of the character traits of the terrorist. Of course, admittedly, very few joiners and followers of political movements engage in actual violence towards others. That may leave the question unanswered.
The notion that conservatives/Christians are a threat to security is patently absurd.
I did not claim that they represent ALL or even some tiny part of "Christianity."
They just exist and are a data point that refutes claims that such morons don't exist at all. That's all. Stop going to 'they don't represent..." stuff.
Do not believe anything a Muslim says without concrete proof. Do not believe anything that is said about a Muslim without concrete proof. Muslims are told in the Quo'ran to lie to infidels.
I can't.
They believe this is the best action for them to take.
So some counter-propaganda is not unwelcome. Perhaps we will get Confederate-ebb as the marginal counties now recall that they were once proudly Union.
Jan
So the words end up meaning any violence worthy of dividing people into groups, ignoring our laws, and increasing gov't power.
1. Act of War - What is the difference between an act of war and an ordinary crime. Clearly a kook who "declares war" obstructing traffic in front a gov't building would not count. Clear, IMHO, a military action in a foreign country without a declaration of war by Congress would be an act of war (not terrorism unless civilians are deliberately targeted). So my question is what makes it war.
2. Deliberate non-combatant targets - What if the intended target is civilian infrastructure, like roads, power, and phones, with no intentional civilian deaths? What if the attackers target infrastructure that they know will lead to shortages of food or medical supplies, which may lead to deaths, hoping to draw the gov't to the bargaining table? What if the attackers impose a curfew with the policy that even non-combatants who violate it will be shot on sight?
I ask these questions b/c it's easy for any use of force to become "terrorism" by some definitions. My thought is it's just a epithet of condemnation with no meaning. I appreciate hearing other thoughts.
But that is not accurate. Holy war is declared by Islam, on the world. It's soldiers come from all countries and they are uniform in their belief and intent.
We call the Crusades, declared by the Pope, a war not terrorism. Every violent act of "terror" (in the tens of thousands since 2001) by Muslims is a skirmish in the war on the world of non Muslims. So yes it is an act of war. But the "Leaders" and the media are brainwashed by their own Religion of "Tolerance".
Islam is strengthened by their weakness. Every victory encourages them to do more harm. If they are defeated they stop. In their minds everything is the will of Allah. Victory means Allah is saying go defeat means stop.
In my mind, there has never been a time in the history of mankind I am aware of where there has not been a contest of ideologies. The real question is whether or not any particular ideology espouses a restraint on the promulgation of its philosophies to strictly the voluntary exchange of ideas. Bloodshed happens when an ideology attempts to use force to "convert" people to their way of thinking.
However, there are objectively right and wrong ideologies. While Christianity does seek to bring others to Christ, it does not seek this at this tip of the spear, but rather by voluntarily coming to Christ.
Muhammad himself was a warrior (and child rapist), who commanded followers of Islam force conversion, death, or absurd tax on non-believers.
We know the difference between the good guys and the bad guys, the freedom fighters and the terrorists.
There are many ideologies (I include both religious and secular) which are willing to confine their differences to strictly persuasive verbal communications. Most are like this including Christianity. Islam is, however, not an ideology willing to confine itself to non-violent means. I have read the Qu'ran and had it explained to me by followers of Islam that the Qu'ran itself advocates for the spread of Islam regardless of the tactics used - including violence. That sets it apart from most others with the exception of military dictatorships and juntas, fascism and communism.
And yes, I agree that there is a significant difference (being not only the end itself but the means by which it is achieved) between freedom fighters and terrorists.
There is an associated web site with other good info on it here https://www.voiceofresistance.org/
Thanks for the links.
What they do have in common is the Cycle of Repression system (Carlos Marighella circa 1960's first used by Uruguay's Tupamaro revolution.)
Which in part states never use the same tactic,technique or target more than once in a row
The entire concept is based on a defending government never knows what to defend.
What Marighella never envisioned was the use of his strategy bya government against it's own people.
But then after 9/11 the instant experts took over...and the terrorists won that round.
It matters not if they are religious or secular, goverenment or anti-govenment the purpose of terrorism is to create fear and terror. not glib little cliches suitable for thirty second sound bites.
They (radical Islam) have declared war on the West, and we ignore that fact at our own peril.
That said, can you provide me some clear differences between "radical" islam versus, say islam-lite? Or, beginners islam and "mainstream" islam? "Regular" islam and "islamic conservative"? Do you have any verses in either the koran, sura or the hadiths that can clearly point the differences?
Finally, do you think mohommad would give his coerced followers options of which one to accept outside of what he said and did?
Christians? Jews? Yep... some extremists in just about any mainstream group. Muslims? It seems that out of a billion or so of them on earth, a small percentage of them are the fucking loons that like death more than life, but even a small percentage of a billion people can be a major threat to the rest of us.
Yes, their may be the lunatic claiming to be a Christian, but that truly is an anomaly. When 150-250 million support violent killing of non-Muslims, that's a BIG problem.
Which Polls?
You really need to do more research, and you'll recognize the inaccuracy of your assertions.
The fact that 15-25% of Muslims are ok with violent jihad is a problem (Pew, Gallup, and multiple other studies have demonstrated this).
It only took 10% of Germans to support Hitler's actions.
I see the problem as 'here's a belief system that recruits people into itself with the goal of making Everyone In The World One of "us" and exterminating anyone who refuses.
Screw the polls. The number is NOT the problem. The culture, ethics and morals 'is the problem.'
So, how would one go about changing such 'minds'?
We defeat them just as we did the Nazis and the Japanese. We don't want war, because it's awful and runs counter to our beliefs, but if evil will not not surrender, it must be vanished.
What heartens me is that, despite the wussiness of so many Americans, it appears that the leaders of Other Nations, for whatever reasons, are beginning to react to the attacks and danger BY DOING Something about it.
Maybe our 'esteemed Leader' will lead from behind and follow those other countries... so he can blame others for his failures Again.
And sorry, Israel is not The Problem. People (Islamist Fundamentalists) who clearly announce that they want to kill all the Jews and destroy Israel have just about the exact same goals as any jihadist we might complain about here. Same goals, slightly different strategy, but at the core, the same hatred.
Been to Israel lately? I have.
Any jack arse who claims violence in the name of Christianity is an IMPOSTER, an INFILTRATOR of any given church whose job is to twist the word of Jesus, confuse those who don't know anything or very little about the Bible & thus, turn them away from learning the truth about the message JC gave to everyone.
Those POS are not to be trusted or viewed as Christians, they are not. They are no different than the Luciferians who call themselves Jews and they are not: Revelations, Chapter 2, Verse 9. Do not be deceived!
A LOT of the Bible was written and rewritten LONG after JC departed this mortal coil, and the Koran was dictated by an illiterate to scribes who could have written down anything they wanted yet parroted back similar words if Mohammed asked for a 'playback.'
So there are imposters on both (or all) sides....
That's not an argument for WHY they exist or why so many people follow them!
Unless you try to make THAT the subject of this 'discussion,' and that certainly is not MY goal.
I tend to believe that poverty is one driving force... when a lot of people have no hope of achieving a comfortable and secure, safe life, they react by hating people they can blame for their own lack or shortcomings.
Then comes power and control, so leaders take advantage of that jealousy and turn it into anger and hatred, as opposed to helping the 'needy' do what's needed to change their situation in some positive way. Witness the anger of black religious leaders in the US.
Redistribution of wealth will never be a cure for lack of education and development of marketable skills, though lots of people seem to believe that in their hearts, if not their heads.
That said, you indicated that right wing and Christian terrorists also pose a threat. Can you provide examples of these groups threatening America?
Many biblical passages, Old or New Testament belie your assertion, as do passages in the Quran.
Quack Quack Quack. if it'talks leftist and walks leftist and ducks leftist......it isn't an apple. Especially if it follow the secular progessives manual of non debate.
I was just offering Googled references to indicate that both 'testaments' have similar content... :)
So, to answer your question, "of course not!"
Next Question?
I offered references to sources that refute sources referenced by others... I did not profess belief that either side is Right or Wrong.
I'm an atheist. My beliefs on the subject are orthogonal to most others' beliefs and irrelevant to this discussion... just ask any Believer... :)
+ They talk about their beliefs in social media.
+ They denounce the United States.
+ They often live at home with their parents.
+ They are self-radicalized. They view al Qaeda USA (now branded as "Inspire" media), YouTube videos, etc., and are not radicalized by co-religionists here in America.
+ They are copycat criminals, admiring the previous works of others and imitating them.
However, among the small sample set (about twenty in all), some outliers remain. Before this attack, the previous perpetrator had no religious convictions before adopting Islam. (Often, these people move from one faith to another.) Although most attacks involve guns or bombs, one was carried out with a hatchet. (Zale Thompson, Oct. 24, 2014).
In this case, the criminal was in no way socially isolated, an outcast, a loner, or misfit. He seems to have been a regular guy. However, it is clear that his trip to Kuwait last year brought change. Whether that took place before he went there is not clear. None of his co-religionists or other social circle know of any radicalization here. At least, those are the common news reports in the first 24 hours.
Another commonality that the FBI special agent did not mention - in fact, as I recall, ruled out in profiling - was occupation. Engineers are disproportionately represented among jihadi not in the USA. This case put the perpetrator within that set. More on that later.
I posted a video (from my town of Colo Spgs) this small woman, handcuffed but admittedly somewhat combative get body slammed face down-the cop was twice her size. all sorts of people agreed with the cop. they thought she knocked him in the nuts. he showed no signs of impairment. I can tell you honestly, if I am ever arrested, I will not go meekly
the early States proved it handsomely. -- j
.
Usually the means order, not so much "law".
My comment meant that many people who say they're for "law and order" are actually just for "order" and not the "rule of law". The canonical extreme example is Mussolini, who according to myth, made the "trains run on time."
America is a nation of laws to be adjudicated blindly. Without the guardrails of the law to keep us safe, there is anarchy.
Do I think the government has FAR exceeded its Constitutional bounds? Absolutely. But, to say the cops are the bad guys is akin to saying the Marines are the bad guys. Are there bad apples? Of course. In any group, there will be a small percentage of bad people.
That said, try living in city of significant size without police and see what happens.
What's your solution?
I am not for anarchy. I am firmly for all property rights to be enforced. I lived in Colorado Springs for 15 years. The only time I need the police were when soldiers from Fort Carson robbed me. 3 times. Maybe alot was happening while I was sleeping. They did come to the house one time while we were backpacking. Kira had a party. They lined everyone up on the couch. I found out about it 3 days later. No one was arrested. I lived in Broadmoor. If you don't understand that, it means we try not to arrest any homeowners or their children from Broadmoor. It's a dumb rule-the rule should be-we go out of our way not to arrest ANYONE who has not committed a violent crime.
Property rights are mission critical (couldn't agree more), but your property will be gone, along with your life without law enforcement.
Summation. 1% of police commit crimes at the rate of one percent for all categories of crimes . 1% of the general population commite crimes at the rate of 1 percent average for all classes of crimes.
What are they getting prepared for? Let's se the city let's me use a 9mm popgun while the criminals are are sporting .357's with armor piercing rounds. As a guess i would say survival.
"However, while the number of Americans carrying firearms has soared, murder rates have fallen by a full 25%, from 5.6 down to 4.2 per 100,000 people, according to the Crime Prevention Research Center study.
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/guns...
Of course, advocates of gun control such as Obama and the Violence Policy Center never advocate that agents of government be disarmed. However, maybe they should due to the fact that the recent study also shows that average citizens who possess carry permits commit crime at a far lower rate than police officers do.
According to Edward Stringham, although official statistics have historically been scant, we now know that police killed 1,100 Americans in 2014 and 476 Americans in the first five months of 2015. Given that America has roughly 765,000 sworn police officers, that means the police-against-citizen kill rate is more than 145 per 100,000.
That means that police kill more than 30 times that of the average citizen.
In Florida and Texas, for example, permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies one-sixth as often as police are, despite how rarely violent police actually get prosecuted for the crimes they commit."
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/guns...
I wonder if there is a connection? Pardon the pun.
"After President Barack Obama delivered brief remarks in response to the shooting in Chattanooga, Tennessee, that claimed the lives of four Marines, conservative political pundit Charles Krauthammer said he noticed a pattern.
The Fox News contributor said the attack on military personnel is an “example of radical Islam at work” and slammed the president for suggesting it was an isolated incident.
“The general issue is radical Islam,” he stated. “And unless we have a president who immediately says ‘this is a lone gunman,’ how does he know?” "
"After President Barack Obama delivered brief remarks in response to the shooting in Chattanooga, Tennessee, that claimed the lives of four Marines, conservative political pundit Charles Krauthammer said he noticed a pattern.
The Fox News contributor said the attack on military personnel is an “example of radical Islam at work” and slammed the president for suggesting it was an isolated incident.
“The general issue is radical Islam,” he stated. “And unless we have a president who immediately says ‘this is a lone gunman,’ how does he know?”
Except. This time the only commission was some magical gift the rest of us don't possess. Perhaps one of the Wicked Witches of the left did a Magic Potion #51?
Together they fund and guide MoveOn, Open Society Institute and the ACLU - the left wing extremists. You will see some posts here from time to time from their adherents all in the same pattern dictated by the Lakoff book Frame The Debate. Easy to spot by refusal to answer questions and constantly changing the question and the constant hammering of the same theme. Their right to legally buy elections through targeting areas and campaigns with soft money came out as I have the right without explanation to all take all of your rights without exception.
The non-existent right was countered by listing five or six existing rights at which point the SP disappeared and has never returned - at least under that name. They do not handle direct confrontation nor facts well and rely on the Big Lie technique more often that not.... Two of their acolytes are Comrade Nancy Pelosillyni promoter of the tax on embedded tax VAT system and Comrade Wicked Witch of the Left Hillary Clinton with her enhanced tax system and most of the left wing of the leftist Government Party. (Democrats and cave in a second bi-partisan members of the Republican Party.) Soros stated goal is forced confiscation of wealth in excess of 50 million except for his own which is kept in an offshore bank. That is the start point.
(I personally define the left as those who believe in and practice government control of citizens as opposed to citizen control of government and consider the Republicans to be the right wing OF the left. A manufactured condition by moving the signpost marked Center to the center of the left as opposed to it's proper position as the center of USA political thought the Constitution. Easier to understand what they really do in Washington DC as opposed to what they say or said they were going to do. i do not accept their twisted definitions nor their propaganda but consider left and right to be those who support government control of citizens and citizen control of governments as the two opposing factions.As far as Soros, Lewis, and Lakoff I would define them as enemies domestic in my personal opinion.)
Short version to your question.
You must have been out of the country when all those law suits against christmas trees, school pageants, anything that looked like a cross or a menorah were in the headlines. The ACLU lost but they did force by fear a lot of changes at the local levels and most easily in the schools.
And all it would have taken was providng the 25th for one celebration, and following the good sense of hte Brits Boxing Day for the children. along with standing up to the left wing fascists.
And, you think celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ, the most consequential being to ever walk the Earth is drivel? You are aware that what you refer to as "crap" is the foundational bedrock of freedom and liberty, that all men are created equal, and western civilization is based on his teachings, right?
The alleged pregnancy of Jesus was supposedly god (the holy trinity are all one, right?), who had sex with another man’s fiancee and she covered it up by claiming (as did many during that time period) it was a virgin conception. Of course, the virgin idea did not hit upon the Christians myth writers for more than two centuries. Before that the preacher was never referred to as the child of a virgin. The virgin physical problem is this: Jesus was male. Where did the X chromosome come from? If she got pregnant from a god, the sperm came from his balls.
Besides, how does this relate to the Christian army?
The "separation of church and state" reference in Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists was intended to recognize their right to congregate and was in no way, shape, or form intended to extend across the entire government (this is widely recognized among Constitutional scholars).
As for your disdain for Christianity that another matter entirely. The irony is that the freedom and liberty you have to write such drivel is the direct result of Judeo-Christian principles that founded the foundation of Western Civilization, and the freedom which you now enjoy.
In the meantime, the best I can do is recommend you listen to the “Basic Principles of Objectivism” course or buy the transcript. In Lecture Four, Branden says: “To discuss a belief which, at least since the time he emerged from the cave, has been singularly unbecoming to man. That the belief in god has not disappeared along with the belief in witches and demons, as it should have centuries ago, and the disastrous consequences of this belief are such as to necessitate our discussing the issue tonight.
“This is an analysis of an error, with the analysis of a belief that is not true. This analysis is necessary. I shall demonstrate that the faith in god implies and necessitates the invalidation and the undercutting of man’s consciousness.”
In Lecture Four, he presents an analysis of the error of a belief in a god, in a simple, non-technical manner.
Further, it's richly ironic that you carp on Christians for the understanding of this principle, while you yourself cling to your personal religion of Objectivism.
While Brandon makes good points, to place his intellect above those of the greatest thinkers in human history is a bit of a stretch.
Additionally, you continually fail to rebut historical facts with anything other than brooming them as inconsequential. The basis for Western Civilization is not an inconsequential kink in your theory.
Furthermore, if there was not Creator, how were we created? By your own philosophy of Objectivism,, we must have had a creator. The mere presence of raw materials doesn't spontaneously make things happen. Would the Empire State Building have magically appeared given enough time simply because the materials were here? Would throwing the components of a watch into a bag and shaking it result in a functioning watch.
You argument may be stimulating in the faculty lounge, but it unravels quickly when mugged by reality.
I agree there are some Objectivists who are cultists, but I am not one of them.
Yet again, you bring up Christian armies on the march to slaughter innocents when NO such thing has happened, in particular not in modern history (even if you consider that the last 200 years). You've still not provided an example. When reality doesn't match your assumptions, it's time you reevaluate your assumptions.
You can want A to equal B all day long, but that doesn't make it so.
Name the date range you consider "modern," ok?
The assertions here are that a large percentage of the armies who were led by Hitler and others WERE Christians. The 'conclusion' should be "why didn't they all leave the army or refuse to follow orders?"
Stop dancing away from the points.
To assert that Hitler's army was Christian is to be dangerously uninformed.
No one making in the string making the accusation of such Christian armies has provided a single example in modern times (and by modern, I mean since the Crusades, so allows for a pretty good sweep of time).
Hitler effectively muzzled the Church and killed those who opposed him. Furthermore, Hitler was a fan of H. P Blavatsky (occultist) and of jackarse Darwin. (evolutionist). (Got Aryan Race?)
If you can point to me a speech in which Hitler gives New Testament chapters & verses that provide validation on why he motivates the country's industry for war, I would greatly appreciate it, so I can do further research.
You really need to study actual historical documents regarding Hitler and the Nazis. If you did that, you would learn very quickly that Hilter although he was raised Catholic, he grew to despise Christianity. In his rise to power, he banned Christian worship from the public square in favor of worship for the self and the collective/government (much in common with modern liberalism).
Hitler did, however, create alliances with leaders of Islam, which is also thoroughly documented.
What I said was, if you will ever so kind as to read it again, is "You don't have to dig any further than Wikipedia to learn the Catholic church was the #1 church in Nazis Germany"---I did not say that was the extent of my studies.
"Civility is not not saying negative or harsh things. It is not the absence of critical analysis. It is the manner in which we are sharing this territorial freedom of political discussion. If our discourse is yelled and screamed and interrupted and patronized, that's uncivil. ~~Richard Dreyfuss
This is not a debatable point but a mater of historical record.
I am constantly amazed at the number of people who are willing to fight to the death for their imaginary gods they heard about in a book or books written by people who thought the earth was flat and did not know where the sun went at night. Fortunately, Festinger explained the psychological issue in his 1954 book on cognitive dissonance. Love your little god, that is fine. Just don't initiate force against others who don't believe as do you. All too many Christians (and others of the Abrahamic faiths have).
The religion of the Nazis was Nazism. Hitler banned Christianity from the public square and had an intense hatred for it.
I'm frankly gobsmacked that anyone would even make such an assertion.
The German Army had some assorted Christians in it (Klaus von Stauffenberg for one...and today is the anniversary of the July 20 plot), but the Wehrmacht and the SS were decidedly Nazi, and anything but Christian. And Nazism was a complete anathema to ANY organized religion, let alone Christianity.
Gobsmacked means astonished, utterly astonished, flabbergasted, etc.
If you truly believe Hitler was a Catholic, simply because he said so, well I guess you also believe that Al Gore Jr invented the internet, simply because he said so too. Hitler was a puppet of his bankster masters, a politician and a most masterful liar. Are you among those who are deceived? Anyways, what does Hitler and his National Zionists have in common with today's terrorists? Hate.
LOL.
The short list is Judeo-Christian countries that attack innocents with the mandate convert or die.
Or Cults, for which I find lots of similarities, too.
:) Even Mao had HIS own little Good Book, though it had a red cover, right?
The first thing one should when in a hole is stop digging.
Your quedtion to me has been answered and your assertion proven incorrect.
As an atheist, I guess it's a bit difficult for me to consider atheism as a 'religion' since I've never seen any "Good Book" cited as The Source Everyone Must Derive Their Ethics and Morals From, while most acknowledged 'religions' do...
What I have seen is a lot of 'religionists' make up definitions for atheism that could portray atheism as a 'religion,' but only if those narrow definitions are used, and usually only applicable to 'defining atheism as a religion.'
Atheists tend to start with 'prove it' and religionists tend to answer with "My Holy Book says it's true, and that's all the proof I need."... which is a pretty crappy 'proof' from any other viewpoint.
:)
The reason is simple... it's antithetical to the teachings of Christ.