Topic: Holy War! (Read 3413 times)

TheAtheistHeratic · « **on:** February 09, 2006, 06:38:54 PM »

European comic writers can start a holy war by insulting mohammad. That would be like me drawing of the devil and Jesus sleeping togather. Think about the outcry. Any else seen on the news mohammad with a bomb straped to his head. What's your input?
? for harry: How do the muslums in Iraq fill about this?

Tony N · « **Reply #1 on:** February 09, 2006, 08:05:01 PM »

Well, muhammad was always a war mongerer since his new religion began. So it is not as if he never earned it. Jesus never earned the comic of sleeping with Satan. I saw the picture and have quite a few juicy ones those foreigners put out. Pretty funny if you ask me.

One has Muhammad standing on a cloud in heaven and this procession of people who blew themselves up are headed his way on the clouds and he is yelling to them: STOP STOP WE HAVE RUN OUT OF VIRGINS!

Now that's funny!
To see the cartoons which caused the furer:
http://www.hwforums.com/2113/messages/8120.html

Here's the real story behind Islam:
http://bibleprobe.com/muhammad.htm

nojc4me · « **Reply #2 on:** February 10, 2006, 08:25:28 AM »

... drawing of the devil and Jesus sleeping togather.

Ask and you shall receive.
http://www.normalbobsmith.com/satanssalvation/

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #3 on:** February 10, 2006, 08:33:28 AM »

Yea, really TAH, various kinds of insults to Christians and Christianity are extremely common. You don't hear about them as much because we don't tend to reduce embassies to rubble and launch international riots and for the deaths of those doing the insulting.

The only thing you need to remember is ALL RELIGIONS ARE THE SAME. Just say that over and over again in your head. ALL RELIGIONS ARE THE SAME. ALL WORLDVIEWS ARE EQUAL. oops, I meant, ALL RELIGIOUS WORLDVIEWS ARE EQUAL.

nojc4me · « **Reply #4 on:** February 10, 2006, 08:38:53 AM »

Re: the fistful of virgins thingy.

If a terrorist/martyr is supposed to recieve the attentions of +/- 70 virgins, are we to assume the virgins will remain perpetual virgins? In which case, is that like seeing an ice cream cone, but never being allowed to taste it?
Or do they ONLY get those +/- 70 virgins, and have to ration them so that they don't run out before the end of eternity?

nojc4me · « **Reply #5 on:** February 10, 2006, 08:43:07 AM »

sntjohnny,

What's with the Chuck Norris fixation?

Tony N · « **Reply #6 on:** February 10, 2006, 11:33:59 AM »

Quote from: nojc4me

... drawing of the devil and Jesus sleeping togather.

Ask and you shall receive.
http://www.normalbobsmith.com/satanssalvation/

It still is not the same, njc.

Jesus never slept with Satan but Muhammad always was a war monger and a murderer therefore he does merit having a bomb or missile in his bonnet. Get it? I doubt you can think deeply enough but surprise me why don't you?

TheAtheistHeratic · « **Reply #7 on:** February 16, 2006, 05:54:35 PM »

All religious worlviews are equal. All religious worlviews are equal. All religious worlviews are equal. All religious worlviews are equal. All religious worlviews are equal. All religious worlviews are equal. All religious worlviews are equal. All religious worlviews are equal. All religious worlviews are equal. All religious worlviews are equal. All religious worlviews are equal. All religious worlviews are equal. All religious worlviews are equal. All religious worlviews are equal. All religious worlviews are equal. But mine is more equal!

Stathei · « **Reply #8 on:** February 16, 2006, 06:41:26 PM »

Silly believers.

I seem to remember a little bit of hoo-hah when John Lennon said that The Beatles were more popular than God (cue record, photo and effigy burnings by silly Christians), and again when Sinead O'Connor ripped up a picture of the Pope (cue boycott by silly Catholics).

The difference is that Muslims think that it is blasphemy to depict their boy - presumable doubly so if it is in a cartoon designed to cause offence - and will become violently silly if this is done.

I don't recall Atheists ever becoming silly about anything like this - does anybody else? The core of the problem is that religion makes you behave in a very silly way, this is just an extreme example of the low-grade silliness inherent in all religions (except Mormonism, which is extremely silly all the time).

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #9 on:** February 16, 2006, 10:09:38 PM »

hmmmm. Boycott. Yea... that's up there with Beheadings. Both start with 'b' don't they? Burning embassies also start with 'B.' Yea. Same thing.

Don't even start on the atheism thing.

Stathei · « **Reply #10 on:** February 16, 2006, 10:20:33 PM »

SJ, please read the post. The phrase

Quote

The difference is...

indicates a difference.

BUT the difference is only degree. It's all intolerance, narrow mindedness and stupidity.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #11 on:** February 16, 2006, 11:05:49 PM »

"BUT the difference is only degree. It's all intolerance, narrow mindedness and stupidity."

My apologies. It didn't seem like you were drawing a sincere distinction. Still not really sure you are.....

http://www.ffrf.org/legal/LCDecision.html

"Plaintiffs argue that the presence of the monument, both before and after its sale to the Eagles, is a violation of the establishment cause." [emphasis mine]

Hmmmmm. Yea.... atheists never get involved in intolerance, narrow mindedness and stupidity.

Ok.... so we've got Muslims slashing off heads and burning embassies. We've got Catholics *gasp* boycotting. And we've got athiests.... single-handedly laying down precedent by which it would be... I mean grasp the significance of this, it just makes one want to cry.... it would be unconstitutional for a city or municipality to sell off a piece of property.

I mean... that's it. Just to be able to SELL the property. And why? What noble cause can so justify such a national imposition? Some silly believers were offended by a 10 commandments display on a piece of public land. The city solved the problem by selling the land, so that the display was no longer on public land, but on private land. Not good enough!

I happen to live in the area where this went down, so I know a little about it. How lucky we are to have the "Freedom from Religion" foundation running around! With freedom like theirs, who needs tyranny? lol What irony given this conversation. I suppose Pol Pot was a Catholic or a Muslim, too.

Stathei · « **Reply #12 on:** February 17, 2006, 12:55:31 AM »

Settle down, SJ. I resigned from American Atheists because they were campaigning to remove public memorials to Utah State Troopers which were in the shape of a cross. I object to intolerance no matter where it comes from, but I seem to hear you trying to minimize book burning and religious boycotting just because it's in the name of Christianity. I would never defend someone's actions just because he or she did not believe in a god. As for your ten commandments example, do you think I would want to put up a sign saying "GOD IS JUST PRETEND" anywhere, public property or private? Of course not, but I wish a similar courtesy would be shown by Christians.

(I am not going to dignify your offensive, bigoted and disgusting insinuation regarding Pol Pot with a response, other than to say you should be ashamed of yourself, SJ.)

Stathei · « **Reply #13 on:** February 17, 2006, 07:17:42 AM »

So there was a display on public property involving the ten commandments. After the constitutionality of such a display was rightly challenged, the area immediately around the display was sold to the Fraternal Order of Eagles in order to make the land "private" property.

To quote the judge in the case:

Quote

Furthermore, defendant's sale of a minuscule portion of the park to the Eagles in order to preserve the presence of the monument proves rather than extinguishes defendant's endorsement of the monument's religious message.

That was a blatant attempt to usurp the Constitution of this country, SJ, and that should make you cry. Instead, you are more interested in allowing a bunch of holy rollers to have their way by perverting the law for their own end just because they are Christians like you! Shame on you SJ, shame on you.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #14 on:** February 17, 2006, 08:22:36 AM »

"but I seem to hear you trying to minimize book burning and religious boycotting just because it's in the name of Christianity."

If the Christians owned the books they were burning, I particularly don't care. I'd be glad to sell my book to anyone who wants to burn it.

As for boycots... you're kidding me, right? See, I seem to hear you trying to suggest that boycotting is anywhere near the same as embassy burnings, etc. Different only in degree, right? The reason why I am reacting the way I am is because that is just stupid.

"Of course not, but I wish a similar courtesy would be shown by Christians."

There is no right assuring that you won't be offended living in a free society. If you want to put up your little signs, I wouldn't care. I might not do business with you- but I wouldn't create a law that not only took down your signs, but also laid precedent against the making of all signs.

"I am not going to dignify your offensive, bigoted and disgusting insinuation regarding Pol Pot with a response, other than to say you should be ashamed of yourself, SJ."

Come on, man. Grow a skin. You can sit there and say that boycotting is different 'in degree but not in kind' and quickly embrace all religious intolerance as derived from religion itself, but then when we turn it around and ask how the 'non-religious' have done, you get offended?

So, I think my question is still on the table... If the difference between Christians and Muslims and their terrible terrible conduct is only of degree and not of kind, which category do we put Pol Pot in?

How is it that you can't see how offensive YOUR insinuations are? Now, I have reacted forcefully to those insinuations... but I haven't banned you or anything silly like that. Its what a free society is all about. Which brings me more to the Lacrosse case:

"That was a blatant attempt to usurp the Constitution of this country, SJ, and that should make you cry. Instead, you are more interested in allowing a bunch of holy rollers to have their way by perverting the law for their own end just because they are Christians like you! Shame on you SJ, shame on you."

Blatant or not- that is not my point. My point is that in order to keep these poor folk from being offended, they sought a remedy that did not merely rule against the city, but also laid the precedent for ruling the sale of property by cities as unconstitutional. Or, the 10 Commandments statute was SO offensive to these poor, poor, atheists, that they'd rather take away a city's right to sell property. Nationally. Of course that wasn't what they were advocating. We'll just call it collateral damage.

This ruling was later over-turned by a higher court.

And I care little about what that means in regards to the 10 Commandment statute. I care a great deal about what that means in regards to property right issues.

Stathei · « **Reply #15 on:** February 17, 2006, 04:31:37 PM »

Quote

I care a great deal about what that means in regards to property right issues.

SJ, you have twisted this case so badly that the truth is suffering at your hands. Did the town put the land on which the memorial stood up for sale to anybody? Could an Atheist have bought it and put up a monument proclaiming "I DENY THE HOLY SPIRIT"? Of course not - it was one group of silly Christians selling direct to another group of silly Christians in order to circumvent the law of this land. The fact that you support them blindly just because they are Christians, putting your religion ahead of the Constitution, is precisely why cases like these must be fought. The holy rollers would roll all over us otherwise. The property issue which you are so upset about was a direct result of your boys trying to circumvent justice, so you should be upset with them, not those who wish to abide by the law.

Quote

Come on, man. Grow a skin.

This is nothing to do with sensitivity, it is the bigotry in your attempt to equate political despots with Atheism just because the despot didn't believe in a god. I would never equate Hitler with Christianity ("Gott Mit Uns", indeed), and we have been through this issue before. I will not comment further (unless, of course you force me to

)

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #16 on:** February 17, 2006, 09:40:40 PM »

Stathei · « **Reply #17 on:** February 17, 2006, 10:06:19 PM »

Stathei · « **Reply #18 on:** February 17, 2006, 10:14:00 PM »

I'd still like to hear your comments on my last post...

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #19 on:** February 18, 2006, 07:31:28 AM »

I think its funny that you think this Bigot Street only goes one way. Perhaps if I clarified and said that I think Pol Pot is different...

oh yea. smiley:

Author Topic: Holy War! (Read 3413 times)

Stathei

Stathei

Stathei

Stathei

Stathei

Stathei

Stathei