 |
|
|
|
 Kentucky Senator Rand Paul says the Obama administration has not countered Muslim extremists.
October 11th, 2013
02:33 PM ET
Rand Paul: Obama won't stop war on ChristianityWashington (CNN) – Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky devoted his speech to the socially conservative Values Voter Summit to “a war on Christianity” that is being waged by “fanatics of Islam.” Much of Paul’s speech was a list of violence against Christians across the Muslim world, highlighting what he said was “not a little problem” and something that is “not going away quickly.” “Across the globe, Christians are under attack almost as if we lived in the Middle Ages or we lived under early pagan Roman rule,” Paul said. “This administration does nothing to stop it and it can be argued that it is giving aid and comfort to those who tolerate these crimes.” FULL STORY
Next entry »How King David predicted modern Judaism
« Previous entryPraise 'Lesus'? Vatican pulls misspelled coins
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Religion gives people like Rand Paul a channel down into the unseen fears and nameless dread of people who actually believe in things like the Devil, lost souls and damnation. The people who hide from the world through religion have parasites that know them through-and-through. Parasites like Rand Paul, who use other peoples' fears and flaws for their own purposes. They are evil if anything can be called evil. I'm sure he's a stand-up guy when you get to know him, though.
He espouses an anti-war non interventionist foreign policy, and yet has to gall to complain that the POTUS won't do anything to make other countries be nice to christians?
I read Ayn Rand in college like a lot of people and I quickly realized that although I would prosper in "RandyLand" ™ – my idiot brother and my mother with COPD would be eaten alive. He (Rand Paul) lives in a fantasy that is just as unattainable as "communism" is and will never have anything useful to say about the world we actually live in.
One statement from Ayn Rand summed up her philosophy perfectly:
"Laws are for the weak. The strong are the laws." IOW, feudalism without the patina of noblesse oblige...
We already know enough about him. I wish he would just go away.
http://youtu.be/9W4e4MwogLo
He was really stumped, then he rebutted by quibbling.
Something I haven't seen anybody mention before is that even though the government does establish nor prohibits religion (Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment,) the system of laws can inadvertently end up being setup to practically prohibit being a Christian by the advocacy of certain groups who go above and beyond to have the courts rule in such matters.
Are you talking about the RCC, if so I would agree, although they claim to be the mother Christian church?
Vic,
"to practically prohibit being a Christian"
Absolute nonsense. No one is saying you shouldn't be free to practice your religion in your home or place of worship.
Whine about being the "victim" again while you ignore gays who are actually victimized by inequality or pro-choice supporters who are called "murderers".
exactly, Observer.
they pretend to be victims of prejudice when they are the ones victimizing other groups.
The system of laws can end being setup to not legally recognize a person being of a "Christian Faith" anymore!
Vic,
So are you saying that not all men are created equal and that Christians should be given special treatment?
What I am saying is that things can go to the opposite extreme!
Vic,
Yes, anything COULD eventually happen. Pointless.
Perhaps if you were suspected of murdering someone with a crucifix it might be reasonable under the law to bring up your Christian faith, Vic. Can't think of any other circumstances where it would be in order. Not just now.
Vic You know in your heart you are stating this multi cultural/religious nation must be dominated by the Christian religion, but you Christians can not even get together on what you mean as a religion, so many different dogmas. You want freedom of religion of those that believe like you and you are afraid of real freedom that undermine your influence, is that right?
There is no reason for the law to care if someone is Christian or any other religion.
Not exactly. Like I mentioned earlier, things can go to the opposite extreme. In that case, I am afraid of a tyranny that undermines my rights and not influence!
Vic,
In other words, you fear that atheists in this country could be as totalitarian as the principles of Westboro Baptist Church or the Christians in Salem.
If I may redact your statement to:
"In other words, you fear that the system of laws in this country could be as totalitarian as the principles of any extremist group, whether it being atheists, Westboro Baptist Church, the Christians in Salem, the Black Panthers, the KKK, the Nation of Islam, etc."
That would be a fair statements.
Vic, nobody has mentioned that because it hasn't/won't happen. Ever.
I know that the popular gossip these days is that the evil atheists are plotting to take over the world, but the same laws that protect atheists protect Christians, as well.
I sure hope so!
And what about the Native American religious use of peyote? What about animal sacrifice? Is it OK for the govt to ban animal sacrifice? If my religion says I MUST beat my wife if she is disobedient, should I be able to escape civil justice?
We live in a secular society where everyone must "bend" their religious doctrine in order to live together.
You only feel persecuted because your book tells you that you are. What about the fact that I can't buy a bottle of wine on Sunday in my state? I wonder whose idea that was – it must have been those pesky Jews – no wait they celebrate the Sabbath on Saturday.
I just caught a typo in the first sentence. Sorry about that!
Correction for the record:
"..the government does not establish nor prohibits religion.."
How about the USA gets out of other countries' business and deciding which religion is best for anyone?
For all of Rand Paul's hyperbole, one thing that was missing is what he thinks Obama should do...but that is typical of him.
His statement, "Obama won't stop the war on Christianity" is disingenuous, and he's a smart man. He knows it.
People like him sicken me.
You can't convinve Paul is a smart man no more than you could convince me ted cruz or michelle bachmann are smart people. They maybe smart in a particular field. But these people have the brains of a bag of rocks in other areas.
"convince me"
Doesn't Rand Paul normally take an isolationist view? If yes, I don't think moving away from that for religion indicates any special intelligence, other than pandering to his christian supporters and trying to deflect attention away from the repubs massive government shutdown blunder. On second thought, maybe he's a genius. . .
Paul is an libertarian. In other words "Keep gov't out" As usual he's talking out of both sides of his mouth. The repubs will NEVER nominate him for prez. The repub party is like "reality" TV. Say and do anything to keep people watching. Paul is alot like Mutt Romney, will say whatever you like to hear depending on who's he's talking to.
"if your worldview is true (no God) and we're all just a cosmic accident, there's no moral standard for good or bad, etc. ..."
This is a typical statement for believers who haven't thought things through and aren't honest with themselves. These same people likely choose to support some of the discriminations in the Bible (like against gays), but choose NOT to support the Bible when it comes to slavery, beating children, etc. So where did their morals come from?
It's all hypocrisy for them.
exactly. they try to hold their morals up as a standard for the world - but i find them lacking, silly and downright cruel.
the bible says it is moral to kill g.ays, disobedient children, non-virgin women and anyone working the weekend.
the bible has horrible examples of good "morals". god drowns babies in his great flood, destroyed babies when he destroyed sodom and gomorrah, even sent bears to kill children for making fun of one of his prophets. the bible has numerous examples of infanticide, so i don't think it should be held up as a guide for good living.
and yes, the slavery. the bible promotes slavery throughout. there are even rules for selling your own daughter into slavery in the bible. i can't think of anything more disgusting.
modern ethics > biblical morals
Fortunately, most believers are smart enough to realize how "immoral" much of the Bible is and ignore it.
You are confusing religions that follow the Old Testament with Christianity which follows the New Testament.
I understand it may be confusing at times, but believers of Christ believe in forgiveness for everything you mentioned and do not condone killing people that don't believe.
It does make for good Internet drama to try and mix the two but it really is that simple.
Observer- "This is a typical statement for believers who haven't thought things through and aren't honest with themselves."
Well..they are correct to a certain point. They lean toward Kierkegaard's way of thinking. There has to be some purpose to existence and that lies within faith. If their faith is unfounded...therefor there is no purpose.
Most non-religious would lean a bit more with Albert Camus and his views on the absurdity of life and say that the struggle and results of that struggle is were lies the purpose.
there is no purpose to life except the purpose you make.
the christian ego is immeasurable.
sorry to burst your bubble, but you're not that special.
humans aren't that special.
our planet is only important to us, just one planet of trillions.
christians like to pretend they are the most important being in the universe...
doubtful.
I dare them to watch a mother chimp grieving for a dead infant and still deny that we are not just another ape. The arrogance of the human species is beyond comprehension. We deny that we are creatures of instinct, but have you ever seen a little boy poke something gross with his finger and then smell it? Ask him why he did that and he would probably say he couldn't help it.
Religion is just arrogance in hyper-drive... "not only are we better than the animals, we are better than those other humans over there".
@Bootyfunk- "there is no purpose to life except the purpose you make."
And that would go with the part about Albert Camus I mentioned. Obviously you either missed that or misunderstood it.
"the christian ego is immeasurable."
I bet it measures out to about the same as any other person's.
"sorry to burst your bubble, but you're not that special."
Never said I was.
"humans aren't that special."
I dunno, considering that our planet has never (to our current knoweldge) produced a species quite like ours...we could be considered special...or perhaps unique would be a better word.
"our planet is only important to us, just one planet of trillions."
Yep..we are in agreement.
"christians like to pretend they are the most important being in the universe"
I think that is typical to most humans. If we are all really honest to ourselves...we would admit we do more for ourselves in our daily lives than we do for others.
Those who rail about how miserable the world is and that it is falling apart, are frequently those who insist that God created it.
rand paul playing to the conservatives. it's cute when rand paul pretends he's a real politician.
He's kissing up to his voting base...yep, he's a politician.
yep, playing to people who are mad the U.S. isn't a christian theocracy.
Yep..the very small minority that believes in such a thing. Thankfully the vast majority of christians do not think we should be a theocracy.
yet they try to pass christian laws.
try to push christian tradition on all.
actively fight against other faiths.
i don't think the number is a low as you do.
@Bootyfunk- "yet they try to pass christian laws."
"they" are like most very vocal minority groups..they try because they believe. No different than groups like Code Pink when they tried their futile posturing by covering their hands in fake blood at political gatherings. It doesn't do any good and yet they still try because they believe it will do something.
"i don't think the number is a low as you do."
Perhaps not but until some facts are presented, I'll caution on the side of lower numbers.
Once again we see that the biggest conflicts in the world today aren't due to atheists, but to religion.
Actually I think those conflicts are due to people...people that just so happened to grab religion as an arguing point. If it wouldn't be religion it would politics or race or wealth or....whatever. We humans have a bad habit of wanting to always break things down into groups.
Actually I think those conflicts are due to people
No doubt – but they didn't just happen to 'grab religion' as a wedge issue. Religion is a weakness that they exploit for personal gain. They use it to create differences where otherwise none exist to further their own political objectives.
(Just like Republicans.)
@I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV- "No doubt – but they didn't just happen to 'grab religion' as a wedge issue."
Of course not, religion is something that people easily identify by but doesn't mean that religion is any more at fault than any other social construct we humans have made. I know many people that identify themselves as Democrats but don't have the foggiest notion how to define that group.
"Religion is a weakness that they exploit for personal gain. They use it to create differences where otherwise none exist to further their own political objectives."
It can be a weakness...I will agree. But religion is hardly unique to being used by the whims of the powerful.
"(Just like Republicans.)"
(Just like Democrats)...really there is no difference. If it suited their needs better, Dems would use the religion card and throw away the race one.
The point is that religion is the *easiest* way to divide and manipulate people for selfish ends.
I will agree that it can be used that way. I'm not so sure I agree that it's the easiest.
without religion, people might actually realize we are all brothers and sisters.
yep, people use religion as an excuse to fight sometimes - but other times there is no other reason to fight except for religion.
my holy book says we all we can eat is pigs - but my holy book says we aren't allowed to eat pigs at all - let's fight!
often religion sets arbitrary rules that bring people into conflict where there was none.
@Bootyfunk- "without religion, people might actually realize we are all brothers and sisters."
Highly doubtful. It's not in our natures.
"but other times there is no other reason to fight except for religion."
Yes but those times are rare. To find wars or widespread discrimination that does not include at some level; race, politics, nationalism, ethnicity...etc is difficult to find.
"my holy book says we all we can eat is pigs – but my holy book says we aren't allowed to eat pigs at all – let's fight!"
I consider myself somewhat knowledgeable on history...not sure I remember hearing of the "Pork, The Other White Meat Wars". lol
"often religion sets arbitrary rules that bring people into conflict where there was none."
That I agree with, though in many cases, religion acts as the Conservative force within a society. Trying to preserve that which is deemed good by a society.
Gol
@Bootyfunk- "without religion, people might actually realize we are all brothers and sisters."
Highly doubtful. It's not in our natures.
+++ sad you have such faith in god but so little in your fellow human beings. i don't think humans are so evil. in fact, research shows we are much more apt to good than evil. check out ethics research. even monkeys have a form of ethics. basically, i don't agree with your depressing christian view that people are terrible - we're not. people are good, generally.
"but other times there is no other reason to fight except for religion."
Yes but those times are rare. To find wars or widespread discrimination that does not include at some level; race, politics, nationalism, ethnicity...etc is difficult to find.
+++ funny how you separate religion from race, politics, nationalism, ethnicity, etc. you should just throw it into the group. it's more true to say religion ranks up there with those other reasons for people killing each other. the problem is, with religion, you have a holy book that says your are divinely right. it can't be argued with - so people fight. after all, only one book is right.
"my holy book says we all we can eat is pigs – but my holy book says we aren't allowed to eat pigs at all – let's fight!"
I consider myself somewhat knowledgeable on history...not sure I remember hearing of the "Pork, The Other White Meat Wars". lol
+++ but i assume you've heard of the crusades? witch burnings? the inquisition? bruno and others murdered by the church for heresy? the list goes on for people who have died because of religious belief.
"often religion sets arbitrary rules that bring people into conflict where there was none."
That I agree with, though in many cases, religion acts as the Conservative force within a society. Trying to preserve that which is deemed good by a society.
+++ conservative does not equal "good". it usually equals old fashioned. it usually equals not wanting to change. it usually equals the bigotry of the past that people want to hold onto.
conservatives in the U.S. fought to keep slavery alive and well - wouldn't call that preserving what's "good". they also fought against women and minority voting rights, civil rights and now g.ay rights. conservatives are almost always on the wrong side of history.
Bootyfunk- "sad you have such faith in god but so little in your fellow human beings."
I am unaware of stating having any faith in god. Could you point any examples? I doubt you can.
I have faith that humans will behave the way they have for thousands of years. Is there any reason not to?
"i don't think humans are so evil. in fact, research shows we are much more apt to good than evil."
In general yes but as you know, it takes very little to move societies to do what others would deem as evil. Mark Twain's "The War Prayer" is a good example of showing how patriotism and religion can push us humans to do what we would normally deem as evil.
"i don't agree with your depressing christian view that people are terrible – we're not. people are good, generally."
My view is not christian...it is a realistic view. By stating we humans can do great evil...does not mean I disagree that we can do great good as well. You are guessing again. Might not originate from the most intellectual source but remember, "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it." (Agent K)
"funny how you separate religion from race, politics, nationalism, ethnicity, etc. you should just throw it into the group."
I am not separating religion from them at all. I include other recognizable social constructs with similarities to how people identify themselves to them.
"it's more true to say..."
Does that truth come from your gut...I love when people talk about truthiness. Bush and Colbert would be proud.
"but i assume you've heard of the crusades?"
Yep..involving geo-politics.
"witch burnings?"
Yep..involving decaying social structure.
"the inquisition?"
Yep..involving conservative elements vs liberal ones.
"the list goes on for people who have died because of religious belief."
And yet, pretty much all of your examples are not purely religious in nature. Religion was merely used as a rallying point.
"conservative does not equal "good"."
Didn't say it did. I said what is deemed good. There is a difference.
"it usually equals old fashioned. it usually equals not wanting to change. it usually equals the bigotry of the past that people want to hold onto."
You are expressing a bigoted pov here. Conservatives try to preserve positive aspects that benefit society while liberals try to introduce positive apsects to a society. Neither are better than the other. Each serves a society in their own unique way and both may fail.
"conservatives in the U.S. fought to keep slavery alive and well – wouldn't call that preserving what's "good"."
Neither would I but conservatives also want to preserve the basic family structure which benefits our society. Again....being conservative does not make one evil no more than being liberal makes one good.
"conservatives are almost always on the wrong side of history."
No, conservatives are usually pointed out as being on the wrong side at watershed moments in history. By it's very nature...conservatism does not bring about "Hey History!!! Look over here!!"
Gol,
So the promise of heaven for the most adamant believers has no influence? It's just a waste of time to support such claims, right?
@Observer- "So the promise of heaven for the most adamant believers has no influence? It's just a waste of time to support such claims, right?"
For those that are so adamant in their beliefs...I am sure it does. It is perhaps the only reason they need to act out. However, most people are not solely influenced by such a pure and limited perspective.
Most fanatics...whether they are religious, political or whatever they feel the need to grasp to give them some form of identi ty and *only* that one thing are quite rare.
war on christianity... what a joke.
christians run into a 3rd world muslim country and start converting and they wonder why there's a backlash.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rHUEINYWjPM
Atheists struggle to explain beauty, goodness, compassion, justice, courage, truth, and love. Christians struggle to explain pain and suffering.
I'm not sure Christians struggle to explain those things.
Completely incorrect. No atheist I've ever spoken with has had much trouble with those topics you mention. Likewise, no Christian I've ever spoken with has had much trouble with those topics you mention.
Where are you getting your information?
beauty, goodness, compassion, justice, courage, truth, and love are all in the eye of the beholder.
Matt
Wrong on the first statement, just a little study will clear that up.
Mama Theresa got off on suffering, thrived on it and lots of the delusional get off on self flagellation the whip kind and the celibate the other. Of course you also have another group that believe that they are fallen, Topher, Bill Deacon, Live4Him, et al, that know they are mentally depraved sinners and need a way out and have decided that jesus some 2000 year old myth can take the rap/punishment for them. Cowards, all.
atheists don't have any trouble explaining beauty - just look at the natural world.
you are perpetuating a sterotype.
I'd say atheists have trouble explaining goodness, truth, and love. Not saying you don't know/experience these things, just trouble explaining them in your worldview.
hahaha, completely wrong, Topher. why would we have any trouble explaining those things? they are all deep subjects, so in a sense everyone in the world has trouble explaining them. but that's not what you mean. you think atheists don't understand love? we do. we also understand goodness and especially truth. atheism is a quest for the truth.
you don't know atheists very well. you have a stereotypical view. and to be honest, pretty childish to say any human doesn't understand love because they don't worship god. you don't need belief in a deity to know love.
Bootyfunk
I didn't say you don't understand it, I said you can't explain it. What I'm saying is that if your worldview is true (no God) and we're all just a cosmic accident, there's no moral standard for good or bad, etc. ... It's all just an opinion ... yours vs. mine. Even love would just be a chemical reaction.
and how does that mean we can't explain those things...? because we set the moral standard means we can't have a moral standard...? there are plenty of scientific research that explains ethics. are you unaware of that? come on, Toph, you're being silly and purposely ignoring information. what's wrong with explaining love as an emotion and chemical reaction? how is that not an explanation for love....? we don't need god to love. you probably don't realize you don't need god to love either, Topher.
i'll bite, Topher.
please explain love to all us godless atheists, explain how without god we can't understand love.
Topher
Start with pheromones, do humans like all other mammals have them and what do they mean to you, Topher. You are not the immaculate virgin male are you Topher? Even in your dreams you may have, you know, made a mess of your shorts.
There you go again Topher, throwing up responses with no support. How many conversations have you done this in, only to run away and hide? Not sure of the number but you do it every time you get backed inuo a corner which is pretty much every time you try to further your narrow minded but very shallow christian perspective.
The universe is indifferent...what is there to explain?
What Paul seems to forget (or, more likely, never knew) is that it was the Christians who were doing the attacking during the Crusades.
Christians like to feel persecuted. It gives them wood to identify themselves with jeebus
Nope. Christians like to CLAIM persecution whenever possible. But really, they like to pass unfair laws that favor their religion and their views, and they don't care how much "persecution" the g@ys feel or any other believer.
Wow..how shocking. A demographic wanting to use legal means to support the views of that specific demographic. No one has ever done that before. The groups that support gay rights should discover these "lobbies" that people seem to imply so much.
Oh, I'm sorry, but separation of church and state makes this wish of yours a pipe dream. Thankfully.
Gol, would you be perfectly happy and satisfied if the US became mostly muslim, and sharia law made much of your normal, daily activities illegal? It seems you're in favor of tyranny of the majority that our founding fathers were so concerned about. Why is that?
@Akira- "Oh, I'm sorry, but separation of church and state makes this wish of yours a pipe dream. Thankfully."
Whose dreams are you even talking about?
@Cpt. Obvious- "would you be perfectly happy and satisfied if the US became mostly muslim, and sharia law made much of your normal, daily activities illegal?"
Of course not and I know it won't happen because of our system of laws. Just like I know that no religious group will be able too inject their specific faith into the system. I have faith in our for of government.
"It seems you're in favor of tyranny of the majority that our founding fathers were so concerned about. Why is that?"
You are incorrect. I do not favor tyranny of any form. I believe the way the founders do..that everyone and every group has the right to express themselves and use whatever legal means avaialble to be able to get that expression out. They might be throwing their cash and political clout out ther door by trying to push faith based legislation through...but they have the right to try. Just like those atheist groups that keep pi ssing away their cash to try and get "In God We Trust" off the currency. They have the right to try even though the odds are they will fail as they have in the past.
Gol, tyranny of the majority can happen under the law. I believe it has been happening because the majority is Christian and they have had too much influence on the laws of the US.
Yes, sharia law could happen in the US. Don't be silly. All it would take is for enough of the population to be in favor of it. We are a democracy, so just like many laws are based on Christian ideals (regardless of what other citizens believe other than Xtianity) laws in the future could be based on Islamic ideas-all it takes is enough voters becoming muslim.
Gol, I inferred that you would be perfectly ok with a Christian lobby trying to get their beliefs voted into a law. If this isn't what you meant, I apologize. If it IS what you meant, my post stands.
@Cpt. Obvious- "tyranny of the majority can happen under the law. I believe it has been happening because the majority is Christian and they have had too much influence on the laws of the US."
As it has been said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
Personally I do not think it is the "majority" at fault as much as a "active minority within the majority". Currently this theory is playing out in Congress by way of the Tea Party. Many people blame them for the actions of the larger and more moderate Republicans.
Our system of govt is suppose to represent the citizenship. Sometimes in our history the needs of the many do outweigh the needs of the few and of course the opposite also occurs. It's not always perfect but one must hope that it does more good than ill.
"Yes, sharia law could happen in the US. Don't be silly. All it would take is for enough of the population to be in favor of it."
Not really. The majority of Americans do not want Obamacare and yet we still have it. Also, the representatives of the people do not go by current polling numbers. They are suppose to take the existing laws and statutes and apply that to current events. As history shows, actual sweeping change in our society comes slowly and not quickly on average.
"We are a democracy,"
You mean a republic.
"all it takes is enough voters becoming muslim."
Anything is possible but there would have to be a long occurring and major shift in our overall society for something like that to happen.
@Akira- "I inferred that you would be perfectly ok with a Christian lobby trying to get their beliefs voted into a law."
I stand for them to try as much as I stand for atheists, muslims, jewish..etc to utilize the system in a legal way to express their positions in our society.
@Gol: fair enough. I understand that; and I am glad that the separation clause exists so that no religion will be able to codify their beliefs into law in our secular United States, which our FF were wise enough to write into our Constitution. Which, for Constitution purists, is the way it should remain...
Lobbies or not, that should remain sacrosanct.
There is no war on:
WOMEN
CHRISTMAS
CHRISTIANITY
THE RIGHT
THE LEFT
THE CENTER
or anything else the extremists say there is a war on.
The only real war being waged is the one going on between those who make unsupported claims and those doing the research into those unsupported claims. Those doing the research want to know the real answers and those making the claims cannot afford to be proved wrong and thus the battle rages ever onward.
LOL, that's often more true than we realize.
“Across the globe, Christians are under attack almost as if we lived in the Middle Ages or we lived under early pagan Roman rule,”
100% true, Pastor Abedini is in prison because of his belief. There are countless others like him whose stories have never been heard and are suffering for having faith.
People like Pastor Abedini are suffering for being insufferable proselytes.
Others are suffering simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, being caught up in civil wars that use religion to define nationalism – much like our favorite Godwin's law reference did.
"proselytes."???
We are all free to choose what we hear and are free to accept the gospels as it relates to us. The gospels are not meant to be enjoyed by a few, it is a free gift to all mankind!
Yes, we are. Here in the U.S. In Iran, not so much. "When in Rome...." applies here. One doesn't go into another country and break their laws, even if it is for altruistic reasons...
Do you know how Pastor Abedini is justifiably in prison?
Did he break the law of the land where he was residing?
I get the distinct feeling the most Christians who complain about "persecution" in other countries would just as soon have Christianity the only legal religion in the US and would imprison those of other faiths and "persecute" them according the believers of those other faiths.
"Did he break the law...."
Go do your homework as to why the Pastor is imprisoned.
That is the saddest part to this story, most of these people migrate from elsewhere and tout for religious freedom in western countries, yet, they will not extend the same courtesy to other people in their own countries of origin.
I asked because I did not know. But your snarky reply makes me want to NOT research it at all. Typical of your ilk.
You're free to live in ignorance. Just don't falsely accuse others in your ignorance.
I did not falsely accuse anyone, fvcktard.
Also, my first words on this thread were a question, so that I would find out the answer and not be ignorant. Your disgusting att.itude is what makes me uninterested in the topic.\
So let's review: I wanted to not be "ignorant" on the issue and asked you a question whose answer would help me understand the issue squarely.
You reply in a fvckwad manner, and I tell you I no longer care about the issue because of your fvcktardedness.
You then falsely accuse me of something I never did; your false accusation was that I made a false accusation.
Let me guess: Christian?
"I did not falsely accuse anyone, fvcktard.....Let me guess: Christian?"
Hmmmm
Short answer:
He is in prison because he was told numerous times that he was a threat to Iran's National Security for trying to convert people from Islam to Christianity via "home churches". Is this trumped up foolery? Yes. Was he warned numerous times to cease? Yes. Did he proceed anyway? Yes. Do I feel bad that he is in that awful hell hole? Yes. But he took that risk in a theocracy, and he lost.
Again, what he was doing wasn't without risk, and he did it anyway. Obama HAS spoken about him to Rhouani (sp), so it isn't like he isn't aware of the situation.
Before you respond make sure you know what you are talking about, otherwise you appear rude and benighted.
I knew exactly what I was responding to, fvckstick. I STARTED with a question because I did not know the answer. That's how I fvcking BEGAN. Asking.
Care to share the nature of your preponderance, hur?
Akira, thanks for your answer. Martin T seems to be side-stepping the question. Maybe HE didn't know.
@MartinT,
"proselytes."???
My apologies, hopefully you understood my intent. Perhaps a more suitable noun is this one:
proselytist, n.
A person who makes, or seeks to make, proselytes or converts; (in extended use) an advocate or proponent of something;
According to the OED a proselyte is someone who has converted.
proselyte, n. and adj.
2. A person who has changed from one opinion, religion, party, etc., to another; a convert.
interestingly the first definition is:
1. spec. A Gentile who has converted to Judaism.
I was unaware of the distinction in the noun forms.
And you can get jailed in Ireland for offending Christians with what's called "blasphemy". That's the problem under theocratic law, and why secular systems are far superior. Secular law in those areas would protect those Christians. I honestly don't know why all of you aren't fans of it?
Indeed. Theocratic systems, no matter their religious stripe, are inherently unfree, because the government claims to act in the name of God, which makes any opposition from the devil...
You do realize that in the Middle Ages, at least in Europe, it was Christians persecuting other Christians?
If Christians were not in the face or people that would rather not hear their message they may not suffer violence. Turning Christians into cat food and slaughtering missionaries and the proselytizing, I miss the good old days.
I know you're trying to be funny, but these are people that we're talking about, and their situations are real. Do you really wish harm on someone just because you disagree with what they are saying?
Do you think so lowly of the freedoms that we have in this country for people to be able to speak their minds that you would wish harm on them rather than reason with them?
So why do the missionaries keep doing what they are doing when they know it is not wanted?
See the post directly below and the comments. LofA are you willing to provide the freedom of religion, that is allow all religious groups to express their views as long as they do not try to overturn the duly enacted laws of the land? The hierarchy of the RCC for example do not agree with some of the legislation passed into law even though the majority of catholics do not obey the catholic dogma. Should religions be able to defy the state because they have a powerful lobby?
What does Rand Paul have to say about mosque burnings or building permit prevention in his home state of Kentucky, or neigboring states like Tennessee or Missouri?
And yes, such things do exist.
-----------
Residents cheer as Kentucky town rejects mosque
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 20:06 EDT
For Mayfield’s zoning board, it was about parking spaces. For the 250 residents of this western Kentucky town who reportedly cheered when the zoning board rejected a building permit for a new mosque, it was clearly about something else. ...
Another Mosque Project Comes Under Fire - In Kentucky
August 20, 2010, 12:44 PM EDT
Perhaps it's no longer surprising in the current climate, but yet another mosque construction project is coming under increased attack from critics this month. It's time to add Florence, Kentucky to the list of controversial Islamic construction projects stretching from Temecula, California to Murfreesboro, Tennessee to, of course, lower Manhattan. ...
Yes sir, freedom of religion by most Christian groups, means freedom of religion for those that we DEEM to be worthy, the rest can pound salt. So much hypocrisy.
"most"?
Please don't exaggerate. The stupidity of those willing to do something illegal and wrong does not represent the majority.
Bill Deacon
You only quantify discrimination by body count, really? Were you a PR guy in Vietnam, the false numbers were the sign of victory until the defeat?
How many Muslims were killed during the zoning board riots?
Bill Deacon
Your posts are getting more disgusting every day, you really should go back and read the hatred, no too strong, the extreme dislike you show for other religions, you are a magnificent apologist for what you believe, but a "golden rule" guy is way beyond your grasp.
@Bill,
I have a further question, why do you rush to defend Rand Paulism (or whatever this new sop to value voters is, because talking about "Christian persecution is certainly not a 'hot-button' libertarian issue) when the full weight of the Catholic apostolic hierarchy (not just the 'Nuns on the Bus') so roundly criticized his Randian* "budget" proposal from last year that was so devoid of the social responsibility for the poor and indigent that typifies Catholic mores.
* in the Ayn Rand sense – it wasn't a coincidence
Bill, do you really want to go there with the historical death tallies of persecutions by Christians?
Shall we start with the Crusades? Or perhaps with Tomás de Torquemada?
Or shall we disuss what were defacto sword-point conversions in late 15th and 16th century Latin America?
Separate the religious from the political in those instances for me.
Now do the same for Nigeria and Egypt.
We can go there if you like. I think the verifiable histories of most of your examples have been way over dramatized in an effort to demonize religion. But my point it that you are comparing actual violence against large numbers of peoples with a zoning squabble? Even if it is systemic bigotry keeping Muslims from building churches which hasn't been established by the DOJ, FBI or any body, it still doesn't rise to the level of violence people are experiencing in countries currently hostile to their faith. And to compare it to events from the distant past without a comprehensive view of those events is a little bit below even the average atheists standards for accuracy don't you think?
Bill, would you support the action to not let an opposing religion have a church where there is supposedly freedom of religion? Do you think the zoning persecution issue against the muslims was the right thing?
Bill, my point was, which I think you understood because you ignored it, is that what is being labelled persecution of Christians, is (with the exception of missionaries who are routinely disliked because of what they do and how they behave) part of a larger political situation where religion is used as a nationalistic demarcation line.
In this way the Muslim conquest is indistinct from the Crusades or northern Nigerian sectariansim is indistinct from Sunni/Shia conflicts in the middle east or any of the Catholic/Protestant conflicts that are backdrop of most of modern European history since the reformation through the 'troubles' in Northern Ireland.
To paint political grasping for power in Africa as "Christian persecution" is deliberate tunnel vision of the wider issues and conflict.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=eEuMZOZV4fM
Comforting words... And makes me ashamed of complaining given how mild my own experiences were...
Tell me, why do you, someone who is very much an apologist for Christian proselytism, choose for your handle a man who had such a deep interest in Islam?
Have you read the "Seven Pillars of Wisdom"?
Another grim reminder as to what reality is like for many Christians. God bless each one of these people that are persecuted , may God grant strength and comfort to them and their families.
test
"If we look back into history for the character of present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practised it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England, blamed persecution in the Roman church, but practised it against the Puritans: these found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here and in New England."
(while in London, from a letter to The London Packet, 3 June 1772)
Ben, thank you for your lovely letter from the 18th century. here is my observation from the 20th. Your friend Winston Churchill
"Indeed it is evident that Christianity, however degraded and distorted by cruelty and intolerance, must always exert a modifying influence on men's passions, and protect them from the more violent forms of fanatical fever, as we are protected from smallpox by vaccination. But the Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance. It was originally propagated by the sword, and ever since, its votaries have been subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this form of madness."
Billy boy, you might not want to realize just how Charlemagne Christianized Europe–even his Church adviser Alcuin called it "baptism by the sword." So don't get all pious about Islam in that manner, bub...
Churchill was a HUGE bigot when it came to the Arabs in general.
Churchill is an admirable man of many talents. Mixed with these talents, he was, regretably, a dreadful racist.
Ben Franklin accepted ads for slaves in his newspaper
Perfectly legal and socially acceptable at the time, yes? Kind of like old testament Hebrews selling their daughters to other men, right?
I agree CPt. I think we err when we apply the standards of today to the social norms of the times. doubt Franklin or Churchill either one were considered racists in their day, just as ancient Hebrews were not considered immoral for the treatment of their slaves or daughters. Point being that relativism isn't a very applicable standard to use when we're talking about violence against minorities.
That's one reason that I think the god of the bible is so disgusting. His rules aren't objective; the Hebrews get special treatment and he gets to break his own laws (shifting as they are) whenever he feels like it.
@Bill
doubt Franklin or Churchill either one were considered racists in their day,
By whom? I wonder what Mohandas K. Gandhi would have thought of that comment?
I don't know if he is on record as having made a comment regarding Winston. (It's not his form.) This is a wry attempt at a conversation between the deceased:
http://www.ppu.org.uk/people/gandhi1.html
Dear "Moral Majority",
Just because your influence in waning in an increasingly multi-faceted culture, it doesn't mean there's a war against you.
Thanks to Joe McCarthy and then the Reaganauts, the latter half of the 20th century belonged to you.
It is time to accept that more and more people want a truly secular government.
Yeah just because they burn down your places of worship, business and homes doesn't mean you're being persecuted. Get over yourselves! We're all getting free cell phones!
"They" have? Here in the US? Because that IS what we're talking about. The U.S.
You know, where black churches were bombed? Where Sikh places of worship were shot upon? Ring a bell?
Do you imagine that doesn't happen? And were you aware that the stupid "Obamaphone" cell phone program was started under Bush? And that REAGAN started the "Life Line" program?
What would you have Obama do about this? Ban just the Muslim religion? In a land that was FOUNDED on people getting away from religious persecution?
HI Akira! I missed you too.
Lol. Thanks, Bill. That cracked me up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=SiKK4QqDNSY
Why don't you post some videos of gays being beaten up by good, upsytanding Christians? Would that go against your persecution complex?
Why don't you?
I'm on my mobile, you religious bigot. You care not one whit whether or not other religions are persecuted her in America, where religious liberty is preached, but rarely practiced. Grow up, Bill Deacon. Christianity isn't the only religion out there, it's just YOUR preferred religion. You have NO prblem with any other one getting bashed, do you?
Well I hate to tell you but sooner or later someone is going to get bashed. Maybe when you get a big person's computer you can find the videos of Christians abusing people.
Who needs videos when there are thousands of altar boys with ripped up azzholes right this second? How's that log in your eye, Bill?
Quite the condescending little creep, aren't you? You asked, I answered, you patronize. What a piece of shit you are. Bigot.
"Well I hate to tell you but sooner or later someone is going to get bashed."
So it's better to pre-emptively bash someone first? Okay.
And the rest of your post to Hey WAS condescending. ARE you a religious bigot, Bill Deacon?
That dude in the shorts really should not go without a shirt in public.
Would you mind posting the Matthew Shepard video as well, thanks.
Are you aware that ongoing investigation into Matthew Shepard's death leads to the possibility that it was not fueled by hatred but was simply a drug deal gone bad and the result of drug induced rage on the part of his murderers? But don't ever let the facts stop a good narrative. How did you choose that moniker anyway?
Bill Deacon
Are you aware of the dozens of docu mentaries that portray the s&xual abuse scandals the RCC clergy has perpetrated across the world? You quote a 20/20 investigation but have denial when it comes to the crimes of the RCC, how convenient for you.
Bill, please provide ANY evidence besides disgusting hearsay or go back to your lying hole.
I have to admit, that was some pretty funny footage. The only one who actually crossed the line was the fat guy with no shirt and the idiot on the ground kicking, otherwise grabbing someones stick is not a crime as far as I know. The fact that Christians would latch on to this as proof of their persecution is sadly laughable.
So the verbal abuse, getting into the man's face, shoving, slapping, finger poking, verbal threatening (all of which falls under the legal definition of assault and battery) was OK?
Yes Larry, I laugh at you as you get all upset because I know what the record is. I have watched actual discrimination occur from your Ilk for decades and I laugh at you. I laugh and laugh and laugh.
Yes, we are aware that you laugh and laugh and laugh at actual violence against Christians for no other reason than their faith, all the while labeling the murder of a hom0seexual boy by another hom0seexual a hate crime perpetrated by Christians. I'd laugh too if I were as duplicitous as you.
Both of you should be ashamed of yourselves. To not only attempt to equate the miniscule and immaterial persecution of Christians to the hate filled murder of gays and non-christians which has been going on for far longer than it's even been reported is just sick. For you to defend them is disgusting. The tiny shred of respect I had for you BD has evaporated with your sad attempts to ignore real persecution. This amounts to a Nazi SS soldier complaining that one of the jews kicked at him while he was being shoved in an oven. Disgusting.
Lawrence,
Were you talking about abortion clinics?
As laughable as the gay community lauding the murder of Matthew Shepard by a known homeseexual prostiitute during a drug deal a "hate crime"
Again Bill, pleazse provide anything other than your p i s s poor opinion.
I know it's horrible to have your pet delusions shattered but I think you should change your name
In 2004, an award-winning investigation from ABC’s 20/20 found that the murder may have actually had more to do with drugs and robbery.
Now a gay journalist, Stephen Jimenez, has written The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths About the Murder of Matthew Shepard, based on investigative interviews with over 100 people, including the convicted killers and friends of both the killers and the victim. Although Jimenez previously accepted the popular narrative about the murder, his research led him in a very different direction. According to the book’s Amazon.com page,
“Stephen Jimenez went to Laramie to research the story of Matthew Shepard’s murder in 2000, after the two men convicted of killing him had gone to prison, and after the national media had moved on. His aim was to write a screenplay on what he, and the rest of the nation, believed to be an open-and-shut case of bigoted violence. As a gay man, he felt an added moral imperative to tell Matthew’s story. But what Jimenez eventually found in Wyoming was a tangled web of secrets. His exhaustive investigation also plunged him deep into the deadly underworld of drug trafficking. Over the course of a thirteen-year investigation, Jimenez traveled to twenty states and Washington DC, and interviewed more than a hundred sources.”
Hmm he must have had to leave. Maybe the phone rang.
Ah, Stephen Jimenez, an aspiring author attempting to write a screenplay.
"Attempts now to rewrite the story of this hate crime appear to be based on untrustworthy sources, factual errors, rumors and innuendo rather than the actual evidence gathered by law enforcement and presented in a court of law. We do not respond to innuendo, rumor or conspiracy theories. Instead we recommit ourselves to honoring Matthew’s memory, and refuse to be intimidated by those who seek to tarnish it." huffingtonpost
Wow, Bill Deacon, so you are right about one case, if that makes you happy. Search for docu.mentries on RCC clergy s&x abuse scandals and get back to us. Start with Mea Maxima Culpa or Boys of St. Vincent, watch, learn and just maybe you won't be such a hypocrite.
@charm – please don't consider any of the flatulent rhetoric coming from BD to be "right" about anything. He is wrong about the Matthew Shepard case, though I understand your point which is even if he wasn't wrong it still wouldn't eliminate all the other brutal cases of Christians abusing non-belivers or those of other faiths.
Yeah, above all Charm don't let the facts sway you from the denial of violence against, the co-opting of gay on gay violence as Christian "hate" and the tangential attacks on other issues. You have an agenda and a narrative to stick to.
As BD would have you believe, it's the $60 bag of weed you didn't pay for that will get you strung up on a barbed wire fence in Larramie... damn pot heads...
Bill Deacon
If anyone on this blog has an agenda and a narrative to stick to, you are the one. When have you ever allowed the FACTS about the billions of dollars paid to victims of the RCC s&x abuse scandal around the WORLD, not some isolted case, ever stopped you from defending the cover up by the hierarchy of the church. Not to mention the scandals of the Vatican bank. the ties to the Masons and Mafia, the destruction of evidence, the hiding of assets so that diocese' can go into bankruptcy to avoid penalties; this is recent history and very un-Christian. Like you are Bill Deacon, you can dish out abuse to others but really suck at accepting reality.
I'm just hoping that Bill pays his drug dealer on time. All those cases of people being crucified on fences because they don't pay for their sack of green make me worry for him.
the fact that BD couldn't tell this was from the back of a dime store crime novel amazes me...
"His exhaustive investigation also plunged him deep into the deadly underworld of drug trafficking."
"exhaustive" "plunged" "deep" "deadly"
Seriously Bill?