BBC TV: Muslim Beheaded By Far-Right Evangelical
Posted by Dirty Harry on Sunday, July 13th, 2008
The irony of this story is that if we really did take heads, pansy-ass, cowardly arteests desperate for any kind of attention wouldn’t depict us as taking heads. Just saying…
Some viewers were taken aback when former EastEnders actor Paul Nicholls was seen in the drama hacking off a moderate Muslim’s head in an unprovoked attack.
He plays a member of the fictional White Wings Alliance, a group of far-Right evangelical Christians inspired by the Crusades.
The show, watched 6.8million, also sparked new claims of anti-Christian bias in BBC programme.
The creatively bankrupt should thump down on their knees and thank the God they don’t believe in that none of really are inspired by the Crusades.
Filed in General |
Bill Walshon 13 Jul 2008 at 10:58 am 1Sounds like a ripoff of Reginald Hill’s Death Comes for the Fat Man, a Dalziel & Pascoe novel that has a similar group of Templar-inspired anti-Muslim terrorists.
David Marcoeon 13 Jul 2008 at 10:58 am 2The irony is that the First Crusade was an entirely justified was of self-defense. Of course, after it’s purpose had been accomplished, subsequent crusades became an opportunity for one monarch or another to establish their Good Christian™ bona fides and bring home a little booty in the process. But, for the most part, the conflict between Muslims and Christians was with Christians generally being on the receiving end and having to beat them back.
Troyon 13 Jul 2008 at 11:08 am 3heh … heh… he said “booty”.
Tom Aricoon 13 Jul 2008 at 11:14 am 4Did Bin Laden write this show?
Christopher Coleon 13 Jul 2008 at 11:23 am 5In the case of Saladin, he actually treated the Christians in Jerusalem rather well, despite what some of the Christians had been doing throughout the Crusades. Although he was Muslim, he had the respect of King Richard and was stated by Dante to be one of the virtuous pagan souls in Limbo.
Jimboon 13 Jul 2008 at 11:29 am 6Saladin’s compassionate act of not slaughtering the Christians in Jerusalem was actually just an act of pragmatism. He had originally planned to do exactly that but when the Christians threatened to burn down many Muslim Holy sites he agreed to allow them to barter for their lives. Only the more wealthy Christians were allowed to do this. The rest were enslaved.
Oh and by the way this is why I never watch the BBC
SptCashon 13 Jul 2008 at 11:30 am 7Off topic, but….
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-allen13-2008jul13,0,6297183.story
Congrats on the ink! No surprise the LA Times found a conservative to pick on you….
Troyon 13 Jul 2008 at 11:32 am 8That was 900 years ago.
Christopher Coleon 13 Jul 2008 at 11:34 am 9That may be, but did he also have to offer the services of his personal physician to King Richard when he was ill, or give him some horses when Richard didn’t have enough?
Christopher Coleon 13 Jul 2008 at 11:43 am 10Mind you, I am a Christian. Raised in church my whole life. Spent the better part of the last twelve years in volunteer ministry, and even graduated from one of the top ten Private/Christian liberal arts colleges in America (as ranked by U.S. News and World Report) with a B.A. in Religion. As part of my education I have studied the Crusades greatly, and to tell you that most of the time the Christians were acting in self-defense would be a grievous mistake. The Muslims weren’t all saintly either, though Saladin does stand out.
St. Francis though had the right idea. He held meetings with the Muslim leaders, and came very close to brokering peace with the Muslims. The thing that prevented it was someone higher up in the Catholic Church wanted more war.
Troyon 13 Jul 2008 at 11:47 am 11The fact that modern jihadists STILL moan about the Crusades highlights one the main differences between Christianity and Islam.
Christopher Coleon 13 Jul 2008 at 11:54 am 12Some Muslims carry a grudge for a very long time. Do you know why there is such a division between Sunnis and Shi’ites? It stems from an assassination 1300 years ago. And that’s within their own religion.
mjkon 13 Jul 2008 at 12:09 pm 13Saladin and his peacefulness:
Beheaded many of the Crusaders living in and around Jerusalem;
Watched while his soldiers cut the bodies of Crusaders into pieces;
Sent poisoned wine and flour to distribute to Crusaders;
Fought violently with rival Shi’ite Muslims, dissecting one of their leaders, and keeping his hands and head as trophies;
Persecuted Jews and Christians as dhimmis, required more taxes, treated them like lesser humans.
Yep, such a boyscout he is.
I miss Winston Churchill. Where are all the Brits like him?????
Dylan Brunson 13 Jul 2008 at 12:10 pm 14Well, admit it, our free market TV shows are just as bad, featuring Christians stoning people and always being at least annoying. A conservative one is either Eric Rudolph or Fred Phelps. The only good ones are more liberal than Christian.
Stephanieon 13 Jul 2008 at 12:14 pm 15Chrissie really again stop lecturing people who know more than you. We know why the Shiites and Sunnis hate each other and we know about the Crusades..big friggen deal. Get it WE DON’T CARE! Stop rationalizing psychopaths ya moron…
You know none of us should be surprised at the anti Christian bigotry displayed on the BBC or any semi Euro- to Eurotrash tv, These cultures are ripe for Islamic persecution because they have become amoral.
Stephanieon 13 Jul 2008 at 12:17 pm 16Oh and just for the record while I wrote the above tirade tehre was an advert for “beautiful” Muslim singles…any of you single men interested…she will even wear her viel to bed. Allah would freak if you saw her hair, ankle, eye brows, finger nails, elbow, mouth…just sayin….. I cannot believe these google ads. WTF?!
Troyon 13 Jul 2008 at 12:22 pm 17Christopher… perseverance in pursuit of a grudge is not a virtue — it’s perverse and evil (or pathological).
I know why the Sunnis and Shi’a hate each other. Saladin is in Dante’s limbo because he was romanticized in a period of chivalry et al. Often cultural contact with an “other” is followed by a period of romantic fantasies that “He’s one of us”. Saladin was no Westerner or a noble savage (as would later be the rage). He was a ruthless and savage commander and a skilled politician and general. He would’ve gladly set up shop in London — not to reclaim his religious heritage, but spread Muslim lands and win treasure. The excesses of later Crusades don’t excuse Saladin from being the bastard he was nor do they provide legitimate excuse for jihad today. That being said… understanding the jihadist mindset in regard to these matters is imperative and sorely lacking on most of the left and in many on the right too.
Christopher Coleon 13 Jul 2008 at 12:38 pm 18I never said that holding onto grudges was a good thing. I only used that to point out that they know how to hold on to such things for long periods of time, so it should really come as no surprise that they do.
And I honestly believe you are wrong about Saladin. If what you are saying is true, then what Dante did was at least partially establish a sort of revisionist history. If he was truly as ruthless as you say he was, for anyone in Christendom to even entertain the possibility that there was hope for him would be grounds for excommunication from the church (or much worse). His name would have gone down in infamy like so many other names. He would not have been distinguished at all in the minds of Christians.
Troyon 13 Jul 2008 at 12:40 pm 19Besides all that… I’m optioning a story to the BBC where a Baptist kills his sister because she married a Catholic. Baptist’s will not be crossed (pun intended) — maybe that should be title.
Troyon 13 Jul 2008 at 12:51 pm 20Christopher… Dante was not a historian — in any modern sense of that word — he was a Medieval man to the core and had his own axes to grind. Read the John Ciardi translations of the Divine Comedy with his notes. Dante had a nasty streak for his enemies, but he also had a Romantic streak.
We clean up leaders all the time… Montezuma, many other native Americans, Muslims, African tribal leaders — and Western leaders too are glossed over with hagiographies for one reason or another — usually to bring down our own leaders. Saladin is being rehabbed because it is too un-PC to say bad things about jihadist Muslims — even millennium old worm food.
Instead we highlight the bad things Richard Lionheart did — why? To make them equivalent. Freedom stands on the legacy of only one of those men… Guess which one? If Saladin and his ilk had won the war… we’d be watching movies where Kevin Costner’s Robin Hood watches helplessly while Morgan Freeman’s Moor beheads Friar Tuck and sells Marian into slavery. What am I saying? The motion picture never would’ve been invented.
Stephanieon 13 Jul 2008 at 1:08 pm 21Troy why bother. Chrissie is a zombie. Obviously he is sympathetic to Islamic Fascists….
Carolynon 13 Jul 2008 at 1:09 pm 22Ahh, no good feeding the Troll. Once little Chris discovers no one’s responding to the little farts he’s emitting from his crib in mom’s basement, he’ll take his diapers and go find some other bunny pad to tinkle on.
monkeyon 13 Jul 2008 at 1:38 pm 23I missed this in the week but will surely go have a watch on iplayer. There is nothing like a bit muslim beheading for entertainment even if it is on the BBC.
Now i really dont know much about Saladin or Dante but after reading some of the verbal diarrhea coming out of al muhammed christopher i would suggest you take something for it as your starting to stink the place up.
Splashon 13 Jul 2008 at 1:58 pm 24…The irony is that the First Crusade was an entirely justified war of self-defense.
Very true.
We need to be careful not to let the other side — be it extremist Muslim or liberal — define our terms for us.
Buck Turgidsonon 13 Jul 2008 at 1:59 pm 25Dante had only the sources that were available to him. The beatification-of-sorts of Saladin was a popular misconception not limited to Dante. (c.f. Walter Scott, “The Talisman”). Subsequent scholarship (e.g. Jonathan Riley-Smith, Thomas Madden) shows that this romantic view of Saladin was the result of inferences where more complete information was missing, plus a peculiarly western way of pissing on one’s own “to make it fair.” Runciman’s accounts of the crusades, long held definitive, have been shown to contain numerous errors of this very sort, not to mention unwarranted editorializing. Saladin respected Richard the Lionheart because he was so very skilled a military leader that he practically became a hero to Saladin. But Saladin was at least as ruthless as any European of his time.
“St. Francis though had the right idea. He held meetings with the Muslim leaders, and came very close to brokering peace with the Muslims. The thing that prevented it was someone higher up in the Catholic Church wanted more war.”
This is such a cartoonish rendering of history, if I didn’t know any better I’d say Christopher Troll’s real name was William Monahan. During the Fifth Crusade, Francis walked straight to the sultan to make peace by attempting to convert him to Christianity. The sultan was charmed by Francis but declined, commenting that if he converted, both he and Francis would be murdered. There is no evidence that the sultan had it in mind that it would be the Catholic Church which would do the murdering.
D. Marcoe says: “Of course, after it’s purpose had been accomplished, subsequent crusades became an opportunity for one monarch or another to establish their Good Christian™ bona fides and bring home a little booty in the process.”
There are opportunists in every endeavor, but you make it sound as though the subsequent crusades lacked the legitimacy of the first crusade. But the later crusades were for the most part merely efforts to recapture territory gained in the first crusade and subsequently lost to the Muslims. I wonder if you are thinking of the Fourth Crusade, which went way off course from its original goal and resulted in the sack of Constantinople by the western crusaders. That is truly one of the most fascinating and totally screwed up episodes in Western history.
Stephanieon 13 Jul 2008 at 2:09 pm 26The ultimate problem with Christian Europe keeping the Holy Land has little to do with Muslims and their expansion of their philosophy…..the monarchs of Europe and the Church couldnt get enough people interested in going to the Holy Land and staying there. People went, they saw it and left. No one was willing to say.
Kon 13 Jul 2008 at 2:19 pm 27I submit that, just like most MSM in the US, the BBC people think of themselves as more than the mere purveyors of entertainment. They see their mission as, for example, ending smoking, promoting cultural peace, making the gay lifestyle a generally accepted alternative and a whole bunch more stuff along those lines.
Britain, as many authors have pointed out, has a problem at the moment. A significant fraction of their immigrant population thinks that violence is okay in promoting Islamic fundamentalist goals, and the next 9/11 type incident could be right around the corner.
Subsequently, I’ guessing the BBC has put together a childish lesson sermon where the Christians are the bad violent beheading guys and the Muslim folk are the innocent victims. As in “What if little Johnny were hitting you over the head with his light sabre? You wouldn’t like that would you?”
If this is the case, I imagine the results are not quite like they expected. The Christians thinking “If we really would off a few BBC types the Christian bashing would end” and the Islamics thinking “Of course, it’s the will of Allah to behead the non believers, so what’s your point?”
Splashon 13 Jul 2008 at 2:33 pm 28This actually also reminds me of an episode of the now defunct TV show “E-Ring.” Anybody remember that one?
It was a great show with potential, produced by Jerry Bruckheimer, starring Dennis Hopper, with a nice right-wing bent. (Think 24 meets ‘The Unit.’) An early episode had the Navy blowing up a Greenpeace boat while the good guys stood around laughing at the satellite footage thereof.
Ratings had just started to rise when an episode aired featuring “Christian Terrorists” who started taking hostages and, of course, executing them. (I was pissed not only by this obvious “equal time” lunacy, but also because I had just persuade several skeptical conservative friends and family to check the show out.)
They also slipped in mention of the Quran as a holy book and were careful to include shots of all the tough, pro-American military men rolling out their prayer rugs at the Pentagon five times a day.
Needless to say, the show’s ratings dropped like a rock, and it disappeared fast. And I’d bet money it was due to network fears over the direction this show was taking early on.
Christopher Coleon 13 Jul 2008 at 2:38 pm 29Oh right, now I am a Muslim sympathizer since I graduated from one of the top Evangelical Christian Colleges/Universities in the nation with a B.A. in Religion and will be going into ministry, and since I have already spent 12 years in volunteer ministry and have been raised in the Church my entire life. None of that matters now because the Neocons on here have declared me a closet Muslim, one who wants peace, and doesn’t think that military action is the best way to go. You see, my boss, Jesus, He actually said “blessed are the peacemakers” and “do not do as the world does” and “we do not fight against flesh and bone, but against principalities and powers and rulers of the darkness” (this being spiritual warfare, not physical).
But the neocons wonder “WWJB” (Who would Jesus Bomb?) and because I don’t buy that I am now a closet Muslim.
Bravo.
Now maybe getting back to the topic at hand here, some of the Christians took their zealousness too far during the times of the Crusades. Some didn’t. Some Muslims took their zealousness too far. Some didn’t. It is regarded that given the time and the circumstances, Saladin showed restraint, as did Richard the Lionhart.
conservative13on 13 Jul 2008 at 3:42 pm 30Chrissie Cole, just go back to the Daily Kos.
Plissken79on 13 Jul 2008 at 3:56 pm 31I do not know what is more ridiculous, the plot of this BBC series episode (and the theme of “Christian Terrorism” as anywhere equal to Muslim terrorism) or the continued rantings of Christopher Cole. I would advise everyone not to waste any more time with him, just as the LONG debate with Pamela Troy went nowhere since she was merely interested, just like Mr. Cole, in trolling
whiskeyon 13 Jul 2008 at 4:43 pm 32Christopher Cole –
At the time St. Francis was “negotiating” … Muslims occupied most of Spain and Portugal. A good deal of Southern France. Parts of Southern Italy (and staged raids into Rome itself). Fought in a bizarre struggle with Vikings! and native Christians over Sicily a hundred years before.
After that, Muslims engaged in slaving raids into Christian lands, as far north as Iceland and Norway, until stopped by the US Navy finally in the 1820’s. Muslims conquered the Christian Balkans (yes, I know, many Eastern Orthodox, but still … ) and engaged in very brutal behavior. Muslims were beaten back from Vienna at 1538 and 1688. The Ottoman Empire in Eastern Europe lingered until 1919.
It’s worth noting that the Christian lands of North Africa, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Central Asia, and the Levant were wiped out by Muslim conquerors and aggression.
There is no peace possible between Muslims and Christians because Muslims hold it is their duty from God to conquer and rule via Sharia all Christian lands. Period. At best there can be armed truces of short duration. Muslims constantly harass at best Christians in their own lands (no-go areas in Britain and much of Europe for Christians) and at worst keep them in servitude.
Most of the Mediterranean Coast has been undeveloped until the mid-19th Century because of constant Muslim slaving raids. This Muslim slavery of Christians is a pretty good characterization of the entire Muslim-Christian history dating back to the chief head-chopper himself, Mohammed, who personally beheaded hostages as part of his mission from Allah. It’s in the Koran, you can look it up.
Christopher Coleon 13 Jul 2008 at 4:55 pm 33I did my senior paper on the relationship between Christians and Muslims. Islam in many ways is as fractured as what Christianity is. Although there are two main groups of Muslims, they are made up of a varying range of beliefs. You cannot rightly say that all Muslims share a desire to see the world conquered in the name of Islam. Would you like Christianity to be defined by Fred Phelps or the groups responsible for carrying out abortion clinic bombings?
Besides, I would rather live out my life and have my philosophy be that of praying for my enemies rather than persecuting them. Showing compassion rather than conquering through military means. Jesus showed us a better way of doing things. He showed us a different way, one that did not imitate the world.
Aside from my belief that we invaded Iraq under false pretenses, it does nothing to help mend relations with the Muslim world. The radical Islamic groups can use that as their rallying cry in getting people to join their cause. They can bring about more havoc and chaos because they can say we have a mission to wipe out Islam.
Stephanieon 13 Jul 2008 at 4:57 pm 34Um I guarentee Chrissie won’t get what you just wrote der Whiskey…….
Kiton 13 Jul 2008 at 5:03 pm 35From what I’ve read on the Crusades, there were plenty of crimes committed by BOTH sides.
“The irony of this story is that if we really did take heads, pansy-ass, cowardly arteests desperate for any kind of attention wouldn’t depict us as taking heads. Just saying…”
Good point DH.
Audietooon 13 Jul 2008 at 5:31 pm 36dernit, Whiskey you stole my comment. Slavery still exists in Muslim lands and is appoved in their Holy Book. which by the way wasn’t put in writing untill several hundred years after Mulhammond died.
Buck Turgidsonon 13 Jul 2008 at 5:36 pm 37Troy says:
“Besides all that… I’m optioning a story to the BBC where a Baptist kills his sister because she married a Catholic. Baptist’s will not be crossed (pun intended) — maybe that should be title.”
I didn’t know that “Law and Order” was a BBC program.
GeronimoRumplestiltskinon 13 Jul 2008 at 5:58 pm 38Dear Mr. Cole:
Since, in the course of defending your position, you feel that listing your credentials lends sufficient weight to your arguments to dismiss counterarguments without so much as citing a single source, I’ll list mine: a graduate of the University of Notre Dame (according to the First Things - a magazine dedicated to Religion, Culture, and Public Life - ND is the 2nd best theology school in the country, and the best place to study patristics and Church history), and have spent the last 20+ years (Lord, I’m getting old) doing patristics and ecclesiastical history research. Good enough for you?
Much like the Inquisition and the Galileo affair, the Crusades have been one of the most badly misrepresented and misunderstood episodes in Church history. Dr. Riley-Smith (Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades, 1995; considered a seminal work on the Crusades) and Dr. Madden (The New Concise History of the Crusades, 2005) have made mincemeat of most of the common misperceptions (some of which you put forth as arguments in this thread) about the Crusades. Neither, it should be noted, can be dismissed as a marginal scholar, as both : Riley-Smith is a Fellow at Emmanuael College, a constituent college of the University of Cambridge, England, and is the founder of the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East. Madden is the Director of the Crusades Studies Forum and the Medieval Italy Prosopographical Database Project, both housed at Saint Louis University. Of the “Top 10 General Crusades History Books” listed on About.com’s Medieval History page, 7 are by Riley-Smith and Madden. While I certainly do not think you are a Muslim sympathizer (closeted or otherwise), your assertions about the Crusades are badly misinformed.
As for your claim that “If [Saladin] was truly as ruthless as you say he was, for anyone in Christendom to even entertain the possibility that there was hope for him would be grounds for excommunication from the church”: Holding an opinion about a person, however much an enemy of the Church that person may have been, has never been grounds for excommunication. I truly hope that your “Evangelical Christian College” did not educate you into such a ridiculous view of what kind of things would get one excommunicated from the medieval Catholic Church.
Cordially,
GR
a. acaciaon 13 Jul 2008 at 6:10 pm 39I do not know what is more ridiculous, the plot of this BBC series episode…or the continued rantings of Christopher Cole.
Yeah, then again, to me the height of absurdity is our site admin, Mr. Nolte, an admitted Traffic Whore, who won’t overcome his “obsession with the hit counter” as evidenced by his refusal to ban this troll.
It’s like Cole and Nolte are two sides to some ugly monster; Cole can’t help himself - he needs to feed his malignant narcissism by riling you up (and getting your undivided attention), which leads to endless and pointless jibber-jabbing which, of course, feeds into Nolte’s addiction to his Sitemeter.
When does obsession with site stats wane in favor of common courtesy? This person is a troll, and trolls bring nothing to the debate. Do us a favor and ban his IP address.
JohnFNWayneon 13 Jul 2008 at 6:12 pm 40Moral relativism. Christians equate with fascist Muslims. Think Rosie O’Donnell, and her diatribe on evangelicals being no different than the people we’re fighting in the Middle East.
The Christians are worse because most of them are white, a lot of them have money, they preach moral values and a lot of them have power - the ultimate boogeyman. The fact Muslims blow themselves up without a thought and send 10-year-old into schools packing C-4 suppositories makes them even more worthy of adulation and pity.
Having Christians re-enact terror videos from Iraq in some liberal wet dream zeitgeist is speaking truth to power. They are too simple-minded to realize they are the butt of their own joke. They precisely rag on Christians because they can get away with it. Put a crucifix in urine, make the Virgin Mary out of dog shit - you’ll probably get a grant from the NEA. Show Muhammad handing a football helmet to someone, your talking head-choppin’, riots at the embassy, calls for apologies and fatwas from every fat cat from Libya to Qatar.
The truth is, the BBC is chicken shit, the Canadian government is chicken shit and Hollywood is chicken shit.
JohnFNWayneon 13 Jul 2008 at 6:14 pm 41If he was a traffic whore, he would be posting porn, links to celeb dirt and the like. I don’t call being enthused about your hit counter, especially when it counts toward your living, as being a whore.
a. acaciaon 13 Jul 2008 at 6:16 pm 42Oh, and for those of you who think this is “censorship,” WRONG. Keeping the trolls from tracking mud into your house is one of the rules of Proper Site Maintenance.
Tom Aricoon 13 Jul 2008 at 6:21 pm 43From Dylan Burns.
Well, admit it, our free market TV shows are just as bad, featuring Christians stoning people and always being at least annoying. A conservative one is either Eric Rudolph or Fred Phelps. The only good ones are more liberal than Christian.
Fred Phelps is a Democrat.
steevyon 13 Jul 2008 at 6:21 pm 44Western Europeans were brutal and effective fighters back than.That was a long time ago.They are now socialist pansies who will give up without a fight things their ancestors would have fought to the death to defend.Britain is cowed by a quite small minority(I forget the exact figure).Judging by the walking on eggshells treatment of Islam by our media we aren’t doing so well ourselves albeit we show more fight than the europansies……
a. acaciaon 13 Jul 2008 at 6:22 pm 45JohnFNWayne, Nolte didn’t use the word “enthused,” he wrote that he has an “obsession with the hit counter.” Why don’t you follow the link?
http://dirtyharrysplace.com/?p=2677
Either way, the troll needs to go.
steevyon 13 Jul 2008 at 6:30 pm 46Cole isn’t making ad hominem attacks,he’s arguing and we certainly may disagree.He’s no worse than Bob and kind of harmless,he gets kicked around like a pinata….
a. acaciaon 13 Jul 2008 at 6:35 pm 47There are quite a few snide, antagonistic remarks. Feel free to search them yourself. I have no time to sift through the mud.
Christopher Coleon 13 Jul 2008 at 6:45 pm 48And what have I said that is so controversial? That a Muslim could show restraint? That some of the Christians could not? There are examples of attrocities that happened on both sides of the Crusades. And there are examples of those who acted better than most? That Dante and others noted these things?
Here’s what I don’t get, honestly. Yes, Islam was born in a violent time, and yes Muhammad in some cases went too far in his reign. Do all of his followers get judged by that same token now, condemned in the court of public opinion to be enemies of freedom and democracy without regard to what they actually might think?
If we want to talk violence, the violence found in scripture, I could point you to the book of Judges in the Bible. I could point you to wars where the Israelites showed no mercy, and we make the claim that they were following God’s orders. We are so quick to condemn those who are different than us that we don’t realize the accusations we level at them they do to us as well. Does it make any of it right? No.
That’s why I live by a different set of standards. What does violence breed except for more violence? I’d rather pray for those that do wrong, and try to show them a better way than by killing them. What’s in the past cannot be undone. The Crusades happened, and people on all sides acted wrong in some cases. But some acted right in some cases. I do not see what is controversial about this statement.
And I only threw out my credentials as evidence that I am not, nor have I ever been a Muslim.
As for what the Church could excommunicate someone for during the Middle Ages, it seems in certain pieces of literature could condemn someone, opinions that contradicted the opinion of the Church, or even simply suggesting that the Pope could be wrong. Any number of things could get someone excommunicated. Many times courts were of the kangaroo variety, with judgment already passed before an actual trial could take place. Bones of certain “heretics” were burned as to ensure that their bodies never went to heaven, as if we have the authority to make that proclamation.
Christopher Coleon 13 Jul 2008 at 6:47 pm 49Antagonistic maybe, and snide quite possibly. But not once have I attacked the poster. Sure I will say someone is a neocon, simply because that is the position most commonly taken on this site. And that isn’t even nearly as insulting as some of the names hurled my way. I obviously don’t care because I keep coming back. But at least I haven’t resorted to half the stuff many of you have.
Katoon 13 Jul 2008 at 7:14 pm 50I’d like to understand what you are arguing, Christopher. You seem to be struggling to draw a moral equivalence between Islamist terrorists and contemporary Christians, based on the fact that some Christians hundreds of years ago did some bad things.
I don’t judge Muslims today by what their ancestors did, just as I don’t judge Christians by what their predecessors did. I do, however, judge people by how they act now. And there is no question that in my lifetime, at least, Muslims have killed far more in the name of their religion, than have Christians.
As Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, a Muslim and the general manager of Arab news channel, Al-Arabiya has said: “It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims.”
So what is your point, exactly?
Splashon 13 Jul 2008 at 7:27 pm 51…”one of the top Evangelical Christian Colleges/Universities in the nation…”
Ah, the college/university. Nothing like the education you’ll get at a top college/university setting.
Next he’ll be dropping serious intellectual names like Professor Tony Campolo.
Btw, here’s another little verse from God’s Word:
“For he [the government] is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.” Romans 13:4
Peacemakers, like the Prince of Peace, have been known to wield a whip and overturn a table or two, Chris.
Christopher Coleon 13 Jul 2008 at 7:28 pm 52No, I am simply stating that not all Muslims are of the terrorist variety. And it’s hard to know for certain what happened during the Crusades as I am not 900 years old, but I would be willing to say that both sides did some bad things, and both sides did some good things.
As for Christians not killing in the name of God, I would say Ireland makes that a hard claim to make. And I wouldn’t put it past some Christian groups to take up arms, except they have maybe more sense given the culture we live in to actually do so.
No moral equivalence, at least not intentional. Just saying that it is wrong to characterize the followers of a religion based on a few bad people.
Christopher Coleon 13 Jul 2008 at 7:29 pm 53Jesus didn’t make a habbit out of doing that, and that was in response to a defilement of the Temple.
And Tony Campolo? No.
Splashon 13 Jul 2008 at 7:37 pm 54Jesus didn’t make a habit out of doing it, but He did it. Therefore, not a sin.
“it’s hard to know for certain what happened during the Crusades as I am not 900 years old…”
Uh…that’s what…history books are for. But fear not, you need read only as far as my review of “Kingdom of Heaven.”
…The elusive kingdom of peace Scott venerates in the film actually existed at one point – it was before the fanatical Seljuks crushed their own Fatimid Egyptian rivals, sacked Jerusalem, invaded the Byzantine Empire and cut off pilgrim routes to the Holy Land previously open to all faiths for centuries.
So to recap: The Holy Lands were open to all, visited by all. Islam rolled in and ended this. (Aggressors). Christians sought to rectify the situation (Defenders).
Class dismissed.
Splashon 13 Jul 2008 at 7:41 pm 55Oh, and nice sidestep of that pesky Romans 13:4 bit. The part of the Bible specifically outlining the role of government.
Christopher Coleon 13 Jul 2008 at 7:46 pm 56Yes government has the responsibility to execute justice. Going into a region based on evidence that was ignored and rejected, and seeing an increase in the amount of violence is not doing justice.
Excersizing caution and only going after the people responsible for the attacks on America, that would have been excersizing justice.
Splashon 13 Jul 2008 at 7:52 pm 57The people responsible for those attacks are dead or in hiding, directly due to our responses in Afghanistan and Iraq. We’re fighting them today, right now, on the Pakistani border, the other side of which is quite likely where we fill find Osama bin Laden himself.
But with Muslims in America openly celebrating the WTC attacks the day they happened, clearly this is an asymmetric battlefield that requires us to go where we have to and do what we can.
And bear in mind that the government Paul was referring to? The far-flung, strike-anywhere-in-the-name-of-civilization Roman Empire. Same one that put Christ on that cross. Same one that became the Church itself a few short years later.
Moon 13 Jul 2008 at 8:40 pm 58I heard about this a few weeks ago. Here is the note I sent via the BBC site, along with their reply. Perhaps I should send this note again, now that the show has aired? Y’know, since they weren’t allowed to comment on a show that hadn’t been broadcasted yet.
Hm. Maybe I’ll do just that.
—–Original Message—–
I would like to know if the notice (link below) is accurate.
On what planet are Christians beheading Muslims? In what fantasy world does this occur? And yet in the real world, how many times have Muslims beheaded others? (Christians and non.)
I would like an explanation as to why such a slanderous show is being presented to the public. Who are these so-called “Christian zealots”?
Whose teachings do they follow? Where are their holy texts that teach them to do such things?
And yet, does the BBC have the courage to present an accurate version of events - Muslims doing the beheading, according to the teachings of their (so called) holy book and their leader, Mohammad? Do you have the courage to do that? To actually portray something that has happened, time and time again?
No. You do not. Why is that? Is it because you know that the most Christians will do is send a letter or call in complaint? Is it because you know that Christians do not believe in threatening people?
I ask you - I DARE you - to do a show portraying a Muslim beheading a Christian. Let’s see how courageous you are then. Something tells me the only courage you have is in slandering followers of Christ - who would never do or condone such a vile thing.
My only question is why?
***
BBC defends Muslim beheading
Exclusive by Derek Robins - BBC bosses have defended the grisly beheading of a Muslim by a Christian zealot in new drama Bonekickers.
In the bloody scene, ex-EastEnder Paul Nicholls plays a fundamentalist who decapitates a Muslim with a sword.
Producer Rhonda Smith said: “It’s not meant to be shocking or to cause offence and it comes very much from the storyline.”
http://www.teletext.co.uk/entertainment/news/8316d32d2dcb4334712254e79f46
bd80/BBC+defends+Muslim+beheading.aspx
***
Dear M
Thank you for your e-mail about ‘Bonekickers’.
I cannot comment on information provided on an external website. The programme is still in production and has not been broadcast yet. After viewing the drama if you are still concerned please get in touch again.
I’ve registered your complaint on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that’s circulated to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, channel controllers and other senior managers.
Thanks again for contacting us.
Regards
Elaine Hunter
BBC Complaints
__________________________________________
Penelope27on 13 Jul 2008 at 9:07 pm 59While I do not agree with Mr. Cole on his…perspective of Christians and Muslims, I will agree with him that some of the responses have been juvenille. I have always thought that name calling was the domain of liberals when they lost a debate, however, I see now that I was mistaken. I do appreciate the responses left by the likes of mjk and GR.
I am an old lady with my high school diploma, by the Grace of God, and I must thank Mr. Cole for his opinion. But, only by candor and good will could we possibly hope to change the minds of Mr. Cole’s around the world. He is here to hone his own arguments and those of you who resort to name calling or bashing only reinforce his beliefs.
Mr. Cole has given me insight that I do not have, because I do not see the world as he does. I appreciate it and the informative responses to him, for this helps me to expand my own knowledge and thus hone my own arguments in response to people who quote their version of history to me by using the weapon of a college education against me.
Please keep your responses to our liberal friends to the point and if possible, for your less educated conservative friends please give your support material whenever possible so that I may look it up and learn.
Shannon Cosneron 13 Jul 2008 at 9:49 pm 60Penelope, thank you for stating so eloquently exactly what I had been thinking. I truly enjoy reading the back and forth debate and I learn more with every reasoned argument and explanation.
I have no idea if Mr. Cole is a troll or not, but he is not rude, imbecilic or aggressive. Penelope is exactly right that resorting to name calling makes us look juvenile, defensive and lacking in the knowledge to refute Mr. Coles statements.
Please continue to argue and refute and cite sources, but don’t resort to name-calling and juvenile put downs.
Christopher Coleon 13 Jul 2008 at 10:10 pm 61Splash, it wasn’t until Constantine in 313 that the Roman Empire accepted Christianity as a legal religion, and there is some debate as to whether or not that move was more politically motivated than spiritually. In 325 the Council of Nicaea was convened in order to remove herresies from Christianity, most notably that of Arius. The debate wasn’t settled though for another 80 years until the Council of Constantinople, when what remained of the Roman Empire finally became Christian (again it was unclear whether or not the move was made out of religious or political fervor).
It was the herresies that Muhammad knew of in the 8th Century, as many of the Christian groups had fled to parts of the Middle East. Those were his only known associations with anything remotely considered Christianity. Perhaps had he known true Christianity, the problems we face in the world today wouldn’t be nearly as prevelant. St. Francis’ peaceful nature and willingness not to take up arms granted him an audience with the most powerful rulers of the Muslim world. He almost single-handedly brought an end to the Crusades.
It was partially the re-baptism issue, partially the desire for peace that caused both Catholics and Protestants to hunt down and murder Anabaptists. They refused to take up arms against the Turks, opting instead to live out a life of peace as Jesus had taught. Many of their martyrs died in manners similar to the early Christians who also refused to take up arms. Agree or disagree with their movement, it is pretty well agreed that they did not deserve the treatment that both Catholics and Protestants were giving them.
I am simply a man who desires peace, who wants to live out as Christ would. I do not believe He would take up arms against the Muslims, nor anyone else accept the anti-Christ. Yet He is a ruler with perfect judgment. I believe we are to be better than that.
whiskeyon 13 Jul 2008 at 11:43 pm 62Cole’s problem is that he, like the Archbishop of Canterbury, is delusional when he thinks that Islam is not defined by violence and men like bin Laden.
“Moderate” Muslims have to go into hiding. Converts from Islam face death. Muslims kill, and threaten to kill more over CARTOONS.
There is no deal, compromise, middle ground, with Muslims. Certain Muslims may not be violent. There were “good Germans” and “good Japanese” opposed to militarisim. At the end, the White Rose group was beheaded and Japanese kept their heads down.
Islam CANNOT co-exist with Christianity. It is polygamist at heart, and creates lots of young men without wives who’s only hope of “sex” and love is either conquering non-Muslim lands and killing other men to take their wives and daughters and sisters as sex slaves, or martyrdom in jihad (with 72 virgins).
We ARE fundamentally different from Muslims in every way. We don’t have four wives. We don’t have 57 children. To understand bin Laden (and Muslims) you have to understand his father: Mohammed bin Laden had 22 wives (he’d get tired of one, “divorce” her and shuffle her and the kid(s) off to a subordinate at his company). He fathered 57 children.
THAT is Islam. That is the life of a Muslim. Along with cousin marriage, the burqua, harems, beheadings, and such. No wonder violence dominates Muslims where ever they exist, from Doctors in cars on fire in the Glasgow airport terminal yelling “Allah Akbar” to honor killings in Texas by Muslims.
There is no possibility of co-existing with Islam any more than there was with say, the ancient Aztecs who ripped the hearts out of conquered people’s for their bloody gods.
Only a fool would pretend otherwise, and many learned Christians (but fortunately, not Pope Benedict) would pretend otherwise. [As a theological matter, Benedict observed that Muslims believe that God can negate reason, and make man worship devils if God so chose. This is contrary to fundamental Christian doctrine and so Benedict concluded there was no reason for ecumenical outreach, in contrast with Jews who DID believe that God does not reject reason and does not act capriciously.]
Back on topic, the BBC simply wishes to wish away the reality of Jihad and Britain’s subjugation to Sharia. Already DOGS! are forbidden by the police because Muslims object! The British police had to apologize for sending out a photo of a puppy. Muslims hate puppies, and seethed and threatened. Along with the banning of piggy banks, Piglet from Winnie the Pooh, and much else, the loss of dogs in Britain to Sharia shows how cowardly and pathetic the elite of Britain is.
Katoon 14 Jul 2008 at 12:19 am 63Christopher, I’m trying to understand your position, as you make two arguments simultaneously. On the one hand, you argue that the threat of radical Islamic violence is no worse than the threat of Christian violence, and thus we in the West should not fear radical Islamists any more than Christians.
On the other, you argue that as a Christian, you should not, and will not, fight anyone, except for the anti-Christ. By the logic of this latter position, it doesn’t matter whether Islamists are good, bad, or pure evil. As long as they are not the anti-Christ, you don’t care, and you wouldn’t support a fight against them no matter what they do.
So what I want to know is, if you’re a pacifist, why waste our time and yours making the first argument?
Christopher Coleon 14 Jul 2008 at 6:07 am 64As I pointed out Whiskey I could show you passages in scripture where violence is advocated, and I could name a few “Christian” groups that would absolutely love to cause havoc and violence.
I am not saying that radical Islam is not a problem. I am saying that Islam should not be defined by them as we would not want Westboro Baptist Church defining Christianity. It seems to me that this should be a fair statement. Yes the moderate and non-violent Muslims do go into hiding when the militants are around, but I doubt that if they really want to be understood they would say look to the radicals.
And Kato, you have misunderstood my points. I don’t fear Christian violence, and I don’t fear Islamic violence. I will not be ruled by fear. But there are some groups in Islam that would use fear, and there are some groups who identify themselves as Christian that would do the same. I do not see what is so controversial about this.
And I have no need to fight Islam. Why should I want to fight a religion that I don’t agree with, and return us to a Medeival mindset, especially when there is a better way to go about things? Even in this “War on Terror”, if you find creative ways to erode the terrorists funding, help rebuild instead of blow up, repatriate the countries involved, the terrorists will not be able to draw their necessary numbers because their arguments for joining them will be useless. Currently there is a severely disproportionate amount of money being spent on blowing up the Middle East, and not nearly enough on rebuiliding it.
Stephanieon 14 Jul 2008 at 8:53 am 65You guys are wasting your time here…..you all remember Matt Cornell? This is MC Redux……it feels so retro…
Splashon 14 Jul 2008 at 10:05 am 66And I have no need to fight Islam.
That’s largely because real men are doing that for you, which has always been the dirty little perk of misguided pacifism.
Currently there is a severely disproportionate amount of money being spent on blowing up the Middle East, and not nearly enough on rebuiliding it.
And with that statement, I fully understand you now. You do indeed have much in common with Tony Campolo. You make up your mind, then cherry pick Scripture to fit your needs.
Do not label Christ a hippie pacifist. His statements on getting along were geared toward breaking the mindset of extra-biblical legalism that could have neighbors “right with God” while hating the sinner or the neighbor next door. Never is pacifism promoted anywhere in Scripture on a nation-to-nation level.
Like many modernist Christians you place a premium on the New Testament while being embarrased of the Old Testament. Favoring one over the other, though, is heretical.
God does not change. The God of the Patriarchs is the God of the Apostles is the God of today. He has not softened, He has not changed his morality (can’t, since He’s the definition). And He has sanctioned warfare.
At no time in the NT do Christ or the Apostles condemn service in the pagan Roman Army. Soldiers are told to be content with their pay. Centurions and soldiers are praised as some of the first godly Gentiles. All without negative comment to their profession or command to “go and sin no more.”
So don’t presume you have evolved beyond the Almighty, who “teacheth my hands to war.” A verse as applicable, valid and holy as it was when first uttered by a godly Hebrew. Because there are things worth physically fighting in this fallen world.
Why are people of your stripe so willing to accept “there is a time for peace” while willfully ignoring the accompanying “time to war/time to kill”?
Moon 14 Jul 2008 at 10:46 am 67I gave up reading all the sniping back and forth in this thread.
Has anyone bothered to 1) read the article and 2) respond to the BBC appropriately, as I tried to do?
Because otherwise we’re just wasting our time here. If we’re not willing to take steps to speak out about these things to the people involved, then what’s the point? We’re just griping among ourselves.
It’s very disappointing.
Splashon 14 Jul 2008 at 11:21 am 68Mo, one man’s “sniping” is another man’s “debate.” These are things important enough to them to continue the discussion for some of us. Chris and I are trying to convince each other of our position. There is merit in that. As are all the discussions that take place here. (Last I checked, the BBC programmers weren’t maintaining this site anyway, so…)
Think of this as a the free speech venue at your local university. It gets heated at times, but all sides are happy it exists. Those who don’t care are free to check out the band playing at the Student Union.
Katoon 14 Jul 2008 at 12:09 pm 69I for one am done with Christopher. He refused to answer my questions, (deliberately or through sheer denseness) misinterpreting my comments as referring to “all Muslims” instead of (as I very deliberately worded) Islamist terrorists, i.e., radical Muslims who advocate and employ violence to advance what they perceive as their religious objectives. I for one never suggested that we need to “fight” all of Islam, and I don’t know anyone who does.
Also, you do draw an equivalence between the threat from violent Islamic groups and violent Christian groups. But since 9/11, there have been more than 11,000 Islamist attacks worldwide. How many terrorist acts inspired by Christianity have occurred since then? Even Ireland has been calm over the past decade. Anybody blind to the disparity between the threats (which even the head of an Arabic TV network, whom I quoted in an earlier comment, acknowledges), is not worth debating.
I actually have some respect for principled, consistent pacifists, especially those motivated by their faith. But you dodged that question as well. Life’s too short to argue with somebody who keeps shifting the grounds of discussion.
Katoon 14 Jul 2008 at 12:12 pm 70Oh, and Splash, I don’t begrudge you continuing to try and drum sense into Christopher. Even toddlers need somebody to teach them right from wrong. You must have the patience of Job. Best of luck.
GTO Bobcaton 14 Jul 2008 at 12:53 pm 71David Marcoe nailed it. The Crusades were provoked by attacks on Christendom from the Islamic Empire.
If the Brits had any gumption, they’d petition their government to de-fund the BBC. If the BBC is so wonderful, let them try to hack it as a private enterprise and stop leeching off the British taxpayers.
Christopher Coleon 14 Jul 2008 at 1:41 pm 72Splash, I don’t favor one testament over the other. All I said is if you are going to say that Islam commands its adherents to partake in violence, I could show you and others Bible verses that say and describe similar. That is not saying I prefer one testament over the other.
What I actually do happen to think is that God did command at certain times for His people to carry out war. I am not the kind of pacifist who believes all war is necessarily evil. I just happen to believe that the military action we currently find our nation in is evil.
What I believe is that early in Israel’s history, in order to protect His people, God commanded His people to root out those who did not worship Him, in some cases even fighting on their behalf. But there were also times when God raised up Israel’s enemies, thus war was a form of divine judgment.
In the New Testament Jesus established a better way of doing things, as in not doing what the world does. In the mindset of 1st Century Judaism, the people’s belief was that the Messiah would be a military leader who would overthrow the Roman government and establish Israel as its own nation once again. By laying down His life (no man or government took Jesus’ life, He laid it down willingly), Jesus showed His followers that the way we think about things is not the way God thinks about things. So in some regards Jesus was addressing nation to nation tactics. As He said He was a king, but His kingdom was not of this world. The Kingdom of God is present, but coming as well. I choose to follow Christ’s example, not because I think that the New Testament is better than the Old, but because we have a duty to be Christlike.
As for the topic of this thread, never once did I say that radical Christians have carried out the number or severity of attacks that radical Muslims have, and to portray such on tv is not right. But I will not go as far to say that there are not groups who would, given the chance. Some groups identifying themselves as Christians have called for the irradication of Islam by any means necessary. There are some groups identifying themselves as Christian that harrass minorities in this country, to the point of carrying out mob justice. If the roles were reversed, I would not want what I believe to be equated with what these groups say and do, and I refuse to do that with Islam.
a. acaciaon 14 Jul 2008 at 2:34 pm 73Hm, sure wish I could get under the hood of this site. I’m not a betting man, but if I was, I’d bet the IP addresses of commenters “Penelope27″ and “Shannon Cosner” are an EXACT match to that of Christopher Troll.
Christopher Coleon 14 Jul 2008 at 2:48 pm 74You’d have lost a bet.
Moon 14 Jul 2008 at 3:02 pm 75Christopher -
I haven’t read this entire thread, so I am only responding to your most recent comment.
You are correct in saying that in the OT there was a lot of war, and commanded by God. The difference is that these were particular battles, at particular times, for particular reasons. It is not an open-ended instruction to Jewish or Christian believers today.
Islam is different. There’s very little context to the Koran, it is mainly Allah speaking with Mohammad. And since Mohammad is the example Muslims are to follow for all time, whatever he did is to be emulated. Mohammad was a warlord and a murderer. The Koran is full - from beginning to end - of verses about the hatred this so-called god Allah has for unbelievers. (With a special emphasis on Jews, and Christians, of which you claim to be one.) This hatred and violence is emulated by the followers of Islam who are doing what they are supposed to do as commanded by their religion.
It would seem you have more knowledge about the Bible than some folks do. But you confuse the issue because you do not have as much knowledge about Islam as you should. There’s enough confusion on this topic in the world these days. Read the Koran. And then come back here and tell us how there’s any kind of comparison to be made between Judaism/Christianity and Islam.
Splashon 14 Jul 2008 at 3:36 pm 76Christopher, I can respect much of your last point (excluding the ridiculous, indefensible last paragraph), but I’ll end this pointless roundabout by reiterating that the “better way” Christ offered refers not to refraining from doing as the world does (which goes without saying and is no different than the Law or prophets demanded already) but referred to the Pharisaic system that had burdened people by adding to Moses. And that the only references to secular government in the New Testament depict it as a wielder of force for the common good. (A primary reason the Founders wanted to restrict government to a limited role as protector and restrainer of injustice in addition to establisher of just weights and measures, etc. as outlined in the OT.)
But I would love to know which radical Christian groups (plural, no less!) you refer to. And don’t give us Westboro Baptist Church. Any groups which you may indicate must have more than 12 people as members. Thousands would be OK, as would millions, to put it on par with radical Islam.
Other than that, I’m spent (sorry, Kato!). Too much to do today, though I’ll check in later from time to time.
Christopher Coleon 14 Jul 2008 at 3:49 pm 77Mo, I stated those reasons. They were one way in which God carried out His judgment.
And Splash, I am more or less talking about many of the Christian groups that would love to wipe out Islam altogether, as well as the Christian identity movement (which is a nicer way of saying White Supremecists, which I do not condone whatsoever). I wouldn’t want to be talking to someone, reveal that I am a Christian, and have their first thought be that I am a white supremecist. Neither do I want to judge a large number of the Muslim population by thinking if I meet one they want to kill me.
Penelope27on 14 Jul 2008 at 4:54 pm 78No, I am afraid Mr. Cole and I are not one in the same, either in person or belief.
Yes, I agree that this topic has come to an end and would like to thank Mo, Splash, Kato, et al for their insight, but my earlier point “a.acacia”, was to show you that to resort to name calling only reflects off of you. You must think long term not short term. Mr. Cole had some of you so very defensive in a short amount of time that you could not properly reflect your understanding of the situation.
As I stated before, take this opportunity to understand your own limits in patience and knowledge. This debate was not about bringing him around, but for those of us, who sit on the sideline trying to expound there own knowledge and those who sit on the fence wanting to understand which to believe.
When a Mr. Cole comes into our midst, he is like the child who keeps saying, “why?” You will not get him to admit that maybe some of you had valid points. He has his own agenda as we have ours. There were many things that he said that even I could immediately see were incorrect, those of you who articulated these and refuted them just helped me to reinforce my own understandings of the subject. You never know whom you will influence and what influence that person may have.
Remember, for want of a nail…
a. acaciaon 14 Jul 2008 at 5:56 pm 79No, I am afraid Mr. Cole and I are not one in the same…
Which none of us will ever know for sure, unless the IP logs are revealed (I’m not holding my breath), but to be fair, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Mr. Cole had some of you so very defensive in a short amount of time that you could not properly reflect your understanding of the situation.
Au contraire. The situation to many of us is very evident and we have expressed our opinions as to what Cole is. It is not “name-calling” if we back it up with facts, including Cole’s own words.
When a Mr. Cole comes into our midst, he is like the child who keeps saying, “why?”
On that note, we agree. I’ll go futher and say that many times children like Cole need to be put in their place. Though I wish everyone would show some collective restraint and simply ignore him, it’s great to know that in every “debate,” Cole’s regurgitated Daily Kos talking-point “arguments” have been exposed for the sheer lameness and suckitude they engulf. He has little knowledge of the Constitution. Even less in regards to Global Jihad. How sad.
In short, he’s been soundly beaten on every point.
Christopher Coleon 14 Jul 2008 at 6:02 pm 80I’ve never even visited Daily Kos, so I really don’t know what you are talking about. There are only a handful of websites I visit on any regular basis.
a. acaciaon 14 Jul 2008 at 6:12 pm 81Whether you have or not is irrelevant; point is, you’ve effectively *channeled* the seething BDS talking-points on that site, and others like it.
Moon 14 Jul 2008 at 11:38 pm 82Christopher -
Oh, you have got to be kidding me:
“I am more or less talking about many of the Christian groups that would love to wipe out Islam altogether”
And which groups would these be? Where is there any organized movement of people who call themselves Christians who want to wipe out Islam altogether? (The key phrase being “call themselves” Christians.) Where are such things being preached in mainstream Christian churches? Most importantly, where is there any support for such a thing in the Bible? There is NONE.
“Neither do I want to judge a large number of the Muslim population by thinking if I meet one they want to kill me.”
Have you bothered to crack open the Koran? Here’s a place to start. (Link below.) It lists the verses on jihad from the Koran. And these don’t include the verses that simply talk about Allah’s hatred for unbelievers and what the attitude of Muslims should be toward unbelievers - which includes YOU.
My goodness, but I have no patience for such incredible ignorance. As a follower of Jesus Christ is embarrassing for me to read your statements. Do you not know that Islam is not only violent ideology, but that it teaches the *exact opposite* of everything you supposedly hold dear as someone who names the name of Christ?
Islam denies the deity of Christ. Islam denies that Christ was crucified and rose again. Islam denies the Trinity.
Here are a few verses from the Koran on the topic of Christ. I actually checked each verse to make sure of the accuracy. But don’t take my word on it. Check it against your own copy of the Koran. I’m sure you have one, right?
http://www.gospelweb.net/DoctrinalItems/biblevskoran.htm
I have backed up my statements with facts. How about you do the same?
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Themes/jihad_passages.html
Shannon Cosneron 15 Jul 2008 at 9:39 pm 83A.Acacia, I cannot believe how insulted I am by you! I have posted but rarely on this or any other site as I am not confrontational and love to learn from all the debate. I am NOT Mr. Cole and in fact am a female, as my name indicates. That is my REAL NAME!!!! Google it. I own my own business in Spokane, Wa and am a 17 year Army veteran. Just because I advocated civility and continued debate do not make me a troll or whatever the HELL you call people who disagree!! I am so angry!!! I don’t even disagree with any of the conservative points! I simply wanted to learn as much biblical history as I could as I know nothing about the bible. I wanted arguments to add to my arsenal to counter my liberal family members. And I don’t like hypocrites, which is what people become when they call people names and then accuse liberals of calling people names.
Kiton 17 Jul 2008 at 9:13 am 84My 2 Cents on Crusades
BOTH SIDES COMMITTED ATROCITIES!!!
IT WAS THE &%$@ING MIDDLE AGES!!!
THE GENEVA CONVENTION WASN’T AROUND YET!!!
THE CATHOLIC CRUSADERS CARRIED OUT ETHNIC CLEANSING WHEN THEY ENTERED JERUSALEM (AGAINST JEWS, MUSLIMS, AND ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS) AND SALADIN COMMITTED SEVERAL ATROCITIES OF HIS OWN!!!
BOTH SIDES DID BAD THINGS!!!
WHEN WILL WE FIGURE THAT OUT AND ADMIT IT?!?!?!