StevenSeagal

Obfuscating the ongoing historical development of the Middle East, the process by which a potent strain of militant Islam came into existence, and how and when people are radicalized around ethnic, religious, tribal, and national identities by pretending that the Koran is a sort of timebomb set in the 7th Century is kinda silly. read your history, prole, and take a read through the Koran. To say nothing of other faiths, Islam has from its inception been a miltant religion of conquest. It is not going away therefore the hope is it will transform itself from within to coexist with modern civil society. That might come in the form of a new testament of sorts. The old testament of the bible is largely ignored today, thankfully, for it's a frightfully barbaric tome. The Koran isn't any different yet there's a billion faithful right now who read it daily. Pretending that organized religion in general isn't dangerous, or one in particular isn't just because of your politics surrounding it demand you give it empathy- well to me that is kinda silly.

it's also likely that without the policy of meddling and intervention in the Muslim world, there wouldn't be a wave of religious fundamentalism in these regions. right, that's all it would take to launch the culture 600 years into the present and rewrite the Koran so it no longer explicitly and repeatedly teaches its readers to despise non believers. I agree that our politics are not helping matters and in fact fueling the fire, but beyond that ascribing the whole conflict to politics is willful ignorance. The fact of the matter is that fundamentalism has made great headways throughout the muslim world since the policies of meddling intensified. I am no expert in religious writings but I seriously doubt the Koran is anymore intolerant of others than say the old testament. I largely agree except that Christianity has undergone a multi hundred year process of selectively ignoring passages of its texts that conflict with tenets of civil society, whereas Islam with its closed societies and hindrinces to outside exchange of ideas, has not. The Islamic world has a lot of catching up to do, and we all have long way to go ourselves at that. Our military adventurism is retarding this process and yes, helping proliferate the miltant Islamic movements. But I would maintain that their cultures and religious doctrines were already primed for it.

I am only interested in religious extremism against America. it's everyone's problem and making it geopolitical won't shield you from it, ever.

it's also likely that without the policy of meddling and intervention in the Muslim world, there wouldn't be a wave of religious fundamentalism in these regions. right, that's all it would take to launch the culture 600 years into the present and rewrite the Koran so it no longer explicitly and repeatedly teaches its readers to despise non believers. I agree that our politics are not helping matters and in fact fueling the fire, but beyond that ascribing the whole conflict to politics is willful ignorance.

and just like that, religious extremism is solved. I'm sure the hooded guys in the beheading videos are just longing to get back to peacefully raising their families and saving up for that trip to Disneyland.

One could also interpret this graph as: 1) 57% are NOT "conservative". A majority, is my point. 2) since 1992, conservatism and liberalism have each increased by 4%.

Because HIV is not strictly an "American" problem and medicine doesn't view its sphere of operation through borders.

The thread title made me think you never saw "Marked For Death". But anyway...God, next thing you know he's going to let fags into the country.

Yeah but that doesn't mean you aren't going to hell, Tvash.

I was only speaking of the ongoing complaints from Christians themselves of the decline in Christian values in the west. The numbers, and proliferation of, the faithful I'm sure are quite healthy. Although I do think that secular governments are still the trend, and hopefully will continue to be. And actually, it doesn't bother me at all XXX; people should have the freedom to choose to believe whatever they want or to not believe at all. My above rants were directed primarily at the ongoing attempts by organized religion to govern societies. While I also don't appreciate being proselytized, I also have the freedom to disagree and walk away. It still makes me wonder though: what was the qualitative nature of this growth by "conversion". The very word sounds intrusive and manipulative. Do most of these conversions come from genuine insights and unbiased contemplation, or from coercion, exploitation, and fear? If it is the latter and it still makes you proud, well...

then hopefully the virgins are all blondes with big boobies.

Actually, what there is is thousands of years and billions of human beings who shared the same mind: simultaneously blessed and cursed with the trait of self and ego, baffled and horrified at the sense of it's own impermanance and convinced that this vast world must therefore have been the work of a creator greater than itself and constructed around and exclusively for one particular species. And further, that the death of the physical body must not constitute the end if itself but rather a step beyond into total omniscience, permanence, and ascension to said being's right arm. No better example than today's news about the Taliban brainwashing children in Pakistan to be suicide bombers by schooling them in rooms with paintings of paradise: rivers of milk and honey with endless hot virgins at your pleasure and little boys as servants. Basically, the most sexually repressive culture in the world promises you that for blowing yourself up and killing untold numbers of unbelievers, you and any Muslim bystander victims are rewarded with infinite residence in an al fresco bordello.

Except for the fact that most strict interpretations of Christianity state that every followers duty as a Christian is to convert non believers. And in the case of Islam, the Koran is exceedingly clear: convert, subjugate, or kill. Either is a form of violence. So what you should have said is that it's the choice of the individual to selectively ignore certain passages of their holy books- the word of God himself. What a fine contradiction and source of neurosis stacked on top of all the resident fantasy, dogma, and mysticism. The deflection here is to talk about individual variations (extremes) and avoid questioning of the whole basis of faith. You go ahead and stick with the "strict interpretations" with the fanatical right. It does make for a good heated arguement. I choose not to. Therefor it has nothing to do with me. "the word of God himself" does not reside in any book. That is the greatest failing of Christianity IMO. Neitze wrote "Never was there so great a persecutor of CHristians as Saul until Paul." He spoke of religion and the beleif in God. I would use the same Statement but because Paul Judaized and ritualized Christianity. It did not have to be that way. And now we have "Good Christians" who beleive that God speaks through a book when it is that which resides in their hearts and minds that matters. Muhammed and his council took it one step further and actually presented the book as the word of God. It was also the original Protestantism. It provided direct access to God whereas Christianity had become so ritualized and dogmatic that you had to go through a preist for all the deepest rituals. So now we are in a new age of cognizant change. The beginning of the computer age is what we are toying with right now. We are building new institutions while the old ones crumble and pointing fingers like it is somebody's fault. As a species we have learned very little. there's a big difference between private, personal spiritual belief and practice, versus organized mass consumption of religious dogma. You are clearly in the minority as the former, yet you speak as though the other is just "distorting the true meaning" of religion. Both sides in their defense of faith will in the final hour act as apologists for each other even in their criticisms. The Islam of today is, culturally and in critical interpretation, what Christianity was in the 14th century. The moderate thinkers of Islam- who are plentiful- are imprisoned by this culture and are only beginning to find their voice. Fear is a powerful motivator for keeping people quiet. And I am quite sure the only hope the world has with integrating Islam into a modern civil society lies with the Islamic moderates. A Renaissance in the religion will have to come from within and appear to be their own idea. How painful it must have been for Christian reformers to have to admit its methods were wrong and to change them without changing the underlying story. The irony is that western Christians decry the decline in religion of late; I'd say much of this has to do with the separation of church and state: left with the freedom to believe- or not- rather than a boot on their neck, increasing numbers of Europeans and Americans have come to see that all that is good in organized religion can be found elsewhere and that a "moral existence" is possible without religious edict and oversight. Islamic societies would likely take the same course were it not for the omnipresent imposition of the rules at every stage in life and often through the state. Certain people are more predisposed to imposing their will upon others; unfortunately organized religion offers a perfect vehicle for this on a societal level. I have no issue with personal spiritual practice but there is a compelling reason why religious institutions cannot be allowed to govern any society.

Except for the fact that most strict interpretations of Christianity state that every followers duty as a Christian is to convert non believers. And in the case of Islam, the Koran is exceedingly clear: convert, subjugate, or kill. Either is a form of violence. So what you should have said is that it's the choice of the individual to selectively ignore certain passages of their holy books- the word of God himself. What a fine contradiction and source of neurosis stacked on top of all the resident fantasy, dogma, and mysticism. The deflection here is to talk about individual variations (extremes) and avoid questioning of the whole basis of faith.

I wasn't saying all of our problems should be solved. In 11 months he has reached the same level of srongly disapprove that Bush had when he left office. His Pres Index has reached new lows. (linky) He will soon have very little power to get things done - well he might be a large factor in the Dems losing power. I guess that is bipartisanship of sorts. Rightfully so, the public's patience is also at an all time low, so it's no surprise Obama's honeymoon was short lived. We know where you stand on Obama, how about now you please explain what you believe would be a better strategy to fix the economy and all the other problems. Because the GOP so far has nothing to offer apart from cynicism and obstruction, occasionally mixed with nostalgic desires for a return to Reaganomics and 1950's social values. If that's also your solution, elaborate on how this would fix the problem, please.

When interest rates are near zero, there's only one way to go, btw.

Great news! It's finally worthwhile again to invest my savings in CD's and earn more money. And I'm locked in a 30 yr. fixed with a great rate.

So, what you really mean is that hehas failed with conservatives for lack of bipartisanship. Never mind that he never had an iota of tentative support from conservatives in the first place, given that they voted against him on the premise that he might be a Muslim terrorist communist America hater...and that was during the honeymoon period! And if he's not being bipartisan, e.g. he's pressing ahead with a "left wingnut" agenda, why are liberals and moderates so pissed off? Is it because he's not openly talking about opening the communist labor camps he promised his contributors? I heard a talk radio guy today declare that "inside every progressive is the next Pol Pot in waiting". When are conservatives going to quit the charade that they ever had any intention of working with this administration toward common goals? The current and only strategy is to obstruct and sow discontent with the hope that people will vote for "real change" in 2010 and 2012- which, like this administration, will be no change at all but a transfer of power and a continuation of corporate governance and robbery. and what would those skills be? There's still three years left in his term, moreover, after 11 months in office only a fool would have expected all our problems to be solved by now. I didn't hear UW fans calling for Sark to be fired for not taking an 0-12 team to the National title. The fact is he's the prez for three more years. I'm not real impressed so far but I think declaring failure this early in the game could be premature. Conservatives meanwhile could be using this time as an opportunity to help lead and present new ideas; instead they've decided to sit on the sidelines and throw tomatoes and incite populist anger lead by their only reliable "base": the uneducated and the brainwashed fox news idiocracies. bummer! I'm having a lot of fun with the show. Who knew I was such a cool cop? But as to your predicament...hey, that's democracy!

That must work great for busting into tombs! Or are you just trying to impress the pink bikini girl with the size of your "tool"?

One minute he's a partisan left wing ideologue with no regard for conservatives, now you're admitting that his efforts to satisfy everyone have satified no one. So is he bipartisan or a dictator? And either way, what would you have preferred? I'll admit, I liked the things he had to say, even if I was skeptical. So far, however, he appears to be backtracking on all of it and maintaining very much the same status quo. Surprising? Not so much. Disappointing? Absolutely. Does this mean I'll vote republican next time? With the current state of their leadership and tired, recycled, failed messages, not on your life. Both parties are totally incompetant. Your celebration of the country becoming totally jaded and having no options is puzzling. Funny how conservatives deride those who voted for Obama for putting stock in the words of the president. Yet defended Bush to the very end even as the whole house was burning.

You seem to be about the only libtard left here who uses the tired old race-bait strategy. You should put it to bed once and for all. Do it for yourself. ok, sorry. That was just for laughs. But now you need to apologize for calling me a libtard.

Correction- it has no western scientific roots, which are all about treating symptoms rather than root causes.

Since when are you a believer in science, Mr. "i believe that Rush Limbaugh knows more than all climatologists put together"?!?

So now Lieberman's your token liberal Jew?

I repeat my question. Do you know anything about it? The American Medical Association's statement: American Medical Association statement In 1997, the following statement was adopted as policy of the American Medical Association (AMA), an association of medical doctors and medical students, after a report on a number of alternative therapies including acupuncture: "There is little evidence to confirm the safety or efficacy of most alternative therapies. Much of the information currently known about these therapies makes it clear that many have not been shown to be efficacious. Well-designed, stringently controlled research should be done to evaluate the efficacy of alternative therapies." Specifically regarding acupuncture, the AMA cited reviews conducted in 1992 and 1993 that stated there was not enough evidence to support acupuncture's effectiveness in treating disease, and called for further research. HEY KOOL AID!!!!!!!!