user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Voted : Yes
With one exception--rightwing Christians are unwilling to die for their convictions. Their forte is getting others to die for their causes.
Voted : No
Can't you see the difference?
I think the following homosexual intellectualist provides a beneficial explication of the contrasts:
"The main reason I'd been glad to leave America was Protestant fundamentalism. But Europe, I eventually saw, was falling prey to an even more alarming fundamentalism (Islamic) whose leaders made their American Protestant counterparts look like amateurs. Falwell was an unsavory creep, but he didn't issue fatwas. James Dobson's parenting advice was appalling, but he wasn't telling people to murder their daughters... Pat Robertson just wanted to deny me marriage; the imams wanted to drop a wall on me. I wasn't fond of the hypocritical conservative-Christian line about hating the sin and loving the sinner, but it was more preferable to the fortright fundamentalist Muslim view that homosexuals merited death." (Quote: Bruce Bawer)
"'Unless we get medically lucky, in three or four years,
one of the options discussed will be the extermination of homosexuals."
Dr. Paul Cameron, a scientist often quoted by religious right groups , speaking at the 1985 Conservative Political Action Conference.
"Homosexuality is a crime against humanity."- Paul Cameron's pamphlet "Criminality, Social Disruption and Homosexuality"
Radical Christians are always one excuse away from the same sorts of behavior as radical Islamists. It's the civilizing influence of enlightened secular humanism that has created a society that keeps them in line. But as the Jihadi Christians grow in influence, that will change.
Voted : Yes
Absolutely. And I say this being a Christian. The Rithwing fringe of the "Christian Fundamentalists" are evil: they lie, they create fear for no reason, they threaten, they cheat, and they do nothing but harm. They are as bad as Islamic Jihadists.
Voted : No
Can't you see the difference?
by Socrates on Wed Apr 25, 07 12:42pm
No, the question is...can't YOU see the similarities?
Voted : Yes
When you st down and do the careful translations, they both say the same thing.
"Kill them all, let Deity sort them out." Americans just pay more for their verson.
Voted : Almost..not quite..but yes
Just dumb
Voted : No
It isn't the same because they aren't yet strapping bombs to their youth and having them detonate themselves in shopping malls. Both groups are control freaks who are intolerant of views divergent from theirs, but actions define it for me, and Christians, so far, are above and beyond Islam in morality.
Voted : No
I think I'm with Socrates on this one. But guys like Phelps and Cameron are damn close.
Just wait. Just wait.
cranky- Are those individuals representative of the mainstream religious right? I don't think so. It seems to me that they are merely fringe groups within fringe groups of the religious right. The mainstream religious right utilises the rhetoric of 'hating the sin and loving the sinner.'
"It's the civilizing influence of enlightened secular humanism"
- Actually, secularism can be pushed too far sometimes, and secularism is not always civilised; pushed to its extreme forms and it is barbaric. In fact, a better analogy is not to compare the Islamist jihadism to the Protestant religious right, but rather with the atheist secular extremism of the communists during the Cold War. They actively tried to physically force everyone to become atheist, just like the jihadist Islamists try to force Islam through physical force- both using militant persecution and such. This sounds more equivalent than the American religious right which simply blocks homosexual marriage and abortion through legislation. So a better analogy is that the secular atheist extremist communists' actions regarding religion are more equivalent to the Islamist jihad. So those extremist atheists were more like the Islamist jihadists than the current mainstream American Christian right are.
patch- "No, the question is...can't YOU see the similarities?"
- The ballot didn't ask about mere similarities, it asked if th two were equal, equivalent, on the exact same level. I stand by my opinion- I don't believe they are.
That makes no sense Socrates. Logically, YOU cannot ask the question "Don't you see the difference" without the opposing question: "Don't YOU see the similarities." You must believe there are differences, so logically, there are similarities...which is what the ballot premise alludes to, as in:
"Does this culture war, and it's apparent motivation, seem parallel to the Islamist's concept of jihad?"
Here is a dictionary definition:
having the same direction, course, nature, or tendency; corresponding; similar; analogous: Canada and the U.S. have many parallel economic interests.
I stand by my question to you.
Dictionary definition of Jihad:
ji•had
Pronunciation: ( ji-häd'),
—n.
"1. a holy war undertaken as a sacred duty by Muslims.
2. any vigorous, emotional crusade for an idea or principle. Also,jehad."
^ In other words... a "culture war." See.
patch- cranky was more precise of the type of parallel specifically being asked of. He used the word 'equivalent' in the ballot title. I believe 'equivalent' is a bit more than mere 'similarities'
Oh and don't get the impression that I am standing up for the religious right because I like them, or that I am even Christian. I oppose their ideology, I'm more libertarian. And I identify myself as Taoist. Oh and I'm not even American either. So I have absolutely no agenda in saying that the two are not equivalent.
What he asked is it the "moral" equivalent. He did not directly ask if their "acts" were equivalent.
So in fact, the whole "culture war" rhetoric and the words of hate and of repression used by the Christian Fundamentalists, is very much the moral equivalent of the Muslim radicals who try to impose their moral and religious views on others. Words can be part of a "war" too.
So the similarities are striking. As one example, when a man like Pat Robertson publicly states that there is a "culture war" on national Television and when men/people like him pass judgement on ohters and call them "un-Christian" and try to impose Christian values on all of us, then in fact, he is doing the same thing as when a radical Muslim cleric makes a pubic decree that all women who fail to wear their Burka's are infidels, etc., etc.
patch- I do not think they are morally equal at all. Homsexuals get executed in Iran by order of the Islamists. The religious right merely opposes homosexual marriage. This for instance is not morally equal.
That is actually not true at all Socrates. You are making very broad-sweeping assumptions and leaving much out of your argument. You single out Iran as your example, but fail to address whether that is Iran, or if it is a Muslim practice overall.
Secondly, the Christian right in this country and others, does much more than just talk about Homosexuality as being a "sin." They come right out and declare gay people as sinners, and have very clearly talked about "ways to handle them."
Their culture war is all about controlling people and involves abortion, Homosexuality, gay marriage, Race relations, etc., etc.
Their rhetoric is the same as the rhetoric Islamin extremists spew.
And now you're trying to swing back to "actions," when ONCE AGAIN...the ballot is on the topic of "the moral equivalence" of comparing the "culture war" of the Christian right, with the "concept" of the islamic jihad...which is also, a war of ideas, words and culture.
And again, we are talking here about SIMILARITIES and are not talking about identical, point-for-point exact examples.
Stop flim-flamming. 
patch- "You single out Iran as your example, but fail to address whether that is Iran, or if it is a Muslim practice overall."
- Iran does it in the name of Islam.
"Secondly, the Christian right in this country and others, does much more than just talk about Homosexuality as being a "sin." They come right out and declare gay people as sinners, and have very clearly talked about "ways to handle them." "
- Yes, they see homosexuals as sinners and homosexuality as a sin. They talk of 'ways to handle them'? That is ambiguous and is not the same as directly and explicitly stating they should be put to death.
"Their culture war is all about controlling people and involves abortion, Homosexuality, gay marriage, Race relations, etc., etc.
Their rhetoric is the same as the rhetoric Islamin extremists spew."
- But their rhetoric is not the same. The Islamist jihadist extremists openly encourage honour killings, punishing such people with death, chopping off people's hands for stealing, raping women as a punishment, punishing women for being raped, punishing a person's family for his or her 'crimes', openly advocating death for converts, openly declaring that non-believers should pay a tax for not believing. These kinds of things are much more barbaric than simply stating that one believes homosexuals are sinners and homosexuality a sin, opposing homosexual marriage, and opposing abortion. One side is much more immoral than the other; they are not morally equivalent.
"And now you're trying to swing back to "actions," when ONCE AGAIN...the ballot is on the topic of "the moral equivalence" of comparing the "culture war" of the Christian right, with the "concept" of the islamic jihad...which is also, a war of ideas, words and culture.'
- Even if I were to ignore the Islamist jihadist extremists' actions, I could still point to the fact that they say these things openly in their rhetoric as well.
"And again, we are talking here about SIMILARITIES and are not talking about identical, point-for-point exact examples."
- I don't believe his question was asking for similarities, but rather for a moral equivalence. If however, you would like to ask a separate question regarding similarities, I would be content to address your question.
"Stop flim-flamming."
- You would have a better chance at using words to convince fish to stop swimming or birds to stop flying. : )
A more realistic moral equivalence of a kind of Islamic version of the American Christian Right would be along the lines of the Turkish Religious Right's political mainstream establishment and NOT the extremist jihadists.
"But their rhetoric is not the same. The Islamist jihadist extremists openly encourage honour killings, punishing such people with death, chopping off people's hands for stealing, raping women as a punishment, punishing women for being raped, punishing a person's family for his or her 'crimes', openly advocating death for converts, openly declaring that non-believers should pay a tax for not believing. These kinds of things are much more barbaric than simply stating that one believes homosexuals are sinners and homosexuality a sin, opposing homosexual marriage, and opposing abortion. One side is much more immoral than the other; they are not morally equivalent."
Socrates, you're trying to talk your way into this and it's not working. You can skate around it all you like, but here is the reality:
1. Not all Muslims are radical jihadists calling for executions of people, nor are they trying to force their religion on others.
2. Not all Christians are radical fundamentalists and a vast majority are perfectly happy allowing others to have their own religious views.
3. In Islam, there is a faction that are zealots. They want to force their views and moral codes on others. Within this faction, there are those that would use violence and then there are those that wage a war of words: juding others, hate speech, etc.
4. On the Christian fundamentalist side, it's the same. There are those that would execute Gay people or Muslims, etc. And then...there are those that use words of fear and hate.
Do you see the distinction in the two groups for Islam and Christianity? I hope you finally do.
Now, if you can manage to stay on the ballot topic. The question is: "A constant drone among rightwing Christians is that they are engaged in a "culture war" with mainstream American society for it's alleged abandonment of fundamentalist Christian values. Does this culture war, and it's apparent motivation, seem parallel to the Islamist's concept of jihad?"
Do you see the similarities? You keep dragging in the extreme to try and make your point and it's not talking about the extreme of the extremists...it's asking "is the Chrisitan fundamentalit's "Culture war" in which they want to judge others, discriminate and basically force thier own religious views on others, the moral equivelent of and Islamic fundamentalist trying to do the same. YES!
For your information, the definition of a Jihadist give above is: 2. any vigorous, emotional crusade for an idea or principle. Also,jehad."
So anyone with a modicum of intelligence would tell you that killing someone because they believe differently than you is by far worse than using hate speech, but it is YOU who made this about the most extreme of the extreme...when clearly, it's about looking at a majority of people on the Christian fundamentalist side and a majority of the Islamic fundamentalist side and realizing that those people on both sides do not use violence...they use a war of words and ideals to try and influence/force others to be the same as they are. Translation: a culture war/Jihad.
A more realistic moral equivalence of a kind of Islamic version of the American Christian Right would be along the lines of the Turkish Religious Right's political mainstream establishment and NOT the extremist jihadists.
by Socrates on Thu Apr 26, 07 12:23pm
Gee, do you think!? Kind of what is being said by me and others in this ballot. I was writing my long reply when you were crafting your comment of submission
"A more realistic moral equivalence of a kind of Islamic version of the American Christian Right would be along the lines of the Turkish Religious Right's political mainstream establishment and NOT the extremist jihadists."
Except that, ultimately, one is the spawn of the other. Take a look at the documentary "Jesus Camp," if you want to see the seeds of Christian jihad being sown.
patch- so this whole time you perceived the jihadists to be along the lines of the Turkish religious right? Why? The reality is that they are actually very very unique in their moderation. And their moderation is not the norm, they are the exception when it comes to Islamist pressures in the Islamic world. The general assumption of established political Islamists in most of the rest of the Islamic world is very much extremist and not moderate. For you to assume that most jihadist political establishments and pressure groups are not extremists is based on what? You see I assume that when we are discussing "jihadists" that we are discussing the extremists because they are much more influential over all in the Islamic world than the likes of moderate voices along the lines of the Turkish religious right. Yet somehow you saw the word 'jihadist' and the whole time you had exceptional Turkey in mind out of all the Islamist pressures in the entire Islamic world?
I'm sorry Socrates, but I am beyond bored with this exchange. No hard feelings, but you would argue with God himself while standing at the Pearly gates trying to get into Heaven. Believe what you wish. 
And p.s, making assumptions is a cop-out. Don't make assumptions about what other people think, know or are trying to communicate and you might just find that people are more receptive to your point of view. You know what they say about assuming? I'm sure YOU know very well what they say.
patch22us - "No hard feelings, but you would argue with God himself while standing at the Pearly gates trying to get into Heaven."
- I actually do have many questions for this hypothetical so-called Christian God. Here is one: "God, if you are all-knowing, why did you create things that piss you off?"
"making assumptions is a cop-out"
- Since cranky didn't define what he meant by jihadist, I had to assume he meant the most politically influential one in the Islamic world since the context of juxtaposition was with the American Christian Right which is the most influential Christian political lobby in the US.
|
|
