Terror Attacks in Paris

[NDgradstudent]

Do you know what kind of laws and policies France has with respect to Muslims and the practice of their religion in public spaces? Do you know that the perpetrators of these attacks are the same people from whom these "refugees" (your quotations) are running? Let's not pretend for a second that the French have not attempted to assimilate, even if forcefully, immigrant populations into their culture and nation and let's not pretend for even less than that second that even the most spineless and cowardly of leaders remotely warrants this sort of destruction of human life.

You're right- we cannot forcibly assimilate people who hold us in contempt. The solution is simple: stop accepting immigrants from those countries.

This is the only realistic and sensible option, but it is not on the table. So why do European 'leaders' act surprised that these attacks continue indefinitely?

 

[T Town Tommy]

Do you know what kind of laws and policies France has with respect to Muslims and the practice of their religion in public spaces? Do you know that the perpetrators of these attacks are the same people from whom these "refugees" (your quotations) are running? Let's not pretend for a second that the French have not attempted to assimilate, even if forcefully, immigrant populations into their culture and nation and let's not pretend for even less than that second that having even the most spineless and cowardly of leaders remotely warrants, and no less should be a "logical result" for, this sort of destruction of human life.

But those laws and policies by France which has been a secular practice in their country as France has long had a passion to keep church and state separate. So it isn't like France singled Muslim's out and said religion in public places are off limits for you only. There are a vast majority of Muslims in France that adhere to the cultural norms, there is an element of Muslims that feel they should be left alone to do what they want. They do not care about assimilation, either forced or not. They want to invoke their religion, cultural norms, laws on the French society. Your post makes more sense if framed in the context of the Algerian War, where French rule didn't care about the customs, religious practices, etc of Muslims. But it falls short IMO with modern day France. If Muslims wanted to practice their religion openly and in public places, France should not have been the country to immigrate to. Just my two cents worth and I admit I am not at all well enough versed to really debate the issue of French/Muslim relations. Just my layman perception of it all.

 

[Irish YJ]

The Crusades were a response to Islamic expansionism. At that time, Islam was a very young concept, and yet had spawned warlords who conquered the Arabian peninsula, the Sinai, North Africa, Iberia, and Byzantium in just a couple hundred years, forcing conversion as they went. Constantinople, is, of course, called Istanbul today because of those violent conquests and those conquered lands are 99% religiously homogenous because religious dissent (apostasy and proselytization) are death penalty level crimes in the Quran. Islam's military expansion into Europe wasn't halted until Charles Martel defeated the Umayyad Caliphate in the Battle of Tours in 732, while peace on the Eastern front didn't occur until the Ottomans sacked Constantinople in the 15th century, completing the fall of the Holy Roman Empire. When Mecca and Medina fall to a Christian army (as ludicrous as that sounds), we can start saying there's an equal history of violence.

Of course, non-Muslims aren't permitted in or near those cities because Quranic theocracy doesn't particularly like multiculturalism.

Sorry about the rant; I just don't like when the Crusades are mentioned as though the Catholic Church decided to field a massive army and invade lands that had been under Muslim control for thousands of years. It's like if Canada decided to take the Northeast militarily then we tried to recapture Boston, and were always discussed as the aggressors in history books.

Sounds like you are taking a rather Roman Catholic side of history. The calling for the first crusade was a plea to stop the advance of the Turks, and enable safe passage to the Holy Lands. The crusades went much farther. Jews were killed, other Christian sects were killed, Transylvanian pagans were killed. the level of brutality by "Christians" was inexcusable. I used to be fairly knowledgeable on the subject. Not so much now in my middle age, but I do recall that even several of my Catholic Religion teachers (Priest and Brothers) felt ashamed of that part of our history. One even went on his own rant about the power grab by the Church, and continued "crusade" to simply increase the geographic reach of papal taxation.... If you want to put a finger on the start of modern day Jihad, you probably don't need to look further...

Sorry for the rant, but any modern history I'm sure will paint this period in a very different light. If you don't like my view on the Crusades as it pertains to past bad behavior of Catholics, feel free to give me your view on the Inquisitions. Effort to thwart the Church of Satan?

 

[Jason Pham]

But those laws and policies by France which has been a secular practice in their country as France has long had a passion to keep church and state separate. So it isn't like France singled Muslim's out and said religion in public places are off limits for you only. There are a vast majority of Muslims in France that adhere to the cultural norms, there is an element of Muslims that feel they should be left alone to do what they want. They do not care about assimilation, either forced or not. They want to invoke their religion, cultural norms, laws on the French society. Your post makes more sense if framed in the context of the Algerian War, where French rule didn't care about the customs, religious practices, etc of Muslims. But it falls short IMO with modern day France. If Muslims wanted to practice their religion openly and in public places, France should not have been the country to immigrate to. Just my two cents worth and I admit I am not at all well enough versed to really debate the issue of French/Muslim relations. Just my layman perception of it all.

No doubt that the French have not (at least expressly and if not in consequence of application) singled out any particular religion to apply their secularist policies, my thoughts were targeted at the notion that the attacks on Paris are a logical result, and even less warranted by, its policies toward immigration which have been more, as of late, (lower case) republican and conservative (as we understand that term) than some might assume.

 

[Jason Pham]

You're right- we cannot forcibly assimilate people who hold us in contempt. The solution is simple: stop accepting immigrants from those countries.

This is the only realistic and sensible option, but it is not on the table. So why do European 'leaders' act surprised that these attacks continue indefinitely?

This seems an unnecessarily simplistic dichotomy of choices, doesn't it? Isn't there something in between forcible assimilation and the complete rejection of immigrants? If your conception of what is realistic and sensible corresponded with the reality of what is realistic and sensible, I would not have had the chance to become the damn proud American that I am today.

More than this point, which is minute when put in the perspective of the human life and cost at hand here, does any immigration policy warrant or not warrant, does any leader or country deserve or not deserve whatever their views and politics, the tragedy which has occurred here? Obviously, no.

 

[Irish YJ]

This seems an unnecessarily simplistic dichotomy of choices, doesn't it? Isn't there something in between forcible assimilation and the complete rejection of immigrants? If your conception of what is realistic and sensible corresponded with the reality of what is realistic and sensible, I would not have had the chance to become a damn proud American.

More than this point, which is minute when put in the perspective of the human life and cost at hand here, does any immigration policy warrant or not warrant, does any leader or country deserve or not deserve whatever their views and politics, the tragedy which has occurred here? Obviously, no.

Agree with your articulate response. I think he is trying to say something like... When acceptance (open arms) meets fundamental idealism (which can not be impacted or cured by open arms), you perhaps cannot continue to open your arms.

 

[Jason Pham]

Agree with your articulate response. I think he is trying to say something like... When acceptance (open arms) meets fundamental idealism (which can not be impacted or cured by open arms), you perhaps cannot continue to open your arms.

Completely agree that no nation is well served with a policy that is indiscriminately "open arms", but the solution to me seems much less simple than indiscriminately refusing immigrants, no less refugees who are attempting to escape the same, if the early reports are to be believed, individuals who have perpetrated the attacks in Paris.

 

[Crazy Balki]

Just heard that Chino and the Deftones were apparently suppose to play at the concert hall tomorrow and some of his bandmates were actually there before the attacks took place, but left early.

Really hope they make it back safely, and thoughts and prayers with the victims and their families.

 

[NDgradstudent]

This seems an unnecessarily simplistic dichotomy of choices, doesn't it? Isn't there something in between forcible assimilation and the complete rejection of immigrants? If your conception of what is realistic and sensible corresponded with the reality of what is realistic and sensible, I would not have had the chance to become the damn proud American that I am today.

Are you from a Muslim country?

In any case, public policy cannot really be based on personal stories, ethnic schmaltz, etc. That things worked out well for you is not relevant to American or European immigration law.

More than this point, which is minute when put in the perspective of the human life and cost at hand here, does any immigration policy warrant or not warrant, does any leader or country deserve or not deserve whatever their views and politics, the tragedy which has occurred here? Obviously, no.

It is not a matter of desert. It is matter of what will be done to stop this happening again. The answer is nothing.

 

[Irish YJ]

Completely agree that no nation is well served with a policy that is indiscriminately "open arms", but the solution to me seems much less simple than indiscriminately refusing immigrants, no less refugees who are attempting to escape the same, if the early reports are to be believed, individuals who have perpetrated the attacks in Paris.

Horrible quandary isn't it. One tries to do the right thing and is brutally attacked by the same folks they intended to help. Do you keep helping while risking your own nation. Do you embrace your loss of national identity in the process to make those you are trying to help feel at home.

It's also hard to hope for positive revolution in the ME when the sane ones (immigrants) flee because it's easier to leave than to fight for change. Then the situation is made worse when said sane immigrants feel entitled in the house where they are a guest at.

At the end of the day, the only long term fix for the ME is to let the ME deal with the ME... Or Islamist deal with Islamist. The impact from our aide and political wrangling has gotten us nowhere. I'd rather pull my foreign aide $$ out of the ME (75 percent of which globally goes to Israel and Egypt), shore up my borders, focus on domestic issues here, and stop giving the extremist a reason to hate/bomb us. There is simply nothing that we can do that will impact their ideology. It's sad, but sometimes it's more logical to remove oneself from the equation and let things run their course.

 

[ThePiombino]

Fuck extremists, of all sects. Worthless pieces of shit. There is no more cowardly way than preying on the innocent.

 

[Jason Pham]

Are you from a Muslim country?

In any case, public policy cannot really be based on personal stories, ethnic schmaltz, etc. That things worked out well for you is not relevant to American or European immigration law.



It is not a matter of desert. It is matter of what will be done to stop this happening again. The answer is nothing.

If public policy cannot be based on "ethnic schamltz" (very choice turn of words, thanks), then what should it matter if I am from a Muslim country? Are you from a Muslim county? And if so does that make what you have to say more or less valid than what I have to say?

And it absolutely isn't a matter of deserting. No matter how bad, backwards or asinine your policies, there is no measure of deserting and no logic that says that these tragedies should or will happen to you.

 

[MNIrishman]

Sounds like you are taking a rather Roman Catholic side of history. The calling for the first crusade was a plea to stop the advance of the Turks, and enable safe passage to the Holy Lands. The crusades went much farther. Jews were killed, other Christian sects were killed, Transylvanian pagans were killed. the level of brutality by "Christians" was inexcusable. I used to be fairly knowledgeable on the subject. Not so much now in my middle age, but I do recall that even several of my Catholic Religion teachers (Priest and Brothers) felt ashamed of that part of our history. One even went on his own rant about the power grab by the Church, and continued "crusade" to simply increase the geographic reach of papal taxation.... If you want to put a finger on the start of modern day Jihad, you probably don't need to look further...

Sorry for the rant, but any modern history I'm sure will paint this period in a very different light. If you don't like my view on the Crusades as it pertains to past bad behavior of Catholics, feel free to give me your view on the Inquisitions. Effort to thwart the Church of Satan?

I'm not some Catholic apologist. I'm trying to take an objective view on history. No reasonable person in the modern Church would say violence in Jesus' name was or is ok; That's easy to do; Christ wasn't a warlord and abhorred violence, stopping Peter when he struck out in defense of Jesus: ""Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword" (Matthew 26:52). Compare to ""And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone." (Quran 2:191-193). Regarding the Inquisition, the magnitude is much overblown: The Spanish Inquisition: Debunking the Legends | Strange Notions

I don't think that the early Christian military actions were reflective of Jesus' attitude, but rather reflective of geopolitical realities of the time brought about by theocracy. I maintain that theocracy of all forms must be opposed in free and democratic society. Otherwise, we are tempted to conflate our authority with God's authority, and only bad things come from that...

 

[Jason Pham]

Horrible quandary isn't it. One tries to do the right thing and is brutally attacked by the same folks they intended to help. Do you keep helping while risking your own nation. Do you embrace your loss of national identity in the process to make those you are trying to help feel at home.

It's also hard to hope for positive revolution in the ME when the sane ones (immigrants) flee because it's easier to leave than to fight for change. Then the situation is made worse when said sane immigrants feel entitled in the house where they are a guest at.

At the end of the day, the only long term fix for the ME is to let the ME deal with the ME... Or Islamist deal with Islamist. The impact from our aide and political wrangling has gotten us nowhere. I'd rather pull my foreign aide $$ out of the ME (75 percent of which globally goes to Israel and Egypt), shore up my borders, focus on domestic issues here, and stop giving the extremist a reason to hate/bomb us. There is simply nothing that we can do that will impact their ideology. It's sad, but sometimes it's more logical to remove oneself from the equation and let things run their course.

Great (read: tough) question and great thoughts. Thanks.

I'd love to respond though I'm going to turn in, but before I do so, for the benefit of those concerned about a U.S. citizen in Paris, you can call 1-888-407-4747 (within the United States) or 202-501-4444 (overseas) for assistance from the Department of State.

 

[Bishop2b5]

CNN is reporting that France has closed its borders.

20 years too late, apparently.

 

[phgreek]

Prayers for the fallen, and their families who must try to make sense of all of this.

I honestly cannot see how allowing people to go to the middle east and return is a good idea at this point. I understand the concern regarding supporting humanitarian efforts, but it is time to have a very frank conversation regarding how to do that safely...simply said we know the profile of the people who radicalize. Certain people may experience less freedom to go to, and return from the middle east for a period of time while we sort this out...but I can think of few things more tragic and offensive than allowing citizens to be slaughtered because you are afraid to use what you know to protect them. It is time common sense prevailed in defining go forward policy.

 

[condoms SUCk]

Horrible quandary isn't it. One tries to do the right thing and is brutally attacked by the same folks they intended to help. Do you keep helping while risking your own nation. Do you embrace your loss of national identity in the process to make those you are trying to help feel at home.

It's also hard to hope for positive revolution in the ME when the sane ones (immigrants) flee because it's easier to leave than to fight for change. Then the situation is made worse when said sane immigrants feel entitled in the house where they are a guest at.

At the end of the day, the only long term fix for the ME is to let the ME deal with the ME... Or Islamist deal with Islamist. The impact from our aide and political wrangling has gotten us nowhere. I'd rather pull my foreign aide $$ out of the ME (75 percent of which globally goes to Israel and Egypt), shore up my borders, focus on domestic issues here, and stop giving the extremist a reason to hate/bomb us. There is simply nothing that we can do that will impact their ideology. It's sad, but sometimes it's more logical to remove oneself from the equation and let things run their course.

It's definitely a quintessential definition of between a rock and a hard place.
One idea I heard was setting up safe zones in Syria that's protected by the UN or a multinational force You would be able to help protect refugees while they stay in Syria.
Now you have a situation where refugees are all over the place and you can't decenrn between friend and foe.
The next few weeks and months are going.to be nerve racking in Europe, that's for sure. And any animosity towards Syrian refugees are going to be inflamed expedentually.

 

[Irish YJ]

It's definitely a quintessential definition of between a rock and a hard place.
One idea I heard was setting up safe zones in Syria that's protected by the UN or a multinational force You would be able to help protect refugees while they stay in Syria.
Now you have a situation where refugees are all over the place and you can't decenrn between friend and foe.
The next few weeks and months are going.to be nerve racking in Europe, that's for sure. And any animosity towards Syrian refugees are going to be inflamed expedentually.

Do you lose 150 on your own soil, or 10,000 on someone else's (fighting to create safe zones)... Do you trade that delta to create a sense of safety in your own country.

Right now the extremist are getting what they want. They attack. It causes the West to protest or react. That reaction "proves" the extremist right and creates even more hate of the West.

 

[ndcoltsfan2010]

Horrible news. Heartbreaking for so many. Thoughts and prayers to Paris and all the victims.

 

[ickythump1225]

Do you know what kind of laws and policies France has with respect to Muslims and the practice of their religion in public spaces? Do you know that the perpetrators of these attacks are the same people from whom these "refugees" (your quotations) are running? Let's not pretend for a second that the French have not attempted to assimilate, even if forcefully, immigrant populations into their culture and nation and let's not pretend for even less than that second that having even the most spineless and cowardly of leaders remotely warrants, and no less should be a "logical result" for, this sort of destruction of human life.

You can't assimilate people who hate you, your religion, your culture, and your civilization. The answer is to stop accepting immigrants and "refugees." There are a dozen countries not in a war currently in the M.E. and they can go there. In 20 years Europe will have fully committed cultural suicide just by the sheer weight of immigration. There is more of this bloodshed on the way for Europe.

 

[ickythump1225]

Sounds like you are taking a rather Roman Catholic side of history. The calling for the first crusade was a plea to stop the advance of the Turks, and enable safe passage to the Holy Lands. The crusades went much farther. Jews were killed, other Christian sects were killed, Transylvanian pagans were killed. the level of brutality by "Christians" was inexcusable. I used to be fairly knowledgeable on the subject. Not so much now in my middle age, but I do recall that even several of my Catholic Religion teachers (Priest and Brothers) felt ashamed of that part of our history. One even went on his own rant about the power grab by the Church, and continued "crusade" to simply increase the geographic reach of papal taxation.... If you want to put a finger on the start of modern day Jihad, you probably don't need to look further...

Sorry for the rant, but any modern history I'm sure will paint this period in a very different light. If you don't like my view on the Crusades as it pertains to past bad behavior of Catholics, feel free to give me your view on the Inquisitions. Effort to thwart the Church of Satan?

Christians in the M.E. during the time of the Crusades were getting slaughtered. Islam was, is, and always will be, a violent religion intent of territorial expansion and dominance. Had Christian Europe not met force with force, Europe would have been overrun and taken by Muslims. Ironically it is now being taken and overrun by Muslims and European leaders have invited and encouraged them to come in.

Before you accuse me of having a "Catholic view of history" just know that I am not even a Christian anymore, let alone a Catholic. Yet as a westerner, I can appreciate a balanced view of history. The same old tiresome, leftist re-imagining of history in which the West is the perpetual bad guy and everyone else is just the victim of oppression is endless triggering. Also, I am thankful for the actions of our European ancestors because without their actions we'd be making Salat five times a day oriented East towards Mecca.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Christians in the M.E. during the time of the Crusades were getting slaughtered. Islam was, is, and always will be, a violent religion intent of territorial expansion and dominance. Had Christian Europe not met force with force, Europe would have been overrun and taken by Muslims. Ironically it is now being taken and overrun by Muslims and European leaders have invited and encouraged them to come in.

Before you accuse me of having a "Catholic view of history" just know that I am not even a Christian anymore, let alone a Catholic. Yet as a westerner, I can appreciate a balanced view of history. The same old tiresome, leftist re-imagining of history in which the West is the perpetual bad guy and everyone else is just the victim of oppression is endless triggering. Also, I am thankful for the actions of our European ancestors because without their actions we'd be making Salat five times a day oriented East towards Mecca.

Wat

 

[wizards8507]

SIAP, looks like the death toll has been revised down to 127 or 128.

 

[Domina Nostra]

Sounds like you are taking a rather Roman Catholic side of history. The calling for the first crusade was a plea to stop the advance of the Turks, and enable safe passage to the Holy Lands. The crusades went much farther. Jews were killed, other Christian sects were killed, Transylvanian pagans were killed. the level of brutality by "Christians" was inexcusable. I used to be fairly knowledgeable on the subject. Not so much now in my middle age, but I do recall that even several of my Catholic Religion teachers (Priest and Brothers) felt ashamed of that part of our history. One even went on his own rant about the power grab by the Church, and continued "crusade" to simply increase the geographic reach of papal taxation.... If you want to put a finger on the start of modern day Jihad, you probably don't need to look further...

Sorry for the rant, but any modern history I'm sure will paint this period in a very different light. If you don't like my view on the Crusades as it pertains to past bad behavior of Catholics, feel free to give me your view on the Inquisitions. Effort to thwart the Church of Satan?

You aren't recounting the "modern" version of history. You are recounting the English version. It's been passed down since the 16th century. It focuses on all the crimes and mistakes of the Cursades, and re-interprets the whole enterprise through that lens of the worst actors for sectarian purposes.

The shame that many Catholics feel about the Crusades is not because they know more about it, but because we have further assimilated, and all of western civilization is obsessed with apologizing for the sins of its forefathers. I think its unseemly. History is what it is. Who knows what we would have done in their shoes? We should concentrate on our own failings rather than judge our anscestors for the hard decisions they made in difficult moments.

Modern Catholicism is also, btw, extremely critical of the US, including many of its actions in WWII. Much of what it did was, in Catholic understanding, unjustified murder of thousands, and thousands, and thousands of civilians (fire bombing Dresden, nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki). But that doesn't mean we should simply conclude that the Amercans were morally equivalent to the Nazis or Imperial Japanese, or that they had some alterior motivation besides stopping the spread of facism. Catholics also think abortion is murder, yet that doesn't mean we act as if every liberal who supports it is the active and knowing equivalent of a murderer.

There were some bad men, and some bad events in the Crusades, no doubt. But they were originally and generally motivated by a desire to liberate Jerusalem from a very brutal oppressor.

As far as the inquisition, it is simply not at all what people think it was, as even the BBC--hardly a Catholic apologist by any stretch of the imagination--has demonstrated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY-pS6iLFuc. The truth is even tamer than this massive re-writing admits.

As for Islam, it has always been a religion of conquest and bloodshed. If Mohhamed was an idela Muslim, and Jesus was an ideal Christian, you should expect "extremists" in both religions to look very different. But not every sectarian Muslim (i.e., a Palestinian soldier) or every sectarian Christian (i.e., N. Irish NRA soldier), is a religious extremist. St. Francis is an "extremist" Christian.

Wat

LAZY!!!!

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Concur


It was absolutely a matter of time before something like this happened. Would not be surprised if it's NOT over.

For radical Islam, this is nowhere near over. Europe is turning into Eurabia through invasion, Mohammed is the most popular baby name in the UK, 2005 tube bombings in the UK, 2004 bombings in Spain, and let us not forget the 9/11 masterminds were hanging out in Germany.

 

[Buster Bluth]

LAZY!!!!

I'm currently tearing shingles off a friend's roof, no time for real responses until halftime of the ND game haha

 

[Domina Nostra]

I'm currently tearing shingles off a friend's roof, no time for real responses until halftime of the ND game haha

Good man! Fair enough.

 

[Irish YJ]

Christians in the M.E. during the time of the Crusades were getting slaughtered. Islam was, is, and always will be, a violent religion intent of territorial expansion and dominance. Had Christian Europe not met force with force, Europe would have been overrun and taken by Muslims. Ironically it is now being taken and overrun by Muslims and European leaders have invited and encouraged them to come in.

Before you accuse me of having a "Catholic view of history" just know that I am not even a Christian anymore, let alone a Catholic. Yet as a westerner, I can appreciate a balanced view of history. The same old tiresome, leftist re-imagining of history in which the West is the perpetual bad guy and everyone else is just the victim of oppression is endless triggering. Also, I am thankful for the actions of our European ancestors because without their actions we'd be making Salat five times a day oriented East towards Mecca.

I don't disagree about the slaughter of Christians in the ME during that period, or doubt their desire for territorial expansion. Is it any worse than Western expansion, or violence used for that expansion, or papal expansion through war or corruption. What about the US expansion West and the slaughter of Indians. Was it all about making Americans safe in their newly acquired territory?

You aren't recounting the "modern" version of history. You are recounting the English version. It's been passed down since the 16th century. It focuses on all the crimes and mistakes of the Cursades, and re-interprets the whole enterprise through that lens of the worst actors for sectarian purposes.

The shame that many Catholics feel about the Crusades is not because they know more about it, but because we have further assimilated, and all of western civilization is obsessed with apologizing for the sins of its forefathers. I think its unseemly. History is what it is. Who knows what we would have done in their shoes? We should concentrate on our own failings rather than judge our anscestors for the hard decisions they made in difficult moments.

Modern Catholicism is also, btw, extremely critical of the US, including many of its actions in WWII. Much of what it did was, in Catholic understanding, unjustified murder of thousands, and thousands, and thousands of civilians (fire bombing Dresden, nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki). But that doesn't mean we should simply conclude that the Amercans were morally equivalent to the Nazis or Imperial Japanese, or that they had some alterior motivation besides stopping the spread of facism. Catholics also think abortion is murder, yet that doesn't mean we act as if every liberal who supports it is the active and knowing equivalent of a murderer.

There were some bad men, and some bad events in the Crusades, no doubt. But they were originally and generally motivated by a desire to liberate Jerusalem from a very brutal oppressor.

As far as the inquisition, it is simply not at all what people think it was, as even the BBC--hardly a Catholic apologist by any stretch of the imagination--has demonstrated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY-pS6iLFuc. The truth is even tamer than this massive re-writing admits.

As for Islam, it has always been a religion of conquest and bloodshed. If Mohhamed was an idela Muslim, and Jesus was an ideal Christian, you should expect "extremists" in both religions to look very different. But not every sectarian Muslim (i.e., a Palestinian soldier) or every sectarian Christian (i.e., N. Irish NRA soldier), is a religious extremist. St. Francis is an "extremist" Christian.

First I'm not a modern Catholic, not even sure I consider myself Catholic anymore (that's another story). Not a liberal. I'm a free thinking believer in God who happens to be a conservative (economics, plus), realist (foreign policy), with common sense (not "liberal" or extreme) leanings on things like environment, safe sex, etc..

That said, my original point was that there are nuts on both side, bad on both side. I'd like to think that part of understanding our own failings is looking back at history so that we do not make the same mistakes. Sure there was some great intent (initial Byzantine help, etc), but the actual output was far different. Hell, Western Europe later focused their crusading efforts to topple the Byzantines and seek out other threats to Papal power... The original intent and pleas while good, were ultimately bastardized to suit the needs of Western expansion.

We can disagree, and that's fine. I've read enough through my 20s and 30s, I don't care to go back and re-educate myself to spew details or proof of my opinion.

Islam in itself can be a peaceful religion. I know many peaceful, kind hearted Muslims. It is also obvious the religion is breeding ground for extremists. Back to my original point. Religion can be a calling for ill and violent behavior.

On the Inquisition... I'd agree that it's not nearly the tabloid episode it's made out to be. The Church was far less responsible than the State IMO. All that said, needless atrocities were committed in the name of religion due to fear of the growth of other religions and lifestyles (originally focused on Catharists).

 

[Domina Nostra]

That said, my original point was that there are nuts on both side, bad on both side. I'd like to think that part of understanding our own failings is looking back at history so that we do not make the same mistakes.

. . .

Islam in itself can be a peaceful religion. I know many peaceful, kind hearted Muslims. It is also obvious the religion is breeding ground for extremists. Back to my original point. Religion can be a calling for ill and violent behavior.

It is wise to admit that there is good and bad on both sides and to learn from our own failings, but the goal is to get to the truth, not an emotionally satisfying consensus. If we overplay our ancestor's failings and downplay the relative failings of others, we are no closer to reality.

I would argue that the term "religion" in this context is so broad as to become meaningless. We could say "government" can be "a calling for ill and violent behavior" too. That statement is true. But it does not mean that there is any sane reason in the world to equate one's involvement in the Decatur City Council with a local Afghani warlord's council, or invovlemnt in Iceland's defense department with Zimbabwe's.

Christinaity and Islam are just not very similar, and the lives of their founders are not very simlar. One was a celibate itirnerate preacher who willingly let his enemy's put him to death to save them from their own sin, the other conquered and made himself a great man with many wives who wanted to establish a new world order. Neither are Hinduism and Judaism very similar. Most religions, in fact, have very different moral and spiritual teaching. Insofar as there are basica similarities between all human beings, and that those human beings tend towards certain faults, and that most followers of religions are a little half-hearted, then, yes, there are tons of similarities between your average Muslim, Jew, Christian, and Hindu.

But despite the millions, and millions of nice, peaceful Muslims in the world, their religion still calls for violence and world conquest against the non-converted (although it is admittedly self-contradictory on many points). For that reason, its leaders point to the exmaple of their founder, and many of his words, and the earliest teachings of the religion, to provide a very solid foundation for waging holy war. That is, and will remain an issue. Its just like no matter how nice and pacifist some American is, he's going to have to live with the reality that his goverenemnt is hostile to, and/or bombing, certain other nations. It's just a fact. Christianity, like Bhuddism for example, does not call for world domination.

I bet we'd agree on most things. I am just pushing the point right now that we may have to seriously reconsider how well some of our current cultural assumptions are really holding up. First and foremost, I think we have mistaken the success of a fairly homogenous, like-minded society with the success of some of the ideals its espouses (pluraility, diversity). I no longer think that a consitutional system can, by itslef, create a safe, harmonious, diverse society. I think that the majoroty and major minority groups in that country have to be committed to the constitutional order FIRST, and then a constitutional order becomes the best way to govern that situation. So we have to make some serious decisions about allowing groups into our country who are not comitted to its worldview. If you don't believe in a free, open, diverse society, you can't come here. I think Muslims are certainly capable of this, but I don't think we should just treat it as a given that all Muslims from all parts of the world automatically are.

 

[notredomer23]

Anyone watch Kerry speak just now? Sounds like he said Syrian Free Army and Assad are gonna come to a ceasefire on the condition that there are free elections when this is all over.

I was just half listening though cuz CFB so that may not entirely be correct.