Dr. Paul will be on Larry King tonight to discuss the attempted bombing of the Northwest Arlines flight over the weekend. The hit time is still TBD, but it should be in the second half of the show, just after 9:30 pm ET.
Wow. Ben Stein is a real class act. He needs to go back to hocking itchy eye medication or competing against contestants for his money.
Posted 12/28/09 10:13 PM VictimOfFeds San Clemente, CA
I'm watching it now. The lady from Homeland Security is making excuses as usual. She says we need communication between departments. That was what Homeland Security was supposed to be for. They failed. No one should be surprised. The government always fails. She says we don't need to talk about the $75 billion. We do need to talk about it because we got nothing for our money.
Larry King says that you can't have security privatized. You can't do much worse than what the government is doing.
Ron Paul was great at not getting shot by the loaded questions.
Ben Stein put words into RP's mouth. Ron Paul never said that we were wrong to defend ourselves. He said consider the motivation. Very straightforward. Ron Paul did not even mention Judaism so how could his statements possibly have been anti-semitic. Ben Stein had discredited himself.
I didn't care for the elitism that Larry King showed toward Ron Paul or Ben Stein. He made it sound like the Homeland Security lady(who failed) is so sophisticated that she's beyond arguing. The fact is she had nothing of substance to say, nor did Larry King.
Whenever The Opposition Is Losing An Argument, They Cry Antisemitzm..Ben Stein has Totally Discredited Himself And There Is Larry King, (The Jew Baiting Scoundrel Himself) Laughing His Fool Head Off..
This Is Why I Don't Watch Wolf Blitzer Or larry King Anymore..They Are Part Of The Problem, Not The Solution..
Any Wonder Why They Need Good And Decent Men Like Ron Paul To Boost Their Losy Ratings..
My thoughts on the "antisemitism" remark at http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=30815
Way to trivialize the Holocaust and exploit Jewish suffering as a political weapon, Ben. Surely the Jewish people don't mind being used as a club to beat sensible non-interventionists over the head with.
She says there was a "stovepiping" problem with communication between the agencies. Wasn't that the reason the Homeland Security Department was created in the first place? But they failed in their job (big surprise). And her solution is to make them the "pointman?" Just wait, I'm sure the TSA has already made it standard operating procedure to make airline passangers remove their whitey-tightys while their removing their shoes ;)
I seem to remember that it was Ben Stupid sometime in late 2007 or early 2008 who said to invest in the financial sector. This guy is never right about anything.
And the congresswoman is a reflection of the voters of her district. One of her voters moved to Washington DC and raised the average IQ of both venues.
I also saw good ole Ben say that it is an honor to pay taxes. He then went on to dismiss those "crazy libertarians" as anarchists who don't realize all the good that has come from the American Federal Government
Posted 12/29/09 02:13 AM Broadlighter Santa Cruz, CA
Here's my profound analysis of the exchange between Ben Stein and Ron Paul.
Ben Stein is an idiot.
The next time someone sends one of those Ben Stein e-mails where he says, "I'm Jewish and I'm not offended when someone says Merry Christmas to me." I might just send this video to them and show how he descends into charging anti-semitism when the question is asked what motivates terrorism.
Ben Stein argument that Ron Paul is a anti-semite is flawed for the follwing reasons, Paul wants to bring home troops from South Korea, Germany, Japan along with over 100 other countries. Are all of these countries enemies of Israel? No they are not. Paul is very consisted with his foreign policy beliefs.
Ben Stein stooped to the typical statist tactic of attacking the messenger and completely ignoring the message, no surprise there. The man should be ashamed of himself for that ridiculous "antisemitic" remark and needs to apologize to Dr. Paul.
Dr. Paul was right on the mark in raising the question of terrorist motivations, something the statists do not want to hear or discuss but a question the American People need to seriously consider. Our government is making us less safe by it's interventionist foreign policy and appears to be completely incompetent when it comes to protecting the people from the enemies it creates (but it does do a good job of punishing the general public every time it fails to do so).
Wow- This tape is a perfect illustration of the problem. We have not thought through the nature of the problem. There are so many misconceptions here that it is difficult to keep count. Paul makes more sense than the other two, but he makes some of his own fundamental errors.
One of the early and stunning errors is that of Ben Stein:
"They (the Yemenis) are our friends." This must be one of the most ignorant statements ever made on television. It is too bad because I sort of like Ben Stein, but here as in the case of Peter Schiff some time back, Ben proves that he is able to speak much faster than he can think.
Ron Paul comes up with one of his own blandishments. "There is hate on both sides." But his worst mistake is this one:
"They are terrorists because we are occupiers."
Ben Stein's retort to this is that "they are terrorists because they are psychos." And then Ben really dives off the deep end suggesting that the occupier idea is nothing more than anti-Semitism.
None of these people, including Ron Paul understand why the terrorists are terrorists.
The fact is that the terrorists are terrorists because their ideology and epistemology teach them to be terrorists. If the United States were to adopt a totally pure non-interventionist and neutral foreign policy today and withdraw troops from across the globe (an idea which I support) the terrorists would not be disuaded from continuing to pursue attacks against the United States and other western nations.
The ideology of Islam rejects any idea of natural law and any idea of universal human rights. As Mao Tse Tung said that political power flows from the barrel of a gun, in Islam it is legitimacy of political power which flows from the barrel of a gun. Essentially western nations have accepted the idea of universal values and Islam continues to embrace the much older ideas of tribal values.
Tribal values define all those outside the tribe as non-human beings which must either be required to submit to the values of the tribe or be killed. The admonition of their Holy Text is that the primary tool for the advancement of their belief is the employment of terror.
These observations are based in epistemology...in philosophy... and not as Ron Paul seems to suggest...in hate.
"These observations are based in epistemology...in philosophy... and not as Ron Paul seems to suggest...in hate. "
Sorry Michael but I have to disagree, while the hatred and anger expressed by these people may to a certain degree have it roots in Islamic Philosophy, their actions are an expression of hatred and anger at what they perceive is responsible for their circumstances. Those emotions are exacerbated by what these people see around them every day, without occupiers, oppressive governments (propped up by the U.S.) and people bombing innocent civilians around them on a day to day basis you likely don't have the widespread problem that you have today. Sure there would still be radicals in that society willing to commit heinous acts (just like there is in EVERY society) but there would be little motivation for a widespread (global) Islamic Terrorist "movement".
In short, if we weren't "over there" the vast majority of these people wouldn't have any motivation to be "over here" and the fact that they hate us is largely motivated by what they see going on around them and their perception of the root causes of what they see going on around them.
Perhaps instead of writing, "These observations...." I should have said more clearly "My observations...." This is what I meant.
However, I must say that anyone who believes that this problem would be solved or go away by a non-interventionist foreign policy is sadly mistaken. It is much bigger than the idea that they are over here because we are over there.
Islam is an aggressive and punitive ideology which does not nearly hate you so much as it denies your right to exist.
Now that's the spirited Ron Paul at his best; he shouldn't have to stoop to the Party Line and neither should any of us! Even if they took Ron off, I think he made our point and that's what is important in my mind.
The establishment will try and try to discredit our ideas. This should come as no suprise, remember our run for the presidency? We need to stand firm in our belief of liberty and try to avoid senseless confrontation. Pointing fingers and arguing will get us nowhere. A debate with good composure and solid grounds will get us far. Let us remember that truth always prevails.
Of course Islam and the Koran is the germ that fosters terrorism. But a non-interventionist foreign policy reaps more benefits than just toning down Muslims. I think Dr. Paul is thinking one thing at a time. As a Christian he surely understands Islam.
The problem is, what to do about it in the long run? Since our dear leader has declared us not to be a Christian nation and since our government has decided that one religion is as good as another, then we are left with a national policy that is worse than do nothing.
Killing Muslims will accomplish nothing. Their leaders brainwash their people continually. Islam has to be fought in the free market place of ideas. It has to be treated in the same way we treated the Communist ideology with Radio Free Europe and USIA.
That means that as a people we have to come together and identify the problem and take action. Then decide on a national policy that draws the distinction between Christianity and Islam. (Love your neighbor or kill your neighbor?) Even the atheists among us should be able to see the difference.
I get really fed up with the expression "radical Islam". By definition this is redundant. Patton read Rommel's book and defeated him. Some of the idiots in Washington should sit down with a Vodka Collins and read the Koran. Maybe they can identify treason when they read it.
"I get really fed up with the expression "radical Islam". By definition this is redundant. Patton read Rommel's book and defeated him. Some of the idiots in Washington should sit down with a Vodka Collins and read the Koran. Maybe they can identify treason when they read it."
The Koran is no more nor any less filled with contradictions that can be interpreted as a call to violence than is the Old Testament. Our continued aggression, oppression and economic exploitation of the Muslim World simply makes choosing the more violent interpretations easier for would be radicals and their "leaders".
This isn't a problem that is rooted in religion, it's a problem that is rooted in the behavior of nation states and their inept governments toward the common man, religion just provides an excuse and exacerbation, even if these radicals were all atheisist they would still be mad as hell at the way their own governments and the governments of the west have exploited and oppressed them. I'm not attempting to justify their violence in any way, just pointing out that if the American People were subjected to the same sort of treatment they would more than likely behave in the same manner since those without hope of a better life for themselves and their children have nothing to lose and more often than not will turn to violence against those they perceive as "oppressors" to alter the situation.
Here is a copy of the email I sent to Mr. Stein...
Dear Mr. Stein,
Your accusation toward Congressman Ron Paul being anti-semitic was very mislead.
Dr. Paul is simply making the point that we need to ask what is motivating our enemies to attack us.
Simply put, what if our Foreign Policy actually fuels hatred toward the U.S.?
We need to ask this question and have an intelligent debate about motivation of terrorist or we will never accurately address the problem.
I hope you will do what is right and apologize for your derogatory statement about Ron Paul.
"Of course Islam and the Koran is the germ that fosters terrorism."
As a believer in neither Islam or Christianity, I do no understand this at all, and I hope you will explain (perhaps by PM if not here on the boards). I have lived in two parts of the country with a large Islamist population and all of my Islamic friends (ranging from very religious to not at all) were incredibly non-violent people. Discussions about their religion were consistent with this. I find that Christianity is the exact same. Both have great teachings, but both can be taken out of mainstream context and used for evil.
I expect that if you take the number of Catholic priests who abused children divided by the total number of Catholics, it would be the same as the number of terrorists divided by the total number of Islamic people. So I believe saying Islam obviously fosters terrorism is just as awful as saying Catholicism fosters child abuse.
Being a Jew, I just have to express my utter disgust with this fool Ben Stein. I am totally shocked at his ridiculous attack at Ron Paul. I am also totally frustrated and enraged with my fellow Jewish community for their complete lack of spine and obedient willingness to hand over their freedom and trust in the government to protect them. Havent we learned ANYTHING in our history? Are we really willing to hand over our liberties and march right into those camps once again? I mean I know it sounds totally radical and impossible but reality check...our attempts to be destructed have happened countless times before and are we that ignorant and pathetic to be certain that it cant happen again someday?? And I know we feel the need to protect Israel, but in order to ensure our future religious freedom, we must defend it right here right now! Not allow our government to become so powerful that they are capable of taking away the liberties of any individual..the liberty that this beautifully founded country has provided all of us with to be as we are and practice as we wish.
So the idea of taking over the world by any means necessary including violence just eased out of the ether? Is there such a thing as objective truth? If you find Christainity to be coordinate with Islam then you know nothing about either. The Koran:
Islam warms against mixing with non-Muslims 2:21, 3:28,3:118, 5:51,5:144, 9:7,9:28, 58:23,60:4. Islam calls on Muslims to wage war against non-Muslims 2:191, 2:193, 4:66, 4:84, 5:33, 8:12, 8:15-18, 8:39, 8:59-60, 8:65, 9:2-3, 9:5, 9:14, 9:29, 9:39, 9:73, 9:111, 9:123, 25:52, 37:22-23, 47:4-5, 48:29, 69:30-37. Islam encourages war against the non-Muslims by glorifying it 2:216, 9:41, 49:15, or by promising lust in paradise to the Shaheeds who die in such a war 3:142, 3:157-158, 9:20--21.
For those without a handy Koran, here are just a few examples: O ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers .... and let them find harshness in you. [Koran, Repentance: 123] Humiliate the non-Muslims to such an extent that they surrender and pay tribute. [Koran, Repentance: 29] O believers, do not treat your fathers and brothers as your friends, if they prefer unbelief to belief, whosoever of you takes them for friends, they are evildoers. [Koran, Repentance: 20] Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends.... whoso does that belongs not to God. [Koran, The House of Imram: 60]
And that is just a smattering from the musings of one man whose supposed visions were recorded in what is now the Koran.
I don't think the problem is entirely a problem of religion.
I believe it is a problem of epistemology. The problem is in the radically different views of the universe as it is.
As far as their despicable behavior being caused by a record of mistreatment....I don't find this credible. No group in the history of man has been treated as badly as the American taxpayer in the past century. While I know many of us would like to behead our Congressman...it is a joke and not something we would actually do. Moreover, I ask this question: who has actually wielded the greatest and most devestating weapons of economic violence in the past fifty years than Islamic nations in their policy control of OPEC? Nations have been destroyed, peoples impoverished, millions lost jobs, economic ruin spread far and wide through this organization which has an Islamic center of gravity. All this has occurred at the same time that the jihadists have emerged as a bunch of spoiled children of the super rich. The underpants bomber turns out to be one of the poor, exploited, hapless, children of a billionaire. Osama bin Laden himself is reputedly worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Scores of persons training to kill Americans in the training camps of Pakistan are children of American Muslims living in comfortable American suburban communities.
They have rediscovered their history and roots, and resolved to follow its examples. Their goal is to employ terror to compel all of western civilization to submission in preparation of the imposition of an international caliphate. It is very difficult, perhaps impossible, to turn them from this course because Islam is essentially an anti-intellectual movement. Reason and moral suasion will avail nothing.
In the short term, the best idea is to secure the borders and batten down the hatches...something which both major political parties have resolutely refused to do.
As an engineer, I am taught to ask the question "why?" five (5) times -- so as to conceivably derive a cause (for a problem or issue).
Ron uses this problem-solving approach when he questions Ben as to the cause for action (or reaction) against the U.S. Is it retaliation? How will we know unless the problem-solving approach is taken to task -- or the politic is willing to be forthright (rather than hidden) in the response to (or as contribution to) terrorism.
Americans deserve to understand the root cause(s) -- as bearers of the sacrifice of civil liberties in the homeland and military action abroad. The question remains, "why?"
Ancient struggles suggest that even in the event of complete withdraw; Muslims would still want to conquer the west (which I believe they are doing now anyway through immigration into Europe and the US). I know that this is not where it starts but let us remember that the First Crusade was an attempt to re-capture Jerusalem because after the capture of Jerusalem by the Muslims in 1076, any Christian who wanted to pay a pilgrimage to the city faced a very hard time. Muslim soldiers made life very difficult for the Christians and trying to get to Jerusalem was filled with danger which as a result, greatly angered all Christians. The Christian leader Alexius I of Constantinople feared that his country might also fall to the Muslims as it was very close to the territory captured by the Muslims (which was prophesized by Mohammed). Thus don’t forget that Constantinople is in modern day Turkey and as a result Alexius called on the pope, Urban II to give him help. Anyway in the 1400’s Islam prevailed and we as Western Christians lost Constantinople forever.
Let us not assume Ron Paul is uninformed here; because he is not. I bet you Dr. Paul knows that this is an ancient struggle and that if we execute a non-interventionist foreign policy it will not bring a full settlement to the Middle East. What Dr. Paul does understand is that our foreign occupation only serves to agitate and accelerate the animosity for the West especially the US. Dr. Paul knows how to keep his eye on the ball because he knows that our focus should not be on foreign occupation, but instead should be on domestic policies like immigration. In other words don’t you think it is funny how we (both US and Europeans) send thousands of troops to fight radical Islam (born from simple and peaceful everyday Islam) in the middle east while at the same time we allow thousands of Muslims (potentially radical) to pour into the US and Europe? Whatever, call me dumb if need be but now is the time to turn our attention to how we as the west define ourselves. For us here in the US it is a matter of returning to our constitution and the intents of the founding fathers which also includes a serious debate on Christian identity. For many of us here in C4L our struggle is two-fold; on one hand we need to resist the progressive, global one-world expansionist (which is supported by many in the west) and on the other hand we need to resist western invasion by global and radical Islam. Remember both seek to destroy our autonomy and liberty.
Posted 12/29/09 1:10 PM BruceKoerber Cedar Rapids, IA
http://educationandethics.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Ron Paul Knows That Statism Is The Destroyer Of Civilization.
Those of you who find in the problems of the world a good reason to exhibit religious prejudice have fallen hook, line and sinker for statism. Individuals of all faiths interact peacefully and respectfully unless the State is granted the power to manipulate people to serve its own interests.
There are many, many examples throughout history where religion and the State (in whatever form) have mixed together to mobilize forces to persecute and oppress but the ultimate victor is the State. As its power increases so too does corruption and since the religions have always been fragmented there is always some faction that will twist itself (due to ego-driven interpretation) to serve the State.
Those with religious prejudices simmering in the deep recesses of their minds readily identify the vileness of that corrupt interpretation of the religion and shout at the top of their voices: "These are the rotten fruits of that religion!"
Do not be fooled by the perversion of religion caused by the State. Do not misdirect your discontent. It is and has always been the State that has trampled upon individual human rights and the rights of culturally vibrant communities. It has always been the State that has interfered with the free flow of ideas and goods between different groups because it has been the State's wish all along to extract wealth for itself. Once that is permitted the process of the growth of the State begins, and its power grows, and corruption begins to destroy peace and justice.
The advocates for the State are the ones who are the destroyers of our civilization and of all civilizations. The alternative to these ego-driven interventionists and these ego-driven interpreters is a worldwide classical liberalism civilization composed of many and diverse classical liberalism societies. The spirit that needs to stir in the hearts of men and women for the world to purge itself of statism is liberty.
Instead of these endless wars and the flare-ups of imaginary hatreds of our fellow human beings that are all caused by statism, classical liberalism is the means to a peaceful and prosperous and just way of life.
OPEC is an organization that is funded (we buy their oil) and defended by western governments and is essentially a concentration of oil wealth into the hands of oppressive governments, much of the Muslim Population that live in OPEC nations either are not privy to the wealth that their nations natural resources entail or have absolutely no voice in the way that they are governed.
OBL is indeed a child of the rich who got his start by going to Afghanistan to defend that Muslim Nation from a foreign invader (the Soviets), however he's a leader and a single individual and his background is not representative of the average "foot soldier" (just take a look at how the Palestinians live in Gaza for example).
I agree that some Muslims dream of the re-establishment of the Caliphate however from what I can tell this was the goal of a small minority and has since become a popular rallying cry only after many years of injustice partially at the hands of those in the West.
What we need to do is get our butts out of the Middle East, stop dropping bombs on civilians and let these people work out their own problems for better or worse. That of course means finding alternative sources of energy to fuel our economy so that we are not vulnerable to the geopolitical instability that dependence on middle east oil brings, however that's going to have to happen anyways.
Bruce, I am certainly anti-State. Just so I understand you, there would be no problem with any religion if it wasn't for the State? In other words, if there is a religion that insists that you convert to that religion or die, then that is OK with you as long as the State is not involved? Can it really be that simple?
The panel:
1. Dr. Paul - bearer of the message of freedom
2. Representative Lee - chief marketing officer for the TSA
3. Ben Stein - the Anti-Semite's Anti-Semite(see following definition
"The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48"
Anti-Semitism An`ti-Sem"i*tism, n.
Opposition to, or hatred of, Semites, esp. Jews. The word is sometimes also applied to acts motivated by or evincing antisemitism. -- An`ti-Sem"ite, n. -- An`ti-Sem*it"ic, a. Webster 1913 Suppl. +PJC)
Hey, Ben. What government is going around the world invading other countries, setting up occupations, and committing mass murder?
Hey, Ben. What government is owned by Jewish special interest groups?
Hey, Ben. What government employs supposedly brave Christian men and women to drop bombs on civilians using remote-controlled airplanes?
If one were to judge by actions since I've been alive, Christianity wins hands down as the most violent religious group in the world today.
I find agnostics and atheists much better company. The ones I've met, like me, just try to stay out of the way of the religionists.
Well said, Glenn. Except that Christianity has nothing to do with the foreign policy of the U.S. And, if Islam prevails you won't be able to stay out of the way.
If they are terrorists simply because they are Muslims, then why is it that we and the UK are the main targets of their wrath? According to every study conducted, we are neither the freest or most prosperous country in the world. Why isn't Norway a main target? Switzerland? Canada? Could it be that our meddling in their internal civil wars is the catalyst? Our very presence there is an enormous recruiting tool. If we simply left, they could no longer focus their hate on someone else. They'd be fighting one another for the next 100 years.
They WANT us over there, because there they can fight us....and kill us....and bankrupt us.
Posted 12/29/09 1:46 PM RomanRepublic Hicksville, NY
First - to the anti-semetic comment. I am completely appalled. There is a bigger problem today with "reverse" anti-semitism, rather than anti-semitism. Many jews enjoy very good jobs and positions of responsbility within the United States. We defend their nation of Israel which is situated in the middle of a hotbed. How DARE they walk around with this attitude still? Ben Stein is a moron and, as Ron Paul said, he has lowered his credibility.
Second - To this whole point about the "nature" of Islam, and not being able to solve the problem of extremism by withdrawing. I believe this point makes sense, but in reality I believe it is wrong. The west is VERY strong. Too strong for them to ever "conquer". The only reason they have any semblence of resistance is because of OUR policies over the past 6 decades SWELLING THEIR RANKS. Sure, if we withdrew you'd still have a few extremists. However, without some sort of popular support, funds, training camp, etc., pulling off another 9/11 would not be so possible.
There is a way things USED to be done in this country, which seems to have been forgotten. Worry about our own borders, don't intervene. By doing this we sieze the moral high ground. THEN, if anyone DARES attack us, there should be a MILITARY DRAFT where every able male citizen performs his CIVIC DUTY. A mercenary-filled standing army is cited as one of the main causes of the collapse of the Roman Empire. If someone attacks us, we go over there with 3 million boots of real US of A citizens and we show them what happens. If people cannot be convinced that their sons should go to war, we probably shouldn't be fighting it anyway. WARS OF NECCESITY ONLY. Whoever said power by the barrel of a gun was completely correct.
In antiquity Jerusalem was a very small town occupied by Northwest Semitic peoples then by the Hebrew people. Then it was occupied by Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Late Persians, Byzantine Christians, and a whole host of others. It was not until 638 AD (several years after the death of Muhammed) that it fell under Arab Muslim control. Early Islamic forces were nothing more than highly motivated highway robbers and pirates. Today we would have identified them as elements of organized crime. Their ignorance,savagery, and barbarism has been legendary and uninterupted now for fourteen hundred years. Their vision of the future is not the next few decades, but the next millenium.
I believe you about the non-link that Christianity(not being a Christian, I take that to mean the teachings of a man named Jesus), has nothing to do with U.S. foreign policy.
However, my observation is that a majority of the people carrying out U.S. foreign policy have publicly called themselves Christian in some way.
And the only Muslims(practitioners of Islam, of which I know nothing about) have never been anything but friendly to me with no hint of trying to modify me or my behavior.
Whereas, the majority of people that I know that profess openly to be Christians are some of the most bigoted, aggressive, and deceptive people I have ever met that keep wanting to tell me how I should live.
It's been said not to confuse the message with the messenger. Agreed.
"However, my observation is that a majority of the people carrying out U.S. foreign policy have publicly called themselves Christian in some way."
There's something to be said by observing that the United States has never preemptively attacked a self identified "christian nation" (well unless you count the Civil War), it's either a coincidence or we just prefer blowing non-Christians to smithereens.
One also notes that many vocal American "Christians" are the first ones to call for picking up guns and doing unto their neighbors before he does unto you types. Bloodthirsty "Christians" like Sean Hannity, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney come to mind.
Personally I don't care what religion anyone subscribes too but whichever one a person does they should have the common decency not to preach "the gospel" out of one side of their mouth while preaching the exact opposite out of the other.
Posted 12/29/09 2:24 PM BruceKoerber Cedar Rapids, IA
Dear Bill,
http://economicsandreligion.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Statism Uses Ego-Driven Interpretation To Grow The State.
Although the State relies heavily on ego-driven interpreters it is driven mostly by ego-driven interventionists. Religion, on the other hand, has been riddled (literally) with ego-driven interpretation.
"Can it really be that simple?" Simple is something like: the Sun comes up and it is daytime. That which is ego-driven is hidden, hiding in the shadows. It is not simple; but we are fortunate to have minds that can go well beyond the simple.
It is not simple to find classical liberalism in the mud and muck of the indoctrination of the State. Nor is it simple to remove the veils that mask the religious prejudices promulgated by, on one end, and also created by the ego-driven interpreters, on the other.
"And, if Islam prevails you won't be able to stay out of the way." It is the corrupt combination of ego-driven interpretation of religion, and the State (ego-driven intervention to amass more power) that is bowling over societies and destroying societies. U.S. imperialism towing along anti-Islam is one example that is as clear as day to those who have recognized how the State uses religion (and the media and the education system, etc.) to serve its purposes.
In the absence of any federal policy to secure the borders of the United States no arguments for interventionism are credible. "Going on offense" is meaningless and a waste of time and lives when the government is unwilling to defend the people within its own borders.
This is the sad and awful fact: your government does not care whether you live or die. Whether you prosper or die in a skyscraper or on an airliner is of no consequence. At a certain age they would prefer that you die. Interventionism is not about protecting the country, it is about accumulating and excercizing power. It is not much different in Islamic countries. Religion there is the transparent facade behind which the corrupt, cruel, and indecent elites seek to conceal their true purposes: the maintenance and expansion of personal power and privilege. This is done by stoking the flames of hatred and ignorance, and exciting the vilest passions of their populations. In many respects it is indistinguishable from politics in America.
Glenn, don't forget about the the Deists, we are as open minded as any Atheist or Agnostic.
"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and for my own part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel."
- Thomas Paine, "The Age of Reason" (1794)
"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined, and imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites."
-Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on Virginia"
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there is one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787.
"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my church."
-Thomas Paine, "The Age of Reason" (1794)
"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity."
-Thomas Paine, "The Age of Reason" (1794)
"My parents had given me betimes religions impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a through Deist."
- Benjamin Franklin, "The Autobiography of Benjamin Frankiln"
How to go about making a judgment regarding a religion?
Shall we base our judgment on the acts of those who profess that religion? As one has said, shall we condemn the Catholic religion since some priests abuse children? Shall we condemn Christianity since those who profess that religion are neocon warmongers? I think not. Judge the religion based on its doctrine.
Catholic doctrine does not approve of abusing children. Christian doctrine does not approve of warmongering, lying, stealing, coveting your neighbor's wife, adultery, murder, etc. etc.
Now, if we can draw that distinction, should we not judge Islam by its doctrine? You have Islamic friends, perhaps. Do you know their heart? Do you know that their doctrine teaches them not to take you as a friend unless you are Muslim? What if those you call "radical" are really the true believers of Islam and the others you call peaceful are just making an accommodation?
Deist, Agnostic, Atheist, Christian, Pantheist, etc. etc., are we simply to throw reason out the window?
As you know, the Old Testament is full of some wild statements, just as the Qu'ran is.
It is how one interprets those statements that causes Christians to act one way and Muslims to act another.
The last time I researched the interpretation of the Qu'ran I found there were six basic interpretations.
One of those interpretations basically states, "if you don't believe what I believe, I have the right to kill you." This of course is where the "radical" side could win over any moderate as the moderate may succumb to the radical's threat. This is where in the U.S., at least, we have laws that prevent radicals from taking over.
So while a verse in the Qu'ran may seem to state one thing, just like in the Old Testament when the Bible commanded you to kill certain people, it is the context of when it was said that matters and that interpretation can be taken to mean different things to different believers/cults/sects/groups/individuals.
But where it gets dicey is when you have a Christian parlay their interpretation of the Bible and have them wear the Christian mask while at the same time not following Jesus path.
Case in point, I had one former Presidential candidate tell me in an email exchange that he "wanted to kill them before they kill us." This is a guy who runs a popular Christian website and follows the preaching of Hagee.
When I wrote back to him and asked him to point out to me which Bible verse gives him the authority to say this, he told me "who am I to ask him," and "this conversation is over." In this case, yes...you can "throw reason out the window" as you state.
There is no talking reason to these people, just as there is no reason talking to radical Muslims. But in the U.S., the rule of law has precedence over any attempts to force a radical interpretation of the Qu'ran or Sharia Law or Bible on moderate Muslims and Christians.
But as far as exposing the so called Christians that "want to kill them, before they kill us," that is one of the quests of my book; "Fed Up!" - If I can ever get it finished...
"Christian doctrine does not approve of warmongering, lying, stealing, coveting your neighbor's wife, adultery, murder, etc. etc."
Bill,
You might want to go back and do some reading of the Old Testament, the contradictions are just as stark as any found in the Koran and Christianity has a history that is every bit as bloody and violent as Islam (actually I would say it's MORE violent and blood soaked).
So before one goes casting stones at Islam in general.... one might be wise to remember all the Christian "heretic BBQ's" that have taken place over the centuries and realize that for every radical Islamic bloodthirsty nutcase out there there's a radical Christian and a radical Jew bloodthirsty nutcase out there to keep him company, we do not have the moral high ground here because we are in fact systematically murdering more innocent people year in and year out than the radical Muslims could ever dream of doing.
As you know, the Old Testament is full of some wild statements, just as the Qu'ran is.
It is how one interprets those statements that causes Christians to act one way and Muslims to act another.
The last time I researched the interpretation of the Qu'ran I found there were six basic interpretations.
One of those interpretations basically states, "if you don't believe what I believe, I have the right to kill you." This of course is where the "radical" side could win over any moderate as the moderate may succumb to the radical's threat. This is where in the U.S., at least, we have laws that prevent radicals from taking over.
So while a verse in the Qu'ran may seem to state one thing, just like in the Old Testament when the Bible commanded you to kill certain people, it is the context of when it was said that matters and that interpretation can be taken to mean different things to different believers/cults/sects/groups/individuals.
But where it gets dicey is when you have a Christian parlay their interpretation of the Bible and have them wear the Christian mask while at the same time not following Jesus path.
Case in point, I had one former Presidential candidate tell me in an email exchange that he "wanted to kill them before they kill us." This is a guy who runs a popular Christian website and follows the preaching of Hagee.
When I wrote back to him and asked him to point out to me which Bible verse gives him the authority to say this, he told me "who am I to ask him," and "this conversation is over." In this case, yes...you can "throw reason out the window" as you state.
There is no talking reason to these people, just as there is no reason talking to radical Muslims. But in the U.S., the rule of law has precedence over any attempts to force a radical interpretation of the Qu'ran or Sharia Law or Bible on moderate Muslims and Christians.
But as far as exposing the so called Christians that "want to kill them, before they kill us," that is one of the quests of my book; "Fed Up!" - If I can ever get it finished...
Sorry, TrevBenson. By those quotes, you are in good company(referring to my avatar)!
The more I read of the founders, the more impressive their intellect and awareness becomes. Their suggestions on foreign policy were prescient. I hope the U.S. Government heeds them one day.
Good questions, Bill. Personally, I don't know. With respect to government, I don't think it can do anything but exacerbate religious differences, no matter how reasoned the interventions.
jwfox...I see we are on the same page. We must have been typing at the same time!
It really is a fascinating issues to discuss.
I really wish Ron Paul would use the socratic method in dealing with those who oppose his views though.
Ask questions that lead the other person to your point of view and you win them over (if you ask the right questions). Tit for tat gets him nowhere. Even still, if he's ever allowed to speak, he does well... Larry King lost control of that interview for sensationalism/ratings.
No offense, guys, but you are still judging Christianity by those professing Christianity. References to the Old Testament and historical violence demonstrate a lack of understanding of Christianity. You can't understand the Old Testament history without accepting God as sovereign.
In my book, Hagee is a screwball, but I don't indict Christianity because there is a John Hagee in the world.
There are absolutes in the Koran that argue against a situational interpretation.
jwfox 1965:
I am not sure that I follow your argument. Are you comparing the current (modern) activities of Islamic believers with the historic activities of some who claimed to be Christian?
I must say that I do not recall the last time a mainline Christian cut off anyone's head as an act of piety.
I do not recall mobs of Christians gathering on street corners and celebrating such a thing.
I would not lay claim to any moral high ground, but at the same time I think your statement that "we are in fact systematically murdering more innocent people year in and year out than the radical Muslims could ever dream of doing" is simply factually inaccurate.
I like Bill's way of looking at the doctrines if you're going to compare religions. Personally, I don't hold one belief hire than the other, each person is totally unique and you got to get to know them beyond the cover. I have friends that are muslim, christians, agnostic, atheist, and they've all been equally pleasant company. To put down any religion based on experienced with just a few people within that religion is simply lazy, and called "Labeling". By labeling, you're stacking the odds of having a positive encounter with future people that fall under this broad umbrella.
There is always going to be a spectrum of beliefs in morals and values in everyone, whether they heed to a specific religion, or to nothing at all. Radicalism is going to be around for a looooooong time until people evolve beyond it.
Even with a non-interventionist foreign policy, we'll still have enemies that want to perform terrorist acts on us, but it's still the best policy as it doesn't stoke the fires creating more radicals.
If we show other countries freedom by having it and leading by example, they're much more likely to come around than if we try and force it on them through bloodshed.
In other words, I'm not going to pick up a gun and start shooting people down, but if they mess with and hurt my family, I don't care what nationality, religion, or whoever they are, they will be met with a force unlike they've ever seen. I think this is true for most people, and us dropping bombs on them and accidentally killing civilian loved ones are just turning the ones alive into anger that seek nothing but vengeance on those that have harmed their loved ones.
I understand where you're coming from in how Muslims view the Qur'an. But would you agree there are different interpretations between the three main sects, the Wahhabi, Shiites and Sunnites?
On a side note, would you agree with the following statements (just curious)?
Muslims, Christians and Jews in general need to come to view the Qur'an, Talmud and Bible (Old Testament), as limited in their modern application by historical context.
and
Our job as Christians is to not let the hatred of a few stop them from showing the love of Jesus to Muslims in their midst.
You can PM me your answers if you wish...
Posted 12/29/09 6:05 PM BruceKoerber Cedar Rapids, IA
Thanks Bruce...I've taken the last four and a half years off to research. I met a guy who has written a few books at the FreedomFest a couple years ago who taught me the difference between writing a "best seller" which addresses the topic of the day (Ann Coulter and Dick Morris come to mind) and a "classic" that can stand the test of time. I hope to write a classic.
I also didn't realize how much was involved, now that the research is mostly finished. Appreciate your thoughts...
Look at all the mess people have made of Christianity.
However, I don't see the Old Testament as limited; rather as the record says, it was our tutor to bring us to Christ. There is a golden thread running throughout the Bible that speaks to the redemption of mankind.
I know you are aware that the KJV consists of 66 books, recorded by some 42 writers, covering a period of some 1600 years in antiquity, and was completed almost two thousand years ago. Yet, it contains no myth prevalent during the days of its authorship and has all the sure marks of authenticity.
If we are persuaded that there is a God, then it would seem to be His responsibility to tell us how to be reconciled to Him. We can complain about the process, but in reality, you can't separate the process from the result. No one goes looking for an apple on an orange tree.
So, we each have to decide which is the credible revelation.
Here are just a few biblical scriptures taken out of context (which is usually how I see Qur'an quotations). There were hundreds that could be interpreted to give Christians reason for killing "non-believers".
From Deuteronomy 7
"And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:"
"But the Lord thy God shall deliver them unto thee, and shall destroy them with a mighty destruction, until they be destroyed."
"But the Lord thy God shall deliver them unto thee, and shall destroy them with a mighty destruction, until they be destroyed"
Deuteronomy 12
"Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree:"
From 1 Samuel 15
"Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."
I don't believe a religious system on it's own is enough cause a widely held belief of extreme force. You need the right conditions as well (poverty, hopelessness, destruction, or general injustice towards citizens). If the conditions can be blamed on others, like the US because we are in fact "over there" bombing them, then "terrorism" occurs. If it can't be blamed on someone else, revolution. Dr. Paul is spot on with this.
Thanks Bruce...I've taken the last four and a half years off to research. I met a guy who has written a few books at the FreedomFest a couple years ago who taught me the difference between writing a "best seller" which addresses the topic of the day (Ann Coulter and Dick Morris come to mind) and a "classic" that can stand the test of time. I hope to write a classic.
I also didn't realize how much was involved, now that the research is mostly finished. Appreciate your thoughts...
Posted 12/29/09 6:32 PM Broadlighter Santa Cruz, CA
I look at this in terms of economics. Most people simply want to work, produce wealth for themselves and their loved ones. They don't want to get caught up in political issues, unless there is due cause. This translates across all cultures and social orders. We have a few extremists here, who believe we need to have a completely Christian world. In the Islamic world, we call those types radicals and Islamofascists. They have a vision of world domination and justify heinous acts against other people to attain it. What gives them traction and converts are things that validate their view of the world's problems. That's why they attack us because we are over there. If we did not intervene in their part of the world, the extremists may not stop preaching hate for the West, but not too many would be listening. They would be regarded as kooks, just like we regard megalomaniacs in our part of the world as kooks. People don't want to give up their desire to participate in economic activity. But they will when sufficiently pushed and motivated. They may not like us, but what motivates them to attack us is their perception that we are attacking them and that perception is kindled by a foreign policy of aggression and intervention. Think about it, if you are Yusef Muslim, would you rather take up arms against America or would you rather till your fields so you can feed your family and trade in the market? There's got to be a damn good reason to take up arms against a deadly enemy and it's got to come from somewhere besides a 1,400 year-old scripture.
There were no Christians when those judgments were rendered by God against evil nations. And, it was God Who is both the giver and sustainer of life who pronounced those judgments. Are you aware of the evil practices of those nations; such as sacrificing their own children on the red hot arms of the idol Molech? And other abominations?
This is why I said unless you see God as sovereign you can't appreciate the history of the Old Testament. In another view, you will just hate Him.
Thanks Bruce...I've taken the last four and a half years off to research. I met a guy who has written a few books at the FreedomFest a couple years ago who taught me the difference between writing a "best seller" which addresses the topic of the day (Ann Coulter and Dick Morris come to mind) and a "classic" that can stand the test of time. I hope to write a classic.
I also didn't realize how much was involved, now that the research is mostly finished. Appreciate your thoughts...
1 Demand respect as teachers
2 Teach, but do not practice
3 Demand service; not give it
4 Seek praise of men
5 Parade their religion
6 Seek chief banquet places
7 Seek chief places in church
8 Glory in personal attention
9 Glory in titles
10 Rob men of truth and life
11 reject truth and life
12 Take advantage of widows
13 Exhibit long prayers
14 Are zealous to win men to their sect but not to God
15 Root and ground converts in hypocrisy, not in God
16 Profess to be the only guide in religion
17 Propagate those parts of religion from which they receive
most personal gain and honor
18 Strain at gnats and swallow camels; stress minor details
and omit the fundamentals
19 Glory in bodily cleanliness but live in moral filth
20 Exhibit outward religion and self-righteousness and
ignore inward holiness in life and conduct
21 Pretend to be more righteous than their forefathers
If you want to compare christianity and islam, just compare Jesus, to Mohammad. It is that simple. One was a lying, blood thirsty, raping, killing, sinful man, the other wasn't.
The old testament and koran don't correlate either. (besides the fact that Mohammad very likely copied heavily from the torah and bible, changing it for his own purposes) All the strict rules of the old testament were for a chosen group of people, for a point in time, and for a purpose.
Christianity, especially in the past has been distorted and used as a political tool to induce the masses. Today to a large extent the religion of science is being used in the same way, for example with the global warming debacle.
However, that doesn't mean Christianity or science for what they truly are, are wrong or evil.
I am surprised to see this conversation devolve into arguments about people's views of religion, their intrepretations and interpretations of others, etc. I was born in a Muslim country as a Christian, and my parents came to this country when I was very young to help give my brother and I a chance to succeed on our merits and not be held back because we were born Christian.
What I hope people do is refocus their attention on what made this country great that many want to come here as my parents did for us. Those principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (and property) based on one's own merit under a common rule of law not subject to a ruler's whims. Most of all, as a nation that trade with all, but mind our own business which is how America became great. This is what is being lost here as the days tick by.
I am sad to see what my parents fled (government control, socialized piss poor medicine, anti-individualism), has come to the shores of this country and by that I do NOT mean Islam. I mean the very freedoms that are the foundation of the real american dream where one is free, merit/self reliance matter, and a just rule of law.
So instead of arguing over religion, please use that energy to have block Constitution partys to wake up your neighbors or something. Thanks to everyone for also fighting for our libertys in any way you can.
"jwfox 1965:
I am not sure that I follow your argument. Are you comparing the current (modern) activities of Islamic believers with the historic activities of some who claimed to be Christian?
I must say that I do not recall the last time a mainline Christian cut off anyone's head as an act of piety.
I do not recall mobs of Christians gathering on street corners and celebrating such a thing.
I would not lay claim to any moral high ground, but at the same time I think your statement that "we are in fact systematically murdering more innocent people year in and year out than the radical Muslims could ever dream of doing" is simply factually inaccurate."
Michael,
If you want to claim that Islam has a fundamentally distorted ideology and thus is the core reason why these terrorists behave as they do then I'm going to point to the blood drenched history of Christianity as a counter point, since one cannot indict one major religion without considering the history of the others.
As far as my claim regarding our systematically murdering innocent civilians, how many tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi's, Afghans and Pakistani's have our bombs, missile and guns murdered over the last decade, how many innocents have we tortured and imprisoned? or should I say "collateral damage"? Believe me, our butchers bill is far larger than that of the Jihadists.
And of course all Muslims aren't terrorists and maybe most are nice people, but it is only because they don't take what the koran says seriously nor follow in the foot steps of Mohammad.
I think this discussion about religion is relevant to the topic along with "blowback" because it is part of trying to answer the question WHY.
However, I would bet that all of us on this site would stand by the freedom OF religion, that everyone should be free to choose and practice their own beliefs.
It is more fun to bash someone than learn about them! It looks like many on here think that the old testament is what guides us Christians(me and people I know). And there are plenty of hypocrites out there. Me included! (you know, nobody is perfect?) But the biggest thing about Christianity, as practiced in the US, is that it is not based on the New Testament any more. "Love you neighbor as yourself, turn the other cheek, give him your coat if he wants you shirt", don't sound like things that would influence Christians to be aggressive hateful people. But, this is not modern Christianity, as far as I have seen.
Even the approach to alcohol and drugs is something that developed long after the Bible was written. And, as a pastor friend of mine once said, adding anything to it says Jesus death and sacrifice was not good enough.
That is how I view new Christianity. "Don't drink. Don't dance. Don't go out with women. Don't wear make-up. Don't wear cutoffs or shorts (if you are a man). Don't. Don't. Don't! Sounds like a wonderful life, doesn't it? That is not my type of Christianity.
That is what alcohol prohibition became, when some "professing Christians" decided that alcohol had to be banned! It was NEVER banned in the Bible. There are warnings about the dangers of alcohol in Psalms, but no outright prohibitions of alcohol. And the so-called Christians who think that wine in the time of Jesus did not contain alcohol? It is a complete fantasy created by new line religions. Common sense and the record, tells us the wine was much safer to drink than the water of that time period. That was because it was not impure, as the water was! I read the Greek translation of the New Testament, too, and it called it "oino". The word for, the alcoholic beverage, wine!
For the most part, Christianity has been created by modern man. After reading it all the way through, (the translations were brought about by King James), I still think that what it states is nothing close to what is preached in the churches in our country. It tells us not to judge each other, and to love our neighbors. We were, even, told in the Bible to LOVE OUR ENEMIES! That makes most of the Christians, you might talk to in the good old USA, out to be hypocrites!
And retornado,
Those quotes you found in the Old Testament are not Christian directives, as those in the Koran. quoted above, seemed to be directives of the Muslims. They have only value as a history lesson. There is nothing in Christian teachings that would suggest we espouse what was done back then. They might apply to the Jews, but I have not heard of any prophets the stature of Moses, in modern society. Don't think we will be seeing any orders from God, like that, anymore! Maybe we have grown in the past 5000 years!?
Posted 12/29/09 9:48 PM BruceKoerber Cedar Rapids, IA
http://classicalliberalismprotection.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Statism Stimulates Religious Prejudices.
Religious prejudices are part of the outcomes of statism. Statism is what gives voice to the ego-driven interpreters who are willing to distort religion to serve the interests of the State.
As long as we refuse to accept the subjective choices of individuals and somehow naively accept the destructive manipulation of the economy and of religion by the State we will be unable to fully comprehend the beauty and significance of classical liberalism in its fullness.
I'll just summarize it this way; I am in favor of a non-interventionist foreign policy and believe that it is consistent with the libertarian spirit of live and let live. And it should yield some positive results regarding terrorism against us. And, I will defend the right of anyone to believe and practice his/her religion as long as that religion is in keeping with the same libertarian spirit of live and let live. On the other hand, if that religion promotes violence against others, then society must draw the line. To me, that is the crux of this discussion.
I'm an atheist so I have no bias towards either religion. One of my best friends is a church-going Pentecostal and in college I knew a girl who was Muslim. Neither of them were witch-burners, Spanish Inquisitors, terrorists, child rapists, cannibals, or anything else. But as for the religions themselves (disregarding their followers altogether, both the good and the bad), I find them ALL to be ideologies of hate disguised as positive moral guidance. From the way the Old Testament portrays God's genocides as just and heroic to the way the Koran teaches that it's OK to lie to non-Muslims, just a glimpse of what the "Holy" Books say was enough to turn me off to religion morally (my disbelief in the existence of a being such as God and of the magical nature of the events of the Biblical stories turn me off from a scientific/pragmatic sense). Does Islam teach hate? Well, yeah. Does Christianity? Yup yup. Does Judaism? Yeah, it too (and before anybody pulls a Ben Stein on me, I come from a Jewish family. No anti-Semitism here, thank you). Are Muslims, Christians, and Jews all bad people? Hell no!!!!!!
Of course, the religions do add that little "Thou Shalt Not Kill" line in there. Unless it's people with long hair eating shellfish while having gay sex with conquered non-Muslims on the Sabbath or something. Then it's encouraged.
I say that so we all know where I stand in the Christianity vs. Islam debate. But as for global Islamic terrorism, I don't think religion is anything but a talking point for these people. A person once told me that Osama Bin Laden is only fueled by Islam to attack America. I responded that that's like saying George W. Bush was fueled by his love of freedom to attack Iraq. It's a talking point. Nothing more.
And to those who say that Islam itself is what creates anti-West terrorism and not anger at our foreign policy, then I must ask the question: Why did they travel all the way here to attack America on 9/11 instead of conducting more attacks against Australia? Australia, after all, borders Indonesia which has the largest Muslim population in the world. And why do we have more Middle Eastern terrorists than Asian terrorists, despite Asia having roughly 3 times as many Muslims as the Middle East? The answer is simple: because Islam has about as much to do with terrorism as "spreading freedom" does with U.S. interventionism.
No need to over-complicate things. It's rather simple. We are there and if they don't want us there we should expect resistance.
The only way to win a war (undeclared even) versus an idea is the complete annihilation of all people with that idea(genocide at least; omnicide at most) or thought control (a changing of thoughts). Obviously the threat of death is not a sufficient form of thought control for those willing to die. You can't kill ideas with bombs, but you can certainly spread them.
There is something here of which we should not lose sight.
Persons being killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, wherever, by US forces are being killed in the name of George W. Bush, now Barak Obama, and in the name of the United States of America. They are not being killed in the name of Christ. Believe it or not, there is a substantial difference.
In contrast to this, persons murdered in all of these attacks by Islamo-fascists have been killed in the name of Allah, not in the name of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, or wherever.
I have tried here to make what I believe is the most salient point. The reason why terrorists are terrorists is not because of their theology, but because of their epistemology. They do not embrace natural law and resultant universal values, and are mired in tribalism. It is not helpful or relevant to say...."but this sort of thing happened in Christianity or Judaism one or two thousand years ago."
Moreover, the attempt to blame Christianity for the deeds of the United States government is a non-starter.
Regarding the original clip on youtube:
I am less bothered by the use of the word anti-semitic than the very first remarks Stein made where he feigned disbelief at what Paul was saying.. At the very least, what Paul said is a valid idea, perhaps overstated, perhaps not, but it is almost obvious that the guys strapping bombs to their undies and going on kamikazi missions have some reasons, even if contrived, for doing so. For Stein to act shocked to me is shocking. It is actually insulting to those who ask the simple question, "why?", that we would be treated so dismissively.
While Ron Paul is absolutely right that security screening should be privatized, I do appreciate that some standards should be in place across the board. If these are made by TSA or some similar federal body, so be it. However - and at the risk of sounding really stupid - what prevents, say American Airlines, from implementing additional security measures? Why can't the individual airline profile, confiscate luggage, etc. if it deems it necessary/advantageous/whatever? I don't know about anyone else, but I would be willing to pay a little more for the assurance that the plane I'm stepping on is not going to blow up, even if it means having my suitcase entirely unpacked or being profiled. Conversely, if you don't want your liberty circumscribed like this, you have the ability to not fly this airline. What am I missing here??
Some of you who are Christian are comparing how you INTERPRET the Bible verses what the Koran LITERALLY says. If I were to look at the Bible literally, God has slain far over 2,000,000 people (not including 8 whole cities He wiped out with no estimate of population) verses Satan who killed 2 with God's permission. I might assume Christians are violent and relentless people because of this fact; but that is incredibly stupid. Who am I to condemn Christians not being one and not understanding the meaning and interpretations of the Bible??
I don't understand how some of you can be for liberty but you are so quick to condemn Muslims because of what they MIGHT believe because of what it says in their Book. That is synonymous to preemptive strikes on sovereign nations. Judge not on what their book says but their actions. The VAST majority of Muslim people are peaceful.
As per which religion has more blood on their hands; And of course the Zionists have no blood on their hands. And I don't refer to the Jewish faith. (if you don't know the diff do your research) Both Christian Zionist and Jewish Zionists. Laid upon the Zionist is our involvement in WWI and impetuous for WWII. You could probably keep going with Americas involvement in conflicts around the world. But, you may not mention these, as when one does so, they are shouted down as anti-Semitic.
Here are some interesting passages from the Qur'an I came across. Many of the passages that the media or pastors use to cause fear of the Muslim faith as a whole relate to war (which should be defensive according to their own belief). Whether the extremist is Muslim, Christian, or Jewish it seems to be a matter of certain leaders who do the interpreting of their scriptures to fit their own needs.
Those who believe (in the Quran), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians...and (all) who believe in God and the last day and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. (2:62)
Be quick in the race for forgiveness from your Lord, and in the race for a garden wide as the heavens and the earth, prepared for the righteous- (the righteous are) those who spend whether in prosperity or adversity, who restrain anger and who pardon all people. For God loves those who do good. (3:133 –134)
Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Christians, and those Sabeaans, whoso believes in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness--their wage waits them with their Lord, and no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow. (5:69)
And if they incline to peace, so you must incline to it. And trust in God, for He hears and knows all. (8:61)
To jwfox1965:
As a Christian and sometimes student of the Bible, there is definitely no argument that the Old Testament is a bloody and violent book. However, you cannot use that fact to make any type of comparison about Christianity, as the real tenets of Christianity are based on the teachings of the New Testament (the life of Christ and the disciples that followed Him), not the Old Testament. The teachings of Christ are far different from the "law" and directives given to the Jews in the Old Testament, which have very little to do with Christianity as I have been taught.
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
—Thomas Jefferson
Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization which neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office and claims no responsibility for the actions of individuals or groups of individuals who use the Campaign for Liberty logo or name or who may claim to act as representatives of the Campaign for Liberty without prior written consent of the Campaign for Liberty. [?]
