Police Officer Preparation & Law Enforcement Resource - Archive

I'm not against Muslims building their mosques and worshiping in their own way. I don't agree with the teachings of their religion. I think it is a violent religion, a dangerous religion, and a religion that is sending its followers to hell. But since its founding, America has been a place where people could worship whoever, whenever, wherever. I have my beliefs and they have theirs, I don't shove mine down their throats and I expect them to do the same.

Here's my question: you want to build a mosque...fine. But why does it have to be basically right over where followers of YOUR religion MURDERED 3,000 Americans? Can't you put it on the over side of town or up the road a few miles?

This isn't about promoting unity and ending bias. This is about making American culture warm up to Muslim culture. Much the same way children in schools are being forced fed homosexual material/propaganda in the classroom, adults are being shamed into accepting whatever the Muslim community does. If this truly was about promoting unity Jesus Christ would be given equal time in the classroom. If it really was about unity, creationism would be taught with equal weight as evolution. But its not, its about agenda's and brainwashing. It's not just Muslims, it can also be seen in the government's REFUSAL to handle the illegal alien problem. It's about transforming a nation little by little.




A New York City panel voted unanimously Tuesday to reject landmark status for a building near the World Trade Center site, paving the way for construction of a mosque and an Islamic community center.

Opponents of the project, including 9/11 first-responders and family members of victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, have said the location would be insensitive.

The mosque is slated to be part of an Islamic community center to be operated by a group called the Cordoba Initiative, which says the center will be a space for moderate Muslim voices.

Several members of roughly 50 people who attended the hearing applauded the ruling, while others shouted "shame" as commission chairman Robert Tierney called for the vote. The city Landmarks Preservation Commission then proceeded to vote 9-0 against granting landmark status to the site's 152-year-old building, which can now be torn down to make way for the Islamic center.

One opponent, Linda Rivera, of Manhattan, held a sign reading, "Don't glorify murder of 3,000. No 9/11 victory mosque."

Supporters of the landmark status, including GOP gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio and some Sept. 11 family members, had argued that the building warranted landmark status because it was struck by airplane debris during the attacks.

But commissioner Christopher Moore noted that the debris struck a number of buildings in the area.

"One cannot designate hundreds of building on that criteria alone," Moore said. "We do not landmark the sky."

The commission was asked to determine whether the building is architecturally important enough to preserve, not to consider the merits of the proposed mosque. Demolition and construction of the mosque can now proceed.

The move was applauded by the New York Civil Liberties Union and the American Civil Liberties Union, citing principles of religious freedom.

"We congratulate the Landmarks Preservation Commission for promoting our nation's core values and not letting bias get in the way of the rule of law," the groups said in a joint statement. "The free exercise of religion is one of America's most fundamental freedoms. For hundreds of years, our pluralism and tolerance have sustained and strengthened our nation. On 9/11, religious extremists opposed to that very pluralism killed 3,000 Americans. Those fanatics would want nothing more than for our nation to turn its back on the very ideals that make this country so great."

Oz Sultan, the program coordinator for the proposed Islamic center, said last week that the building has been changed too much over the years to qualify as a landmark.

"I think a lot of the negativity we're getting is coming from people who are politically grandstanding," Sultan said. "We're completely open and transparent."

Daisy Khan, executive director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement, told The Wall Street Journal in Tuesday's editions that the center's board will include members of other religions and explore including an interfaith chapel at the center.

"We want to repair the breach and be at the front and center to start the healing," said Khan, a partner in the building and the wife of the cleric leading the effort.

But Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said Khan's proposals fail to address the crux of opponents' criticism that constructing the mosque near ground zero is insensitive to 9/11 victims' families.

Last week, the leading Jewish organization came out against the mosque. The ADL said "some legitimate questions have been raised" about the Cordoba Initiative's funding and possible ties with "groups whose ideologies stand in contradiction to our shared values."

Rick Bell, executive director of the New York chapter of the American Institute of Architects, said the building does not deserve landmark status.

"The nature of the current building isn't worth preserving," Bell said.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg supported the mosque's construction, but the project has drawn opposition from former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, among others.

FOX News' Lauren Green, Jonathan Wachtel, Christopher Laible and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

FOXNews.com - New York City Panel Clears Way for Mosque Near Ground Zero (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/03/new-york-city-panel-clears-way-mosque-ground-zero/)

I can't say it enough: Political Correctness is killing our Nation.

I feel like Alice in Wonderland, where the world is upside down.

I emphatically disagree with your following statement, Rec: I think it is a violent religion, a dangerous religion, and a religion that is sending its followers to hell.


I emphatically agree the mosque should NOT be allowed there.

I emphatically disagree with your following statement, Rec: I think it is a violent religion, a dangerous religion, and a religion that is sending its followers to hell.


I emphatically agree the mosque should NOT be allowed there.

Actually, that's a controversial statement that I'd have to agree with. A majority of Islam's believers are not violent, however the religion itself and its texts--the Qur'an and ahadith--promote unnecessary violence against nonbelievers, homosexuals, adulterers/fornicators, and so on. I've seen the same texts studied by the average individual deemed to be "peaceful"--but the conclusion was arrived to by the same hermeneutics used to interpret the Bible, which is an entirely different creature. But I digress.

But I can definitely agree that it's completely wrong that a mosque would be constructed where the terrorist attacks took place. It's shameful and--as Creeker pointed out--is clearly the result of rampant political correctness. Thanks a ton, progressivism... :nonod:

I despise the distinct lack of respect for wanting to build this mosque so close to the event of national tragedy, but I defend the constitutional right to freedom of religion. My relatives were severely persecuted for nothing more than their religion until they endured terrible hardships traveling out west in the 1800’s and built safe harbors in Utah and Arizona.

Actually, that's a controversial statement that I'd have to agree with. A majority of Islam's believers are not violent, however the religion itself and its texts--the Qur'an and ahadith--promote unnecessary violence against nonbelievers, homosexuals, adulterers/fornicators, and so on. I've seen the same texts studied by the average individual deemed to be "peaceful"--but the conclusion was arrived to by the same hermeneutics used to interpret the Bible, which is an entirely different creature. But I digress.

But I can definitely agree that it's completely wrong that a mosque would be constructed where the terrorist attacks took place. It's shameful and--as Creeker pointed out--is clearly the result of rampant political correctness. Thanks a ton, progressivism... :nonod:

You and I must be reading different versions of the Qur'an :) Spend a lot of time on flights actually reading Islamic literature and it is just as open to the practice of interpretation (hermeneutics) as is any other religious text. IMHO :) I prefer to judge by the actions of the overwhelming number of followers who are peaceful - and that goes for any religion I've dealth with in my international work. We RPers love a good debate, don't we :)

I emphatically disagree with your following statement, Rec: [I]I think it is a violent religion, a dangerous religion, and a religion that is sending its followers to hell.[/I

Here's my reasoning behind my statement. As Pathos said, many Muslims are not violent people. But if a Muslim is to live by a strict adherence to the Koran they must rid the world of the infidels. They do this with their holy wars (jihad). Their religion teaches them to kill those who do not agree with them. 9/11 was a declared jihad against the US. It was the Muslim religion, not drugs or momentary insanity, that led these men to kill as many Americans as they could. Christ while He was on earth never instructed His disciples to kill those in opposition. Jesus told them to pray for their enemies. Matthew 5:44 (ESV) But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you

Also women are treated as property in homes where the Koran is strictly observed. This puts them in a dangerous position because they live in subjection to their husbands. Even the Jews back in Old Testament times had ridiculous reasons for divorce. Men were allowed to divorce their wives for something as simple as "she isn't pretty anymore" or as "complex" as an affair. Thankfully in the New Testament on several different occasions women are spoken highly of and God is instructing His followers to not continue to follow the traditional negative view of women in society.

The basis for the last part is found here: John 14:6 (ESV) Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. The I in this verse is referring to Jesus Christ. Muslims do believe in Jesus, but they see Him as just another prophet and not as the Son of God. I don't hold to the belief that "All roads lead to God/Heaven." There is one way...Jesus and accepting His free gift.

Now, let me definitively state that the above is my opinion...not an attack or a slam against the beliefs of others. I just threw it out there in case anyone was interested.

But if a Muslim is to live by a strict adherence to the Koran they must rid the world of the infidels. They do this with their holy wars (jihad). Their religion teaches them to kill those who do not agree with them. 9/11 was a declared jihad against the US. It was the Muslim religion, not drugs or momentary insanity.

Strict adherence? I don't know of any and I have spent a lot of time living and working in Muslim countries, to include over the half the countries in the Middle East. Is just as open to interpretation as is the Bible. Just ask my relatives who love to fight over the interpretation of the Bible.


Religion teaches them to kill those that don't agree? I've had Muslim friends for many years and none have tried to kill me yet for disagreeing with them.

9/11 was the Muslim religion? No, it was a number of sick, dysfunctional, maladjusted, affluent young men who happened to be Muslims. I agree they used their interpretation of the Qur'an, but sick people deriving inspiration from written works is not unique to Islam.

Now is it fair to say foreign terrorists tend to come from the Muslim faith? That is a true statement.

Here's my reasoning behind my statement. As Pathos said, many Muslims are not violent people. But if a Muslim is to live by a strict adherence to the Koran they must rid the world of the infidels. They do this with their holy wars (jihad).

Have you actually read any of the Koran? Are or you just citing what you've heard other people say? The Koran says they can defend their religion, not kill everyone not Muslim. I think you need to do some research beyond right wing web sites.

And if you read your history, wasn't the Christian Church pretty much doing that during the Inquisition? Forcing Jews to convert and then torturing them and killing them?

As far as sending their followers to hell, been to a fundamentalist Christian Church lately? Growing up, I distinctly recall the preacher standing there and telling the congregation that we were all destined for Hell unless we followed the Bible literally.

The problem isn't Islam. It's the Islamic people who are stuck in the Dark Ages where Christians were 1500 years ago. Many of the Muslim nations are barely out of the Iron Age. Most Muslims in this country are educated and enlightened people.

Our enemy is not the Islamic religion, it's the small minority of nutcases who use their religion as an excuse to do what they probably would be doing anyway. Kind of like Fred Phelps, the "Christian" preacher who disrupts military funerals.

Doesn't the Koran also allow Islamists to deceive non Islamists as to their practices, as long as their final intent is to defeat them?

And, "No" (emphasis added) I will not read a Koran, because to me that would be altering my moral code.

... and I just knew that the Phelps idiots name was going to pop up here.

Political Correctness mandates that we try to "understand" our enemies, btw. I could care less why a thug is a thug as long as he ultimately is brought to adequate justice.

Political Correctness mandates that we try to "understand" our enemies, btw. I could care less why a thug is a thug as long as he ultimately is brought to adequate justice.

Huh? Creeker, sweetheart, that's not political correctness. That's the most basic tenet of military projection. You know all those SF guys we have deployed around the globe? They couldn't begin to operate without .....

LOL Like Christianity is a peacful religion.

Religion is violent by nature. More people have been killed in the name of God than any other reason. I'm sure that pisses him off too.

And, "No" (emphasis added) I will not read a Koran, because to me that would be altering my moral code.



So, you base all your information on someone who violated your moral code by reading it?

Sorry, but I never heard of education as violating any moral code. You're going to have to show me the passage in the Bible that says we can't read something. Of course, the Christian Church did keep all their writings in Latin for centuries so even average Christians couldn't read the Bible. You had to "trust" in what someone else told you it said.

I read the English translation of Mein Kampf when I was a young man, I don't believe that made me a Nazi nor did it change my views about Hitler. I just wanted to learn more about how he thought. I haven't read the whole Koran, but I've read parts of it. Particularly the parts being twisted by both Islamic radicals and reactionaries over here.

It says that they have the right to defend their religion. Now the nutcases think that our intrusion into the Middle East is an attack on Islam because we are violating sacred ground. (Not unlike the reason for the Crusades) This started over the first Iraqi war. Bin Laden and some others thought we were desecrating holy ground when Bush I put our troops in Saudi Arabia. That spurred the first attack on the World Trade Center. Before that, they couldn't care less about us.

Jihads can be called, according to the book when someone mounts a campaign against Islam. Again, the nutcase are interpreting it to fit their own agenda. And yes, Fred Phelps does the exact same thing with the Bible, as do a lot of Christian extremists. Islam holds no monopoly on mental cases. When I worked hate crimes, I saw a lot of white supremacists who tried to twist the Bible and hide behind Christianity for their goofy ideas.

Spreading information about someone based on rumors is nothing more than hate mongering. Too many people base their beliefs on anonymous emails that circulate around the Internet instead of even trying to learn the truth.

As a New Yorker, I say no, emphatically no. I spent that day on 9/11 tracking down friends and family who worked there, listening to the tearful pleas from friends and families of the missing, and helping my friends out who were on some of the EMS teams that went down that way to assist. NO NO NO. The very idea of a mosque right there.... I can't even express how that makes me feel.:cuss:

Political correctness is a death of a thousand cuts. I'm actually speechless over this decision, can't really reconcile it.:wow:

As a New Yorker, I say no, emphatically no.

As an Oregonian and former Texan, I totally agree. I think the Islamic leaders are not only insensitive, but stupid. It will do nothing but aggravate the whole situation.

But are we willing to throw out the Constitution in order to stop it? Anything the government can do to someone else, they can do to you.

Nearly every religion has a violent history somewhere. I'm not going to profess to know much of anything about the Muslim faith so I wont defend it BUT both Catholics and Christians, which make up a massive portion of the religious world, have killed hundreds of thousands of people all in the name of their "religion" and what they deemed the scripture or God told them to do.
Every religion has extremists but that doesn't make the rest of the followers any more evil or demented then Catholics, Christians or Buddhist.

All that garbage being said..

I completely disagree with their choice of location. Its a big world and they don't NEED that exact spot for their mosque.

But are we willing to throw out the Constitution in order to stop it? Anything the government can do to someone else, they can do to you.

I sure hope no one's thinking of doing that. I DO believe it is unnecessarily provocative and extremely hurtful to a lot of New Yorkers in ways the rest of us can't empathize with. Would be like Trump going to build a Trump hotel on top of Hiroshima ground zero. Or a Japanese shrine being built near the Pearl Harbor Memorial (unless it was unequivacally meant to show profound condolences.) I know one thing, we Americans have been willing to lose some of our soldiers in the defense of holy Islamic shrines in Iraq. Is it not too much to ask that the Imam behind this show just a little sensitivity by moving it down the street?

I sure hope no one's thinking of doing that. I DO believe it is unnecessarily provocative and extremely hurtful to a lot of New Yorkers in ways the rest of us can't empathize with. Would be like Trump going to build a Trump hotel on top of Hiroshima ground zero. Or a Japanese shrine being built near the Pearl Harbor Memorial (unless it was unequivacally meant to show profound condolences.) I know one thing, we Americans have been willing to lose some of our soldiers in the defense of holy Islamic shrines in Iraq. Is it not too much to ask that the Imam behind this show just a little sensitivity by moving it down the street?
:iagree: Wholeheartedly.

Have you actually read any of the Koran? Are or you just citing what you've heard other people say? The Koran says they can defend their religion, not kill everyone not Muslim. I think you need to do some research beyond right wing web sites.


Yes, I have read some of the Koran. I own a copy and I'm currently in the process of reading the entire book. I have done other reading as well. Unveiling Islam (http://www.emircaner.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=70&Itemid=91). And yes, I know that there is a scandal with these two men about the truthfulness of their past. They have been accused of exaggerating their level of involvement in the Muslim culture. Obviously the book came out long before these allegations surfaced. With that said, I don't thing that it is fair to throw the entire book out the window. They make some valid points. That is something that frustrates me about some of these hardcore fundamental Christian factions. They always seem to the throw the baby out with the bathwater. So, in answer to your question, I have gone beyond Billy Bob's Midnight Musings on Muslims to get information.

I'm certainly not an expert on Islam and I'm certainly not to proud to admit I could be wrong on some Islamic issues. I don't think I was wrong or obviously I would not have written what i did. I intend to keep studying. But in all honesty, even if had come on here with quotations from the Koran and explanations based in the original languages; I doubt you or Trip or anyone else would have been persuaded by my statements. Just like I would be skeptical if some guy on an internet forum started giving a different interpretation of the Bible. The Koran, like the Bible, are interpreted different ways by different people. People have some whacked out interpretations of the Bible and I would guess the same is true of the Koran.


And if you read your history, wasn't the Christian Church pretty much doing that during the Inquisition? Forcing Jews to convert and then torturing them and killing them?

Its my understanding that the Roman Catholic Church was behind the Inquisition. I consider the Catholic Church and the Christian Church to be two different entities. The heretics that the Roman Catholics were persecuting were Christians who remained true to the teachings of the Bible where the Catholics had strayed. Reformers like Martin Luther, John Huss, John Wycliffe were persecuted because their preaching was in opposition to what the Catholic Church taught. If you are referring to another group of actual Christians that were persecuting the Jews, I'm unfamiliar with that.


As far as sending their followers to hell, been to a fundamentalist Christian Church lately? Growing up, I distinctly recall the preacher standing there and telling the congregation that we were all destined for Hell unless we followed the Bible literally.
I'm a member of fundamental Baptist Church and I attend regularly. I agree with what you said. If you're referring to my earlier statement about the Muslim religion sending its followers to Hell, I was not meaning that this is the only religion that does that. Surely the Bible teaches that the unsaved will be going there. What I meant was that the Muslim religion gives out a false gospel (way to Heaven) and its followers can't get to Heaven by following its teachings.


Our enemy is not the Islamic religion, it's the small minority of nutcases who use their religion as an excuse to do what they probably would be doing anyway. Kind of like Fred Phelps, the "Christian" preacher who disrupts military funerals.

I totally agree that the nutcases in any religion are a problem. I shutter to think of someone basing their view of Christianity off of someone like Phelps. The issue comes in when you have two exclusive arguments...like Islam and Christianity. According to the Bible, Jesus is the way to Heaven. If that's true then Islam must be a false religion. Truth must be a constant, it can't vary depending on the circumstances. 2+2 = 4 not 4 or 5 or 6 depending on a person's viewpoint. The reverse is also true. The Koran says that Allah is God and Muhammad is his chief prophet. If that's true then Jesus is no longer the way to Heaven and Christianity is a lie. Since I hold to the Christian view I can't defend/accept Islam no matter if its inherently violent or not. Same as they can't accept Christianity without giving up their Muslim faith.

Strict adherence? I don't know of any and I have spent a lot of time living and working in Muslim countries, to include over the half the countries in the Middle East. Is just as open to interpretation as is the Bible. Just ask my relatives who love to fight over the interpretation of the Bible.

Religion teaches them to kill those that don't agree? I've had Muslim friends for many years and none have tried to kill me yet for disagreeing with them.

9/11 was the Muslim religion? No, it was a number of sick, dysfunctional, maladjusted, affluent young men who happened to be Muslims. I agree they used their interpretation of the Qur'an, but sick people deriving inspiration from written works is not unique to Islam.

Now is it fair to say foreign terrorists tend to come from the Muslim faith? That is a true statement.

All Christians do not follow their Bible as closely as they should. I know a lot of Christians and I don't agree with everything they claim the Bible teaches. Just because a Muslim tells you that they are a Muslim doesn't mean that they know and follow everything about their faith either. So it could be possible that the average Muslim doesn't grasp everything that the Koran teaches. Again, same is true of Christians and their knowledge of the Bible. I think many Christians are going to get to Heaven and be shocked at all they misunderstood, failed to realize etc.

Like I told RDS, I'm no expert and it could be that my thoughts about the Muslim religion will change after some more study.

Its my understanding that the Roman Catholic Church was behind the Inquisition. I consider the Catholic Church and the Christian Church to be two different entities.

Really? Now that's an interesting observation.


I'm a member of fundamental Baptist Church and I attend regularly. I agree with what you said. If you're referring to my earlier statement about the Muslim religion sending its followers to Hell, I was not meaning that this is the only religion that does that. Surely the Bible teaches that the unsaved will be going there. What I meant was that the Muslim religion gives out a false gospel (way to Heaven) and its followers can't get to Heaven by following its teachings.

Are Buddhists evil because they don't follow Christ's teachings either? I'm a Christian too, but I think God will the be ultimate judge of who goes to hell and who doesn't.

A whole lot of the Bible was written well after Christ was gone. I believe in his perfection, but not necessarily all his followers, including the authors of the Bible.


If that's true then Islam must be a false religion. Truth must be a constant, it can't vary depending on the circumstances. 2+2 = 4 not 4 or 5 or 6 depending on a person's viewpoint. The reverse is also true. The Koran says that Allah is God and Muhammad is his chief prophet. If that's true then Jesus is no longer the way to Heaven and Christianity is a lie. Since I hold to the Christian view I can't defend/accept Islam no matter if its inherently violent or not. Same as they can't accept Christianity without giving up their Muslim faith.

The key word is faith, not necessarily truth. Mathematics have nothing to do with faith. And you can't "prove" much of anything in the Bible, it's faith. And I remind you that it was the Catholic church that put together the Bible. Over the years, various councils have decided what the Bible will say and what it won't.

I'm not defending Islamic beliefs either. But I have trouble stomaching any human on this earth who thinks they have the inside scoop on who goes to heaven and who doesn't. The Christian church was established well after Christ died. And if you don't recognize the Catholic church as the Christian chruch, then I guess you would say that it wasn't established until over 1500 years after He died when Martin Luther established the Protestant movement. So during all that time, a lot of mortal men have been making decisions and proclamations based on what they THINK Christ wanted. And there's a lot of hypocrisy in the Christian church among the followers. Otherwise just about every Christian man would be blind from plucking out his eyes for lusting after women. That's what Jesus said we had to do in his Sermon on the Mount, did he not?

Arguing religion is pointless because it's all built on faith. But how would you propose to stop the building of the mosque? Pass a law against it? Then who would stop the government from passing laws regarding Christian churches? That's the point I'm trying to make here. You better think through about just how much power you give to elected officials. The next group that get elected might not hold your views on other matters.

All Christians do not follow their Bible as closely as they should. I know a lot of Christians and I don't agree with everything they claim the Bible teaches. Just because a Muslim tells you that they are a Muslim doesn't mean that they know and follow everything about their faith either. So it could be possible that the average Muslim doesn't grasp everything that the Koran teaches. Again, same is true of Christians and their knowledge of the Bible. I think many Christians are going to get to Heaven and be shocked at all they misunderstood, failed to realize etc.



Bingo. That's the point I was trying to make. The followers Bin Laden and the Taliban have construed the teachings of the Muslim religion to fit their own agendas. Just as many Christians have done the same with the Bible.

I love the song by Ray Stevens, "Would Jesus Wear A Rolex?" because it points out the fallacies within our own religion.

It's a shame that terrorist wrap themselves in the cloak of the largest religion in the world to do their evil.

Nearly every religion has a violent history somewhere. I'm not going to profess to know much of anything about the Muslim faith so I wont defend it BUT both Catholics and Christians, which make up a massive portion of the religious world, have killed hundreds of thousands of people all in the name of their "religion" and what they deemed the scripture or God told them to do.

Actually, if you take the top incidents where Catholics/Christians get the blame for mass murder, (the Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials and Crusades), the number falls well below the hundreds of thousands. For example:

The Spanish Inquisition

5,000 deaths for the entire three hundred year period of its operation (Source: Parker, Geoffrey “Some Recent Work on the Inquisition in Spain and Italy” Journal of Modern History 54:3 1982)

And, contrary to popular belief, it was not the church that initiated the Inquistiton but the Spanish Monarchy. "The Spanish monarchy had asked the pope to set up the Inquisition but kept a firm hold on its activities. They nominated the Inquisitor General and remained personally involved as well." (Source: Henry Kamen The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision Yale University Press, 1998)

It's true that the judges, or Inquisitors, were members of the church but, according to what I've read, that was due to the fact that, at that time, clergymen were the most educated officials.

The Salem Witch Trials

The Salem Witch Trials occured between 1692 and 1693. A total of 20 people were executed. (Source: A Brief History of the Salem Witch Trials | History & Archaeology | Smithsonian Magazine (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/brief-salem.html))

The Crusades

I don't have a number of deaths for this one. But since the Crusades were more of a war than a religious action, or the actions of persons acting solely in the name of religion, I don't think it should be counted against the church since it was a defensive act and not an act of aggression by the church.

"..the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.

With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed's death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense. (Source: Professor Thomas F. Madden-chair of the Department of History at Saint Louis University-The New Concise History of the Crusades)

So, discounting the lone nutjob here and there, since the beginning of Christianity, there have been approximately 5,020 deaths that can be attributed to the Church.

On the other hand, we have the peace loving Muslims. Just to be fair, I won't go back to the beginning of the Muslim religion like I did with those evil Christians. Instead, lets just go back to the last 30 years.

Since 1971, approximately 15, 720 people have been murdered solely in the name of Islam. Not by the direction of a king, president or by mass hysteria, but solely for the supposed advancement of Islam. (To be fair, since I did not give the number of people killed by Christians during the Crusades, I won't list the millions killed and enslaved by the Muslims during their campaign of aggression that led to the Crusades in the first place).

Now, in my opinion, whether the Koran specifically calls for the killing of 'infidels" or not is irrelevant. As long as people are murdering in the name of Islam, and the majority of its followers support and/or condone the actions by doing/saying nothing, then it's no wonder why Muslims are looked at the way they are.

But in case I've got a couple screws loose here's this:

Qur'an (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."

Qur'an (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

Qur'an (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority".

Qur'an (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"

Qur'an (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

Qur'an (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

Qur'an (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

Qur'an (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah"

Qur'an (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."

Qur'an (47:4) - "So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners,"

Yep. Sounds like a bunch of peace lovers to me.

I'll shut up now.

Rmo64fcvKs0

Same tone as much of Leviticus in the Old Testament. That's what Christians use to base their condemnation of homosexuality.

Just about all of what has been written about the Crusades has been from the Christian point of view. Think it might be a bit skewed?

And did the Christian church speak out about the atrocities done by the Spanish? Not from what I've read.

And one more thought. When you read scriptures of any religion, you need to take the context of the times into consideration. Jesus spoke of slavery like it was a no big deal thing. He and Paul said you should be fair to your slaves, but they had no problem with one person owning another. And you can bet that slaveowners in the South thumped the Bible pretty hard in defense of slavery.

The Middle East was a violent area in the time of Mohammed. There's a pretty good chance that others were trying to wipe them out, we don't know. But there was constant war between the Arab tribes because of the scarcity of resources in that land. Again, at the time the Old Testament was written, the culture was a lot different then than today. I don't think many Christians or Jews would really condone stoning homosexuals even if they didn't like their life styles.

It would be nice if we could draw line and say everything on this side is good and everything on this side is evil. Although I realize some people do that, in nearly 65 years, I've found that doesn't work. Every powerful religion has it's assets and its warts. And any are only as good as the people who follow them. And people are people, I don't care what their skin color, faith or whatever is.

I'm going to drop out of this too. Arguing religion is a fool's errand.

The key word is faith, not necessarily truth. Mathematics have nothing to do with faith. And you can't "prove" much of anything in the Bible, it's faith. And I remind you that it was the Catholic church that put together the Bible. Over the years, various councils have decided what the Bible will say and what it won't.

There is a level of faith in religion, true; however, when dealing with Christian apologetics, rationality/logic as well as scientific and historical evidence are each used to validate the inerrancy of the Scriptures. Not everyone who comes to accept the Christian faith is willing to abandon logic at the door--and why should they? The ability to rationalize is a God-given attribute that should be utilized on a consistent basis. Rather, skepticism in Christianity is healthy not only for one's spiritual growth but also to weed out false doctrine. I would say perhaps one of the most logical apologists for the Christian faith was C. S. Lewis; I like to refer to a basic textbook that utilizes the rationalization of Thomas Aquinas, C. S. Lewis, and other great Christian apologists in order to address the issue of faith and reason ("Handbook of Christian Apologetics" by Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli...it's very basic, and not EVERYTHING is discussed, but it's definitely a good book to start out with). Basically what I'm getting at is that a level of faith is required to believe in or do almost anything--even outside of religion. However, religion does not and should not have to be based on faith alone.


Same tone as much of Leviticus in the Old Testament. That's what Christians use to base their condemnation of homosexuality.

Just about all of what has been written about the Crusades has been from the Christian point of view. Think it might be a bit skewed?

And did the Christian church speak out about the atrocities done by the Spanish? Not from what I've read.

Interestingly, the only argument I've heard here is that Christians--a PEOPLE who are by no means "perfect" and should never claim to be--have done some pretty terrible things. It may be in the name of religion, but it's certainly based on misinterpretations and improper hermeneutics/exegesis of biblical texts. "Violence" in the Bible typically comes from the Old Testament which is predominantly historical narrative. The purpose of historical narrative is not to teach a moral or code of living but to tell a story that occurred in history. Morals can be drawn from historical narratives, but the examples are not always to be followed--ultimately, each book of the Old Testament never specifically indicates whether or not the main character's actions were "good" or "bad." Rather, based on the morals God instilled in every human being in addition to the morals He has specifically revealed to mankind, the ethical lesson is implied.

Just because wars and violence occurred in the Old Testament does not mean God approved of them. A lot of the incidents were due to what was acceptable for that culture/era. Violence in the Bible is different than the Bible promoting violence; the genre of the text must CONSTANTLY be taken into consideration prior to any individual interpretation. Otherwise, that's where you get sects who claim that women should never wear their hair up based on the verse "Top knot [a bun/ponytail] go down" when the entire verse actually reads: "Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house." (Matthew 24:17)...there are kooks in every religion, but you cannot condemn a religion based on the actions of a few of its adherents (even though that doesn't stop the liberal media).

The points that were mentioned regarding Islam is that their texts are NOT composed of historical narratives. The Qur'an is composed of prophecy and instruction--including the aforementioned verses that Plazoo mentioned.

Strict adherence? I don't know of any and I have spent a lot of time living and working in Muslim countries, to include over the half the countries in the Middle East. Is just as open to interpretation as is the Bible. Just ask my relatives who love to fight over the interpretation of the Bible.
Your relatives have organized into a wide spread group that kills inoocent people who do not agree with them? You relatives chop off head with rust dull swords? No, you relatives act like a human being, not a savage animal.


Religion teaches them to kill those that don't agree? I've had Muslim friends for many years and none have tried to kill me yet for disagreeing with them.
It is obvious whatevere you have been reading is not an actual Qur'am, but somebody elses interpretation.


9/11 was the Muslim religion? No, it was a number of sick, dysfunctional, maladjusted, affluent young men who happened to be Muslims. I agree they used their interpretation of the Qur'an, but sick people deriving inspiration from written works is not unique to Islam.
Maybe you should have been here that day in NY/NJ. Because in Jersey City, NJ, the mosques were open and hundreds were in the street cheering in support. This is not a "few bad people." It is much more wide spread than a few sick folks. It is THOUSANDS of people. And if you study history, you would understand how old "jihad" is and the anti-American history.

Here is just a short list of Muslim "Jihad" (aka- terrorist acts) against Americans:
1) 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis/Tehran Embassy, Iran (Nov 4, 1979 for 444 days)
2) 1983 Bombing of US Beirut Embassy, Lebanon (April 18, 1983)
3) 1983 Bombing of US Marine barracks, Beirut, Lebanon (Oct 23, 1983)
4) 1983 Bombing of US Kuwait Embassy (Dec 12, 1983)
5) 1984 Bombing of US Beirut Embassy (Sept 20, 1984)
6) 1984 Kuwait Airlines Flight 221 hijacked/American murdered (Dec 3, 1984)
7) 1985 Hijacking TWA Flight 847 hijacked to Beirut (June 14, 1985)
8) 1985 Hijacking cruise ship Achille Lauro, wheelchair-bound American is thrown overboard/killed (Oct 7, 1985)
9) 1986 Bombing Berlin disco frequented by US servicemen (April 5, 1986)
10) 1988 Bombing Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland (Dec 21, 1988)
11) 1993 First bombing World Trade Center, New York City, 7 Killed, 1,042 wounded (Feb 26, 1993)
12) 1993 Foiled NY Landmarks plot by Omar Abdel Rahman to blow up the Holland and Lincoln tunnel
13) 1993 Attempted Assassination of Pres. Bush Sr. during visit to Kuwait (April 14, 1993)
14) 1993 Black Hawk Down (Oct 3-4, 1993)
15) 1994 Plot to assassinate President Clinton during visit to the Philippines
16) 1995 Failed Project Bojinka by Ramzi Yousef to blow up a dozen US airliners over the Pacific (Jan 1995)
17) 1995 Bombing US military headquarters, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (Nov 13, 1995)
18) 1996 Bombing Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia, housing U.S. foreign military personnel (Jun 25, 1996)
19) 1998 Bombing U.S. Nairobi Embassy, Kenya, Africa (Aug 7, 1998)
20) 1998 Bombing U.S. Dar es Salaam Embassy, Tanzania, Africa (Aug 7, 1998)
21) 1999 Foiled LAX Millennium plot by Ahmed Ressam to bomb Los Angeles International Airport
22) 2000 Failed USS The Sullivans bombing that was refueling in the port of Aden, Yemen. (Jan 3, 2000)
23) 2000 Bombing USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, 17 U.S. Navy sailors murdered (Oct 12, 2000)
24) 2000 Bombing plaza across from US Manila Embassy (Dec 30, 2000)
25) 2001 9/11 attacks: World Trade Center, Flight 93, Pentagon, 3000+ murdered (Sept 11, 2001)

25 attacks on Americans. This is not a peaceful religion with a few nut jobs. It is a violent religion by teaching. It is far more widespread than many know.

America and Americans are part of the dar al-harb, or the "House of War." We have not submitted to Islam and as a result, Muslims are to make war upon dar al-harb "until all nations submit to the will of Allah and accept Sharia law."

As far as the mosque, there are four sides to that buidling, and guess what they plan on putting on the side that faces the World Trade Center on the roof? A PRIVATE OBSERVATION TOWER for senior mosque members! Anyone who supports this is insane!

Your relatives have organized into a wide spread group that kills inoocent people who do not agree with them? You relatives chop off head with rust dull swords? No, you relatives act like a human being, not a savage animal.

Joey, it's true that in the past few decades, the number of Muslims involved in terrorism has been a much bigger percent of the overall number of Muslims than is the percentage of Christians involved in horrific acts. Totally agree. That's why I go subject my *** to being shot at, to direct mortar fire, to kidnapping, and to the chance of getting mamed by IED's in all my trips to war zones since 2001, where I typically ride in convoys or helicopters throughout the country on almost a daily basis. I not only b**tch about terrorists and this global war we're involved in, I actually act. So you are correct to say it is more than just a few. It is not just a few. However it is not the overwhelming majority. The other thing is that as RDS keeps pointing out, there are times in history where numbers of Christians have also been just as high. But it's NOT unique to Musllims from a historical point of view.

It is obvious whatevere you have been reading is not an actual Qur'am, but somebody elses interpretation.

Joey, I'm afraid you're not even close on this one. I have a copy of a Qur'an sitting on my nightstand along with other books I find important to read or study. When I travel to and from the Middle East, I have a smaller copy to read while I fly for 12 hours, and while in the Middle East I have the Qur'an as well as loads of other Islamic readings stacked in a corner to read while working or living there.

Maybe you should have been here that day in NY/NJ. Because in Jersey City, NJ, the mosques were open and hundreds were in the street cheering in support. This is not a "few bad people." It is much more wide spread than a few sick folks. It is THOUSANDS of people. And if you study history, you would understand how old "jihad" is and the anti-American history.

Oh look, as far as I'm concerned, this country is and has been full of radical Islamic sleeper cells that the average citizen wouldn't begin to believe exists, and as someone who's worked at the highest levels of intelligence I'm shocked we haven't had another catastrophic attack, and frankly still expect one. I also know of a number of moderates that are great at showing two faces. BUT HAVING SAID ALL THAT, the overwhelming number of Muslims are peace-loving and don't interpret the Qur'an in the way you suggest.

Here is just a short list of Muslim "Jihad" (aka- terrorist acts) against Americans:
1) 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis/Tehran Embassy, Iran (Nov 4, 1979 for 444 days)
2) 1983 Bombing of US Beirut Embassy, Lebanon (April 18, 1983)
3) 1983 Bombing of US Marine barracks, Beirut, Lebanon (Oct 23, 1983)
4) 1983 Bombing of US Kuwait Embassy (Dec 12, 1983)
5) 1984 Bombing of US Beirut Embassy (Sept 20, 1984)
6) 1984 Kuwait Airlines Flight 221 hijacked/American murdered (Dec 3, 1984)
7) 1985 Hijacking TWA Flight 847 hijacked to Beirut (June 14, 1985)
8) 1985 Hijacking cruise ship Achille Lauro, wheelchair-bound American is thrown overboard/killed (Oct 7, 1985)
9) 1986 Bombing Berlin disco frequented by US servicemen (April 5, 1986)
10) 1988 Bombing Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland (Dec 21, 1988)
11) 1993 First bombing World Trade Center, New York City, 7 Killed, 1,042 wounded (Feb 26, 1993)
12) 1993 Foiled NY Landmarks plot by Omar Abdel Rahman to blow up the Holland and Lincoln tunnel
13) 1993 Attempted Assassination of Pres. Bush Sr. during visit to Kuwait (April 14, 1993)
14) 1993 Black Hawk Down (Oct 3-4, 1993)
15) 1994 Plot to assassinate President Clinton during visit to the Philippines
16) 1995 Failed Project Bojinka by Ramzi Yousef to blow up a dozen US airliners over the Pacific (Jan 1995)
17) 1995 Bombing US military headquarters, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (Nov 13, 1995)
18) 1996 Bombing Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia, housing U.S. foreign military personnel (Jun 25, 1996)
19) 1998 Bombing U.S. Nairobi Embassy, Kenya, Africa (Aug 7, 1998)
20) 1998 Bombing U.S. Dar es Salaam Embassy, Tanzania, Africa (Aug 7, 1998)
21) 1999 Foiled LAX Millennium plot by Ahmed Ressam to bomb Los Angeles International Airport
22) 2000 Failed USS The Sullivans bombing that was refueling in the port of Aden, Yemen. (Jan 3, 2000)
23) 2000 Bombing USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, 17 U.S. Navy sailors murdered (Oct 12, 2000)
24) 2000 Bombing plaza across from US Manila Embassy (Dec 30, 2000)
25) 2001 9/11 attacks: World Trade Center, Flight 93, Pentagon, 3000+ murdered (Sept 11, 2001)

25 attacks on Americans. This is not a peaceful religion with a few nut jobs. It is a violent religion by teaching. It is far more widespread than many know.

America and Americans are part of the dar al-harb, or the "House of War." We have not submitted to Islam and as a result, Muslims are to make war upon dar al-harb "until all nations submit to the will of Allah and accept Sharia law."

As far as the mosque, there are four sides to that buidling, and guess what they plan on putting on the side that faces the World Trade Center on the roof? A PRIVATE OBSERVATION TOWER for senior mosque members! Anyone who supports this is insane!

Joey, it IS more than a few nut jobs. It is more widespread than people know. But the Qur'an is not the same as Sharia Law. Also, what most of the folks on this thread aren't understanding is that Wahhabism, which is an austere form of "literal translation" of the Qur'an, which does breed a lot of nuts, is not the majority of Muslim followers. Among all the Muslims I know, no two interpret the Qur'an the same, and they certainly don't interpret it literally, just as most of my Christian friends don't do with the Bible.

sorry, sloppy fingers, pls see above

Anyone catch 60 minutes 2 weeks ago where the majoity of young, well educated college kids were interviewed over there? They all believe 9/11 was a government plot and we are attacking Islam, and as a result, they will defend their religion.

Judaism......Christianity......Hinduis.......Buddh ism.....all tolerant religion and peacful. No talk of going to war with those who don't agree. All have pillars that revolves around not killing. While a few radicals in each may go off on a tangent, the pillars and principles of the teachings/beliefs are not subject to "interpretation" and application. The teaching/spillars are moderate and there are a few radicals (who I might add are quickly chastised by thir own religion when they go radical).

Howevere the pillars/teaching of Isalm, if you have read the whole book, as you know are not peaceful by any means. While somebody today in America may think so, it does not matter what they think. The teachings from such far out date any of us and were taught as they were written and as many would say, as Allah intended. They are crude, violent and not peaceful. They do not teach tolerence or acceptance of anyone else.

You hear very few Muslims speak out, especially the elders when any of those terrorist attacks occur. Why not? I will tell you.....because they can't condemn something they believe is correct. The idiot trying to build thsi place in NY has been cornered and refuses to condemn the terrorists on 9/11.

While there moderate Muslims who interpret the teachings as peaceful, the teachings themselves are not.

And we all know that 60 Minutes is a virtual pillar of unbiased reporting and would never skew nor cherry pick interviewees to create sensationalism just so they sell soap.....

And every Christian I've talked to is certainly tolerant. Unless you're not a Christian and/or homosexual or pro choice.

And every Christian I've talked to is certainly tolerant. Unless you're not a Christian and/or homosexual or pro choice.

With all due respect, I'd like you or anyone to name me ONE person who is truly tolerant of every different belief/opinion out there...everyone has their own opinions or biases. Everyone lives by a certain standard, whether it's mandated by self-created morals or organized religion. Even one who believes that there is no absolute truth but only objective truth is maintaining that another individual's beliefs are wrong, at least in part.

According to the Bible, there is absolute truth that was instilled by God from the beginning of time. It's not Christians who create these truths--but they perpetuate them. When a Christian is truly acting in Christ, he WON'T stand for immoral actions that directly contradict God's Word; but in love, he will stand up for what God maintains is moral. It's not about maintaining a "holier than thou" attitude when Christians are CALLED to stand steadfast in God's Word, to go out and preach to nonbelievers, and to stand up for the truth. Yes, there are jerks out there who become prideful and will maintain that their doctrinal beliefs are correct, and that anybody who disagrees will suffer in Hell. However, that is when human PRIDE takes over--that individual is perpetuating his own opinions rather than acting in Christ.

A Christian's proclamation to a nonbeliever that "homosexuality is wrong" or "if you do not accept Christ as your personal savior, you'll suffer in Hell" is NOT intolerant when it's done out of love for another individual and in accordance with what the Bible instructs. No Christian wants to imagine their friend or relative suffering eternally--so of course they're going to reiterate what the Bible instructs. It's not out of hypocrisy, because every Bible-believing Christian should know that they are not by any means perfect and thus never maintain that they have it completely together...that's something one acknowledges when coming to Christ in the first place.

Through the Bible, God instructs His people to be witnesses to unbelievers, both through behavior and through directly preaching the Word. To maintain that Christians are "intolerant" for following what an Almighty God has instructed them to do is an act of intolerance in itself.

This is a shorten version of all those verses, but it pretty much sums up what the Bible says.

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll268/jimbellah/75dbd44b-5836-4f62-8c7b-d03d6dde0c7c.jpg

This is a shorten version of all those verses, but it pretty much sums up what the Bible says.

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll268/jimbellah/75dbd44b-5836-4f62-8c7b-d03d6dde0c7c.jpg

If anything, that's an attack on Judaism which still adheres to Old Testament Law (i.e., their Torah). To the Christian, the only Old Testament laws that apply in today's culture are those alluded to in the New Testament. However, Old Testament Law had its purpose in that culture--every law was instilled to distinguish God's people from those who worshipped other gods and participated in barbaric ritual (for one, child sacrifice), to protect those under the covenant from disease and famine, and to keep the people pure both physically and spiritually. In the case of the passage mentioned in the picture, interestingly enough there are a few different explanations. While I was doing research on this, there was one interesting footnote that tackled just some of the different views by biblical scholars, each alluding to (surprise, surprise) cultural/social contexts:

"The anomalous nature of Deut 22:20–21 has been acknowledged by students of the Hebrew Bible from antiquity until the present; nowhere in the Hebrew Bible, with the exception of this passage, is premarital intercourse viewed as a capital offense. Among modern scholars, some have explained this passage as the product of a late deuteronomic author, in whose time the weakening of the traditional family authority required extreme measures; hence, as in the case of a rebellious son (Deut 21:18–21), a daughter who has defied parental authority must be executed. [. . .] Others have resolved the enigmatic nature of Deut 22:13–21 by positing that it deals with adultery during an inchoate marriage. [. . .] Still others have argued that the primary issue at stake is the (potential) paternity of a child born to a newlywed bride who shows no signs of virginity on her wedding night." Reference: "Gen 24:14 and Marital Law in 4Q271 3: Exegetical Aspects and Implications" by David Rothstein.

If anything, that's an attack on Judaism which still adheres to Old Testament Law (i.e., their Torah). To the Christian, the only Old Testament laws that apply in today's culture are those alluded to in the New Testament.

Really? Ask some Christians why they hate homosexuality and see what they quote. Fundamentalist Christians frequently pull quotes from the Old Testament to justify their actions.

I can post all the bombings on abortion clinics since 1992 and the abortion doctors murdered. It's a pretty long list too. And guess who did those? It wasn't Islamic terrorists.....

It's the people who take old, archaic teachings literally, whether they are out of the Bible or the Q'uran that pose a threat to us. Most people of any religion are just trying to hack out a living somewhere and take care of their families.

My point is, people are people. Some are great, some are good, some are dangerous. Some use their religion as an excuse to reek havoc on everyone else and it's not just limited to Muslims.

It's the hypocrisy of people of any religion and the holier than thou that I find tiresome.

A Christian's proclamation to a nonbeliever that "homosexuality is wrong" or "if you do not accept Christ as your personal savior, you'll suffer in Hell" is NOT intolerant when it's done out of love for another individual and in accordance with what the Bible instructs. No Christian wants to imagine their friend or relative suffering eternally--so of course they're going to reiterate what the Bible instructs. It's not out of hypocrisy, because every Bible-believing Christian should know that they are not by any means perfect and thus never maintain that they have it completely together...that's something one acknowledges when coming to Christ in the first place.

Through the Bible, God instructs His people to be witnesses to unbelievers, both through behavior and through directly preaching the Word. To maintain that Christians are "intolerant" for following what an Almighty God has instructed them to do is an act of intolerance in itself.

I spent my last three years working hate crimes. I can report to you that a lot of "Christians" who beat the crap out of gay people didn't do it out of love. But they quoted Bible verses to me as to why they did it.

With all due respect, I'd like you or anyone to name me ONE person who is truly tolerant of every different belief/opinion out there...

I'll give you two - just off the top of my head:

ME,

and:

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/5209167/Little+Richard+beztytuu.jpg

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

:biggrinjester:

Are Buddhists evil because they don't follow Christ's teachings either? I'm a Christian too, but I think God will the be ultimate judge of who goes to hell and who doesn't.

Exactly...God is the ultimate judge. But here is the awesome part. He tells us how to pass His judgment in the Bible. We don't have to sit here and wonder about our eternal fate. Let me use this analogy: a teacher giving a take-home/open book test. The student has both the answer key (their book/notes) and the test questions in front of them. Theoretically there's no excuse for getting a bad grade. Now, spiritually speaking, God's question to us (I'm putting it in my own words) basically boils down to "Why should I let you into Heaven." The answer to that question is found in the Bible.
Revelation 21:27 (ESV)...but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life. A person's name must be written in the book of life. How does it get there?
Romans 10:13 (ESV)For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
2Peter3:9 (ESV)The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.
Ephesians 2:8-9 (ESV)For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.


A whole lot of the Bible was written well after Christ was gone. I believe in his perfection, but not necessarily all his followers, including the authors of the Bible.

If God is perfect why would He allow an imperfect book to represent Him? His followers certainly were not perfect, but that doesn't matter since they merely wrote what God told them to. 2Timothy 3:16-17 (ESV) All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.


The key word is faith, not necessarily truth. Mathematics have nothing to do with faith. And you can't "prove" much of anything in the Bible, it's faith. And I remind you that it was the Catholic church that put together the Bible. Over the years, various councils have decided what the Bible will say and what it won't.

Absolutely, faith is a huge part of any religion. But I think truth needs to be a big part of it too. I don't want to believe something just because it makes me feel good. Can everything in the Bible be scientifically proven so we know that it is the true religion, no it can't. So I look at the source. Either the God who wrote the Bible is who He says He is or He's a liar.

My personal position is that the Bible is not a buffet. I can't take the parts I like and leave the parts I don't like. If I can't accept all of it being from God, why should I accept any of it being from Him? If He is truthful about Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, the virgin birth, Daniel and the Lions den, Jonah and the whale (fish); then He is being truthful about how someone gets to Heaven. Otherwise it's simply a moral book with some bedtimes stories.


I'm not defending Islamic beliefs either. But I have trouble stomaching any human on this earth who thinks they have the inside scoop on who goes to heaven and who doesn't.

God wanted everyone to have the inside scoop, so He gave us the Bible.


The Christian church was established well after Christ died. And if you don't recognize the Catholic church as the Christian chruch, then I guess you would say that it wasn't established until over 1500 years after He died when Martin Luther established the Protestant movement. So during all that time, a lot of mortal men have been making decisions and proclamations based on what they THINK Christ wanted. And there's a lot of hypocrisy in the Christian church among the followers. Otherwise just about every Christian man would be blind from plucking out his eyes for lusting after women. That's what Jesus said we had to do in his Sermon on the Mount, did he not?

Actually, I believe the church started right after Jesus went back to Heaven. He used Peter to do it. Matthew 16:18 (ESV)And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The book of Acts tells us about Pentecost and Peter and other disciples speaking in tongues. Three thousand people were saved and I believe that started the church in Jerusalem (Acts 2:46-47 I won't paste it to keep it shorter)

I totally agree that through the years men have told people what THEY PERSONALLY believe God was saying. I totally agree that there are a lot of hypocrites out there looking for their own gain.

To be honest my history gets a little fuzzy on how the Catholic church came to be. I know that later on in the NT different groups broke off from the main church. People began to idolize the disciples and Peter became the focus of what later became the Catholic church.

I believe what Christ was saying in His Sermon on the Mt was that Christians need to take drastic measures in dealing with sin. Cutting out an eye or a hand is a symbolic way of telling people to do whatever it takes to stop the habitual sins that plagued them. I guess you could compare it to all the weight loss programs, anti-aging creams, and stop smoking products people are willing to try.


But how would you propose to stop the building of the mosque? Pass a law against it? Then who would stop the government from passing laws regarding Christian churches? That's the point I'm trying to make here. You better think through about just how much power you give to elected officials. The next group that get elected might not hold your views on other matters.

Good point...that's something I'll have to think about

Really? Ask some Christians why they hate homosexuality and see what they quote. Fundamentalist Christians frequently pull quotes from the Old Testament to justify their actions.



I spent my last three years working hate crimes. I can report to you that a lot of "Christians" who beat the crap out of gay people didn't do it out of love. But they quoted Bible verses to me as to why they did it.


The Bible does not condone these actions. These people were wrong and should be punished...plain and simple. These type of people love to pull one verse out of the Bible to suit their own ends. In doing so they give Christianity a black eye. Chances are in they didn't use a Bible verse they would have found some other way to justify their actions. God hates the sin, but loves the sinner.

The Bible does not condone these actions.

The Old Testament does. And it's quoted by frequently by people who stand up violently against homosexuality.

As far as God not allowing an imperfect book to be written about Him there are a lot of writings out there about God that even say he doesn't exist. But even lesser, why did he allow "Origin of the Species" to be such an universally read book? If he allows that, why not allow an imperfect Bible? If you're going to apply simplistic solutions, you need to be able to apply them to everything.

I'm a Christian and I'm proud of it. But I don't buy everything "man" says to me about God. God speaks to me through my conscience and when I listen to Him, my life goes pretty well. When I let my head take over, it doesn't go so good. But I grew up listening to some man standing on a podium telling me that if I didn't follow the Bible to the letter, I was going to Hell. I was less than 12 years old and knew that there was no way I could live my life so perfectly so I assumed that I was Hell bound, literally.

I left that church as soon as I was old enough to make my choice and now attend a church who preaches God's grace and tolerance of others. To tolerate someone doesn't mean I have to live their lifestyle, but it's not my place to say they're going to Hell or anywhere else.

As far as homosexuality goes, I need to tell you. I have a cousin who's two years younger than I am. When I was 6 and he was 4, I knew he would have rather been a girl. And we both grew up in the same W. Texas rough and tumble family. He was always effeminate and took horrible teasing about it all the time we were growing up.

I was shocked when he got married out of high school, but about 30 he couldn't take it anymore, got divorced and "came out of the closet". He was born that way. I have no doubt whatsoever about it. It wasn't a conscious choice on his part at all. If you saw our family and environment, you would understand.

Back then, they saw homosexuality as wrong and evil, but slavery was just fine. Even for Jesus. That's why I listen to my heart, not everything everyone else says about what God "thinks".

Organized "religion" reminds me of airliines or burger chains; these franchises all claim to have the winning trip to heaven, or the winning meal to be served on the way. Mosques offer a different menu and price of the ticket.

As for homosexuals, I remember a kid who went from small agency to large agency. I met an off duty officer from large agency and asked how this young officer was doing. Reply was memorable: "was my friend...no longer my friend...f%%%ing queer...came out of the closet..." I asked this officer if he ever needed a friend to help him thru a difficult personal decision? Answer: "this is different...". I walked off after saying "some friend you are..."

Organized "religion" thrives off guilt and judgement as they sell the "only true path to redemption".

So, you base all your information on someone who violated your moral code by reading it?



What I was vaguely refering to was that I am not going to respond to thugs and their violence by reading anything so that I can try to understand them. It would be a waste of my time, when I have much more important and worthwhile things to do with my life, and there are others who actually battle them who I trust to know our enemy.

I've seen the aforementioned list of verses out of the Koran, but that is the extent of my knowledge of it.

If it makes you feel better, I've read much less of the Budhist... whatever its called, and have no ill feelings towards that religion.

I grew up in either Brethren/Mennonite or Baptist Churches, morning day and night. I haven't been regularly ... if at all... since I went into Law Enforcement. The reason was because I didn't like the back-biting, hypocrisy, and Holier than thou attitudes, so you telling me how much there is in Christian churches is not news to me.

I did read a few pages out of a photocopied "Kloran", from a child sexual assult case one time, just to see the idiocy of those people. Does that count?

Or maybe I can just watch a movie?


(BTW I also believe that Obama is a Muslim based on the 3rd point and his actions thus far in Office)

Ib9rofXQl6w

One more:

http://i36.tinypic.com/2mdgcj5.jpg

One more:

http://i36.tinypic.com/2mdgcj5.jpg

That's a great one, Creeker! Thanks for bringin' some frickin levity to this thread. :)

One more:

http://i36.tinypic.com/2mdgcj5.jpg

Now that, we agree on!

And we all know that 60 Minutes is a virtual pillar of unbiased reporting and would never skew nor cherry pick interviewees to create sensationalism just so they sell soap.....
Did you actually see the interview or just speculating about your opinion of how 60 minutes in general is run? Because there is a huge difference and if you saw the interview, you would understand the point being made rather than try to make it about something else.

While most of 60 minutes crap is biased, every once in a while they get it right. And in this case, had you seen the interview, you would have seen the liberal POS reporter in utter shock on what these prominent Muslims students were saying, so much so the point she could not even sympathize or realte. Pretty amazing considering you usually can't shut a liberal up let alone shock them.



And every Christian I've talked to is certainly tolerant. Unless you're not a Christian and/or homosexual or pro choice.
Again missed the point:
Christain teachings/pillars are tolerant and peaceful, but there are a few radicals running around doing harm who are frequently chastized by the church and others as being wrong. Is the church out hanging homosexuals? No! Is the church out bombing abortion clinics? No! That is tolerance. The church has their beliefs but do not encourage violenece or death to those who disagree. When a radical Christain does something, the church will say these are not our teachings, we do not condone this behavior nor support it, and it is wrong.

Islam teachings/pillar are NOT tolerant/peaceful, and actually are quite violent and non-accepting, with MANY running around acting on them (Muslims) and many who watch without condemning it (Mu'min).


I can post all the bombings on abortion clinics since 1992 and the abortion doctors murdered. It's a pretty long list too. And guess who did those? It wasn't Islamic terrorists.....
RDS, you hit your head? You actually are goign to compare abortion clicnic violence with terroist attacks which have killed thousands of Americans?

Look at the list of the attacks above....THOUSANDS of American died at the hands of hundreds of Muslims as a result of their religion. Comapre that to the statistics of abortion clinic violence you talk of. Since 1977, the MULTIPLE religions of Christianty have in total, murdered 10 people! Yes TEN people. Not that long of a list when you compare it to the list on Flight 93, or on the USS Cole. Thousands dead from one religious sect versus ten dead from several religious sects of Christainity.


It's the people who take old, archaic teachings literally, whether they are out of the Bible or the Q'uran that pose a threat to us.
I agree. But the problem is every other religions leadership has realized the teachings must have some modification to fit today and done so. But if you talk to Imans and Muslim leadership, they will tell you Islam DOES NOT need any modification and you must follow it as it is. So how do you get the leadership of Islam to change their view?


The Old Testament does. And it's quoted by frequently by people who stand up violently against homosexuality.
Lets not get confused by people saying thingsWhere in the bible does it condone beating a homosexual? If you are referring to "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (NKJ, Leviticus 20:13)" then the passage is being misrepresented as at the time. The Old Testament was the LAW at the time for Christains. It was giving the death penalty for what was considered a crime. And anyone who read the entire Old Testament woudl know they also gave the same penalty for many other things, such as murder, cursing a parent, kidnapping, failure to confine a dangerous animal resulting in death, witchcraft and sorcery, sex with an animal, doing work on the Sabbath, incest, adultery, blasphemy, false prophecy, perjury in capital cases, etc...

And, it was REVERSED in the New testament came out after the old, which made it clear that punishment was secondary to Jesus' message of repentance and redemption; and that punishment takes place in eternity, not in life.


Anyone can spin anything to what they want. Statistics can say A or Z. But you have to put it back in context and examine it again. The Bible in whole (Old & New Testament) preached peace and tolerance. The Qur'an as a whole is the complete opposite.

It appears your childhood pastor/priest really influenced your beliefs of what Christianity is about. That was one mans view. You can still be a good Christain and be tolerant of homosexuals, pro-choice and have sex before marriage. There is more to it than that.

Let's go back to "Christianity is a peaceful religion". You think these were done by Islamic terrorists?

Yes, Jesus turned around a lot of the stuff in the Old Testament, but a significant number of nutcase Christians still hold to it. And these acts I listed weren't done by main stream Christians anymore than 9-11 was done by main stream Muslims. But they still used tenets of their religion as the reason. As I keep trying to point out, most people in the world are only trying to hack out a living. And Muslims live in some of the worst places in the world.

Sometimes 60 Minutes say things that you agree with. That doesn't mean it's unbiased or totally correct.

And no, no one hit me on the head. Yeah, many more people were killed by 9-11 and I'm not minimizing the WTC, but the whole idea of killing and using violence in the name of God is still the same. You can't grasp the concept that it's a mindset of people of ANY religion that take it to the extreme and have no use for human life?

Good grief, Joe. I'm not defending any terrorists. But what are you advocating? Let's go out and kill all Muslims because their religion is a threat to the rest of us?

Abortion clinic bombings

12/2007 New Mexico ARSON Chad Altman and Sergio Baca pled guilty to conspiracy to commit arson and are awaiting sentencing.
5/2007 Virginia ARSON Remains open
7/2005 Florida ARSON Remains open
1/2005 Washington ARSON $500,000 Remains open
7/2004 Florida ARSON Remain open
1/2004 Florida ARSON Remains open
9/2003 Indiana ARSON $2,000 Remains open
5/2003 Florida ARSON Remains open
1/2003 Illinois ARSON Remains open
6/2002 Texas ARSON Remains open
6/2001 Washington BOMB $6,000 Remains open
6/2001 Washington ARSON Remains open
4/2001 Kentucky ARSON Remains open
5/2000 New Hampshire ARSON $20,000 Remains open
4/2000 Kentucky ARSON Remains open
4/2000 Florida ARSON $2-3,000 Remains open
8/1999 New Hampshire ARSON Approx. $20,000 Remains open
7/1999 California ARSON Minimal damage to the clinic. Approx $100,000 damage to the building housing the clinic. Benjamin Matthew Williams and James Tyler Williams pled guilty and were sentenced to 21-30 years in jail for this fire and three synagogue arsons.
5/1999 New Mexico ARSON $5,000 Ricky Lee McDonald pleaded guilty and was sentenced to five years in jail.
4/1999 Wisconsin ARSON $500 Remains open
3/1999 South Dakota ARSON Minimal Martin Uphoff was convicted of using explosives during a felony, and vandalism to a facility providing health care services (a FACE charge). Uphoff was sentenced to 60 months for the felony and 6 months for the FACE charge, to be served concurrently.
3/1999 New Mexico ARSON $3,000 Ricky Lee McDonald pleaded guilty and was sentenced to five years in jail.
3/1999 Wisconsin ARSON Minimal Peter Quinn, 17 admitted to this arson. He is being charged in state court as an adult.
3/1999 North Carolina BOMB Minimal Remains open
3/1999 Wisconsin ARSON $1,000 Peter Quinn, 17 admitted to this arson. He is being charged in state court as an adult.
9/1998 North Carolina ARSON $17,000 Remains open
9/1998 North Carolina ARSON $7,000 Remains open
9/1998 North Carolina ARSON $200 Remains open
3/1998 California ARSON $5,000 Remains open
12/1997 New York ARSON Minimal Remains open
10/1997 Oregon ARSON $5,000 Remains open
8/1997 Alabama ARSON $250,000 Remains open
5/1997 Oregon ARSON $400,000 Remains open
5/1997 Washington ARSON $1,500 Remains open
3/1997 Montana BOMB $2,000 JohnYankowski apprehended at clinic; convicted and sentenced to 5 years in prison.
3/1997 California BOMB $1,000 Container of flammable liquid thrown through the window.
3/1997 California ARSON Unknown Peter Howard, a local activist, put 13 gas cans and 3 propane tanks in his truck and drove it thru the clinic door. He was caught on the scene, pled guilty and was sentenced to 15 yrs in prison and fined $16, 320.87 for damages and restitution.
3/1997 Iowa BOMB Unknown Remains open
3/1997 North Carolina BOMB $50,000 Remains open
2/1997 Virginia ARSON $25,000 James Anthony Mitchell of VA pleaded guilty and was sentenced to ten years in jail in September 1997.
1/1997 Georgia BOMB $90,000+ 2 explosions. Eric Robert Rudolph is serving a life sentence for the bombings at Olympic Park, a gay bar, and two abortion clinics including the Georgia clinic.
1/1997 Oklahoma ARSON $7,000 A juvenile was convicted in this and other arsons and bombings. Name sealed due to age.
1/1997 Oklahoma BOMB $2,500 A juvenile was convicted in this and other arsons and bombings. Name sealed due to age.
11/1996 Missouri ARSON $75,000 A juvenile was convicted in this and other arsons and bombings. Name sealed due to age.
9/1996 Oklahoma BOMB $1,000 A juvenile was convicted in this and other arsons and bombings. Name sealed due to age.
7/1996 Washington BOMB $50,000 Brian Rattigan, Verne Jay Merrell, Charles Barbee and Robert Berry were convicted of conspiring in the bombing of the clinic and a bank robbery.
7/1996 Idaho ARSON $50,000 Remains open
5/1996 Idaho ARSON $400 Remains open
11/1995 Florida ARSON $100 Remains open
11/1995 Florida ARSON $400 Remains open
9/1995 Wyoming ARSON $50,000 In October 1997, Richard Thomas Andrews was indicted for setting three fires to clinics in Redding and Chico.
8/1995 Florida ARSON $100,000 Remains open
8/1995 Florida ARSON $40,000 Remains open
8/1995 Oregon ARSON $200 Remains open
5/1995 Ohio BOMB Minimal Remains open
3/1995 Virginia ARSON under $5,000 Jennifer Spearle and Ryan Clark Martin were convicted.
2/1995 California ARSON $500 Remains open
2/1995 California ARSON $300 Remains open
2/1995 California ARSON $50,000 Remains open
2/1995 California ARSON Minimal Remains open
2/1995 New Mexico ARSON $5,000 Ricky Lee McDonald arrested by Services ATF 2/24/95 and convicted.
2/1995 Virginia ARSON $500 Remains open
2/1995 California ARSON $1,000 Remains open
1/1995 Pennsylvania ARSON unknown Remains open
1/1995 New Mexico ARSON Minimal Ricky Lee McDonald arrested by ATF 2/24/95 and convicted.
12/1994 Kansas ARSON $3,000 Remains open
12/1994 Virginia ARSON $400 Jennifer Spearle and Ryan Clark Martin were convicted.
12/1994 South Dakota ARSON $1,000 Remains open
11/1994 California BOMB Minimal Remains open
10/1994 California ARSON $500 Remains open
10/1994 Montana ARSON $100,000 In October 1997, Richard Thomas Andrews was indicted for setting three fires to clinics in Redding and Chico.
10/1994 California ARSON $35,000 In October 1997, Richard Thomas Andrews was indicted for setting three fires to clinics in Redding and Chico.
10/1994 California ARSON $3,000 In October 1997, Richard Thomas Andrews was indicted for setting three fires to clinics in Redding and Chico.
8/1994 Minnesota ARSON $373,000 Remains open
8/1994 Ohio ARSON $100 Remains open
7/1994 Virginia ARSON $10,000 Remains open
12/1993 New York ARSON $150 Janet Smith was arrested for throwing two molotov cocktails.
11/1993 Pennsylvania ARSON $500 Remains open
10/1993 Texas ARSON $20,000 On 3/14/94, Joshua Graff pled guilty & was sentenced to 39 months in prison.
9/1993 Pennsylvania ARSON $130,000 Remains open
9/1993 Illinois ARSON $7,500 Remains open
9/1993 California ARSON $1.4 million Remains open
9/1993 California BOMB $1,000 Remains open
8/1993 Florida ARSON $500,000 Remains open
5/1993 Idaho ARSON $100,000 In October 1997, Richard Thomas Andrews was indicted for setting three fires to clinics in Redding and Chico.
5/1993 Oregon ARSON $5,000 Remains open
3/1993 Montana ARSON $100,000 In October 1997, Richard Thomas Andrews was indicted for setting three fires to clinics in Redding and Chico.
2/1993 Florida ARSON $70,000 Remains open
2/1993 Texas ARSON $625,000 Remains open
12/1992 California ARSON $50,000 Remains open
11/1992 California ARSON $175,000 Rachelle Shannon pled guilty on 6/7/95 to 6 arson incidents and 2 acid incidents. Shannon was convicted of attempted murder of Dr. Tiller of Wichita, KS.
11/1992 Illinois ARSON $2,500 Remains open
9/1992 New Mexico ARSON $500 Remains open
9/1992 Virginia ARSON $25,000 Remains open
9/1992 Oregon ARSON $1,000+ Rachelle Shannon pled guilty on 6/7/95 to 6 arson incidents and 2 acid incidents. Shannon was convicted of attempted murder of Dr. Tiller of Wichita, KS.
9/1992 Nevada ARSON $600 Michael Andrew Fix was arrested on 9/28/92 by NV State Police. He was convicted in state court and sentenced to 2 years in prison.
9/1992 Nevada ARSON $5,000 Michael Andrew Fix was arrested on 9/28/92 by NV State Police. He was convicted in state court and sentenced to 2 years in prison
8/1992 Nevada ARSON Minimal Michael Andrew Fix was arrested on 9/28/92 by NV State Police. He was convicted in state court and sentenced to 2 years in prison.
8/1992 Oregon ARSON $2,500 Rachelle Shannon pled guilty on 6/7/95 to 6 arson incidents and 2 acid incidents. Shannon was convicted of attempted murder of Dr. Tiller of Wichita, KS.
8/1992 California ARSON $5,000 Rachelle Shannon pled guilty on 6/7/95 to 6 arson incidents and 2 acid incidents. Shannon was convicted of attempted murder of Dr. Tiller of Wichita, KS.
7/1992 California ARSON $9,000 Remains open
6/1992 California ARSON $70,000 In October 1997, Richard Thomas Andrews was indicted for setting three fires to clinics in Redding and Chico.
5/1992 Toronto ARSON Remains open
3/1992 North Dakota ARSON $2,000 Remains open
3/1992 Oregon ARSON $225,000 Rachelle Shannon pled guilty on 6/7/95 to 6 arson incidents and 2 acid incidents. Shannon was convicted of attempted murder of Dr. Tiller of Wichita, KS.
3/1992 Ohio ARSON $1,000 Remains open
1/1992 Texas ARSON $300,000 Remains open
1/1992 Montana ARSON $75,000 Attributed to Richard Andrews though he was not charged due to statute of limitations.
11/1991 Florida ARSON Minimal Remains open
8/1991 North Carolina ARSON $50,000 Remains open
5/1991 Alabama ARSON $80,000 Remains open
3/1991 New Jersey ARSON $500,000 Alan Weiselberg pled guilty to insurance and mail fraud. It was a prosecutorial decision not to prosecute on the arson charges.
3/1991 North Carolina ARSON Minimal Robert Hugh Farley arrested 3/91. Committed to mental institution.
3/1991 North Carolina ARSON $100,000 Robert Hugh Farley arrested 3/91. Committed to mental institution.
2/1991 Ohio ARSON $250,000 Remains open
2/1991 Arizona ARSON $300 Remains open
2/1991 Ohio BOMB $10,000 Remains open
11/1990 Indiana ARSON $10,000 Closed - statute of limitations.
9/1990 Massachusetts ARSON Minimal Closed - statute of limitations.
9/1990 California ARSON $50,000 David Brian Martin arrested for burglary; authorities ruled case not abortion-related.
8/1990 Washington BOMB $400 Closed - statute of limitations.
7/1990 California ARSON Minimal Closed - statute of limitations.
7/1990 California ARSON $30,000 Closed - statute of limitations.
5/1990 Oregon ARSON $15,000 Daniel J. Carver indicted by state 6/1/90. Apprehended and pled guilty. Sentenced to three years in prison.
5/1990 New York ARSON Minimal Shari DiNicola, arrested 5/28/90. Self-committed to mental institution. State will not prosecute
3/1990 Arizona ARSON Minimal Closed - statute of limitations.
12/1989 Missouri ARSON $100,000 Two juveniles arrested on state juvenile charges for vandalism.
10/1989 New Jersey ARSON Minimal Marjorie Reed pled guilty to this and multiple other arson charges in 1992.
9/1989 Michigan BOMB $300 Closed - statute of limitations.
9/1989 Pennsylvania ARSON $5,000 Closed - statute of limitations.
7/1989 New Hampshire ARSON $1,000 Closed - statute of limitations.
3/1989 Florida ARSON $50,000 Closed - statute of limitations.
3/1989 Tennessee ARSON $12,000 Closed - statute of limitations.
3/1989 Florida ARSON $60,000 Closed - statute of limitations.
3/1989 Florida ARSON $50,000 Closed - statute of limitations.
12/1988 Texas ARSON $25,000 Closed - statute of limitations.
12/1988 Texas ARSON $2,000 Closed - statute of limitations.
12/1988 Texas ARSON $65,000 Closed - statute of limitations.
10/1988 California ARSON $50,000 Shannon Taylor convicted in state and sentenced to 8 years in prison.
6/1988 California ARSON Minimal Shannon Taylor convicted and sentenced to 8 years in prison.
12/1987 Alabama ARSON Minimal Closed - statute of limitations.
10/1987 Minnesota ARSON Minimal Closed - statute of limitations.
9/1987 Minnesota ARSON Minimal Closed - statute of limitations.
9/1987 Minnesota ARSON $5,000 Closed - statute of limitations.
9/1987 Minnesota ARSON Minimal Closed - statute of limitations.
8/1987 North Dakota ARSON $500 Scott Garman pled guilty. Sentenced to 2 months in prison, 2 years probation, and $215 fine. A juvenile was tried in state court and sentenced to two years deferred sentence and 100 hours community service.
7/1987 California BOMB Minimal Dorman Owens, Joanne Kreipel, Cheryl Sullinger, Randy Sullinger, Chris Harmon, Robin Harmon and Erick Svelmoe were convicted of conspiracy and were given sentences ranging from 149 days to five years.
6/1987 Ohio ARSON $1,000 Marjorie Reed pled guilty to this and multiple other arson charges in 1992. She served 5 years and was released in September 1997.
3/1987 Ohio ARSON $1,000 Marjorie Reed pled guilty to this and multiple other arson charges in 1992. She served 5 years and was released in September 1997.
1/1987 Minnesota ARSON $1,500 Mark J. Bundlie confessed to arson. Committed indefinitely to state institution.
1/1987 Illinois ARSON Minimal David Holman pled guilty. Received 18 months imprisonment and 3 years probation.
12/1986 California ARSON $35,000 Frederick Gordan Tipps arrested. Pled guilty to arson to cover burglary.
12/1986 New York BOMB Minimal In connection with this and other New York bombings, Dennis John Malvasi pled guilty to 3 counts & received five years in prison; Carl Cenera pled guilty and received three years in prison; Frank Wright, Jr., pled guilty and received two years in prison.
12/1986 Michigan ARSON $750,000 Closed - statute of limitations.
12/1986 Illinois ARSON Minimal David Holman pled guilty. Received 18 months imprisonment and 3 years probation.
11/1986 Illinois ARSON Minimal David Holman pled guilty. Received 18 months imprisonment and 3 years probation.
10/1986 New York BOMB $10,000 In connection with this and other New York bombings, Dennis John Malvasi pled guilty to 3 counts & received five years in prison; CarlCenera pled guilty and received three years in prison; Frank Wright, Jr., pled guilty and received two years in prison.
6/1986 Missouri ARSON $100,000 Closed - statute of limitations.
6/1986 Kansas BOMB $100,000 Closed - statute of limitations.
5/1986 Ohio ARSON $200,000 Marjorie Reed pled guilty to this and multiple other arson charges in 1992. She served 5 years in prison and was released in September 1997.
12/1985 Ohio ARSON $75,000+ John Brockhoeft pled guilty to one count arson in connection with multiple cases. Sentenced to 7 years in prison. Released in 1995.
12/1985 Ohio ARSON $35,000 John Brockhoeft pled guilty to one count arson in connection with multiple cases. Sentenced to 7 years in prison. Released in 1995.
12/1985 New York BOMB Minimal In connection with this and other NY bombings, Dennis John Malvasi pled guilty to 3 counts and received 5 years in prison; Carl Cenera pled guilty and received 3 years in prison; Frank Wright, Jr., pled guilty and received 2 years in prison. Donald C. pryor, Jr. pled guilty but died before sentencing.
12/1985 Ohio ARSON $20,000 Marjorie Reed pled guilty to this and multiple other arson charges in 1992. She served 5 years in prison and was released in September 1997.
10/1985 Louisiana ARSON $20,000 Brent Paul Braud, Derrick James Jarreau, John David Newchurch, and Charles Albert Cheshire Jr. each pled guilty to one count. Braud and Jarreau were sentenced to 2 years in prison and a $50 special assessment Newchurch was sentenced to 5 years, subject to review after a psychiatric exam.
10/1985 Louisiana ARSON $300,000 Brent Paul Braud, Derrick James Jarreau, John David Newchurch, and Charles Albert Cheshire Jr. each pled guilty to one count. Braud and Jarreau were sentenced to 2 years in prison and a $50 special assessment. Newchurch was sentenced to 5 years, subject to review after a psychiatric exam. Cheshire was sentenced to 5 years and ordered to pay $314,000 in restitution.
10/1985 North Carolina ARSON $75,000 Closed - statute of limitations.
3/1985 California ARSON $10,000 Shane Cameron arrested. Convicted on unrelated arson charges.
2/1985 Texas ARSON $1,500,000 Closed - statute of limitations.
1/1985 Washington, DC BOMB $100,000+ Kenneth Shields and Thomas Spinks.
12/1984 Florida BOMB $100,000+ Matthew Goldsby and James Simmons convicted in U.S. District Court; sentenced to 10 years in prison and $353,073.66 in fines. (Assessed only $350). Kathren Simmons and Kaye Wiggins convicted for conspiracy, received 5 years probation and $2,000 in fines. (Assessed only $50).
12/1984 Florida BOMB $225,000+ Matthew Goldsby and James Simmons convicted in U.S. District Court; sentenced to 10 years in prison and $353,073.66 in fines. (Assessed only $350). Kathren Simmons and Kaye Wiggins convicted for conspiracy, received 5 years probation and $2,000 in fines. (Assessed only $50).
12/1984 Florida BOMB $100,000+ Matthew Goldsby and James Simmons convicted in U.S. District Court; sentenced to 10 years in prison and $353,073.66 in fines. (Assessed only $350). Kathren Simmons and Kaye Wiggins convicted for conspiracy, received 5 years probation and $2,000 in fines.
12/1984 Maryland BOMB $150,000 Kenneth Shields and Thomas Spinks pled guilty to conspiracy in connection with this and 9 other cases. Shields received 15 years and was ordered to pay $55,000 in restitution. Michael Bray entered Alford plea, in which the defendant does not admit guilt but acknowledges he would be found guilty if tried, and was sentenced to six years.
11/1984 Maryland BOMB $300,000 Kenneth Shields and Thomas Spinks pled guilty to conspiracy in connection with this and 9 other cases. Shields received 15 years and was ordered to pay $55,000 in restitution.
11/1984 Washington, DC BOMB Minimal Kenneth Shields and Thomas Spinks pled guilty to conspiracy in connection with this and 9 other cases. Shields received 15 years and was ordered to pay $55,000 in restitution. Michael Bray entered Alford plea, in which the defendant does not admit guilt but acknowledges he would be found guilty if tried, and was sentenced to six years.
11/1984 Maryland BOMB $50,000 Kenneth Shields and Thomas Spinks pled guilty to conspiracy in connection with this and 9 other cases. Shields received 15 years and was ordered to pay $55,000 in restitution.
11/1984 Texas ARSON $400,000 Closed - statute of limitations.
9/1984 Georgia ARSON $8,000+ Closed - statute of limitations.
9/1984 California ARSON $125,000+ Closed - statute of limitations.
9/1984 Georgia ARSON $5,000 Closed - statute of limitations.
9/1984 Texas ARSON Minimal Closed - statute of limitations.
9/1984 Texas ARSON Minimal Closed - statute of limitations.
9/1984 Texas ARSON $90,000 Closed - statute of limitations.
9/1984 Texas ARSON $10,000 Closed - statute of limitations.
8/1984 Texas ARSON $30,000 Closed - statute of limitations.
7/1984 Maryland BOMB $50,000+ Kenneth Shields and Thomas Spinks pled guilty to conspiracy in connection with this and 9 other cases. Shields received 15 years and was ordered to pay $55,000 in restitution.
7/1984 Washington, DC BOMB $40,000 Kenneth Shields & Thomas Spinks pled guilty to conspiracy in connection with this and 9 other cases. Shields received 15 years and was ordered to pay $55,000 in restitution.
6/1984 Florida BOMB $200,000 Matthew Goldsby and James Simmons were arrested. U.S. Attorney declined to prosecute because of changes in insanity law. Both men and their girlfriends were prosecuted and convicted in district court. See 12/84 Florida cases.
5/1984 Oregon ARSON $1,000 Closed - statute of limitations.
3/1984 Washington ARSON $55,000 Curtis Beseda convicted in U.S. District Court; received two consecutive 10-year terms, 5 years probation, and ordered to pay $295,000 in restitution.
3/1984 Washington ARSON $10,000 Curtis Beseda convicted in U.S. District Court; received two consecutive 10-year terms, 5 years probation, and ordered to pay $295,000 in restitution.
3/1984 Washington ARSON $70,000 Curtis Beseda convicted in U.S. District Court; received two consecutive 10-year terms, 5 years probation, and ordered to pay $295,000 in restitution.
2/1984 Maryland ARSON $100,000 Kenneth Shields & Thomas Spinks pled guilty to conspiracy in connection with this and 9 other cases. Shields received 15 years and $55,000 in restitution. Michael Bray entered Alford plea, in which the defendant does not admit guilt but acknowledges he would be found guilty if tried, and was sentenced to six years.
2/1984 Virginia ARSON $1,000 Kenneth Shields & Thomas Spinks pled guilty to conspiracy in connection with this and 9 other cases. Shields received 15 years and $55,000 in restitution. Michael Bray entered Alford plea, in which the defendant does not admit guilt but acknowledges he would be found guilty if tried, and was sentenced to six years.
1/1984 Delaware ARSON $100,000 Kenneth Shields & Thomas Spinks pled guilty to conspiracy in connection with this and 9 other cases. Shields received 15 years and $55,000 in restitution. Michael Bray entered Alford plea, in which the defendant does not admit guilt but acknowledges he would be found guilty if tried, and was sentenced to six years.
12/1983 Washington ARSON $45,000 Curtis Beseda convicted in U.S. District Court; received two consecutive 10-year terms, 5 years probation, and ordered to pay $295,000 in restitution.
5/1983 Virginia ARSON $250,000 Joseph Grace convicted in state court. Regarding this and other arson charges, he was sentenced to 10-20 years in Virginia state prison. Scheduled for release: April, 1999.
10/1982 New Jersey ARSON $100,000+ Closed - statute of limitations.
6/1982 Virginia BOMB $18,000 Don Benny Anderson & Matthew Moore convicted in state court. Both pled guilty and received 30 years, to be served consecutively with 30-year sentence received by Anderson, Matthew Moore and brother Wayne Moore for kidnapping of Illinois physician and his wife.
5/1982 Florida ARSON $340,000 Don Benny Anderson & Matthew Moore convicted in state court. Both pled guilty and received 30 years, to be served consecutively with 30-year sentence received by Anderson, Matthew Moore and brother Wayne Moore for kidnapping of Illinois physician and his wife.
5/1982 Florida ARSON $122,000 Don Benny Anderson & Matthew Moore convicted in state court. Both pled guilty and received 30 years, to be served consecutively with 30-year sentence received by Anderson, Matthew Moore and brother Wayne Moore for kidnapping of Illinois physician and his wife.
1/1982 Illinois ARSON $100,000+ Closed - statute of limitations.
4/1981 Michigan ARSON $30,000 Closed - statute of limitations.
2/1979 New York ARSON $100,000+ Peter Burkin entered clinic during working hours, set it on fire and injured himself, risking staff & patients' lives. Acquitted of attempted murder and arson; found not guilty by reason of insanity on charges of arson and reckless endangerment.
6/1978 Iowa BOMB Unknown Closed - statute of limitations.
6/1978 Ohio BOMB Unknown Closed - statute of limitations.
5/1978 Vermont BOMB Unknown Closed - statute of limitations.
2/1978 Ohio ARSON Unknown Closed - statute of limitations.
2/1978 Ohio BOMB $3,000 Closed - statute of limitations.
2/1978 Ohio ARSON $200,000 Closed - statute of limitations.
2/1978 Ohio ARSON $100,000+ Closed - statue of limitations. (Man entered clinic, blinded a technician by throwing chemicals, and set center on fire, destroying it. Clinic was full of patients at the time; they escaped without injury).
11/1977 Ohio ARSON $4,000 Closed - statute of limitations.
8/1977 Nebraska ARSON $35,000 Closed - statute of limitations.
5/1977 Vermont ARSON $100,000+ Closed - statute of limitations.
2/1977 Minnesota ARSON $250,000 Closed - statute of limitations.
3/1976 Oregon ARSON $19,000 Joseph C. Stockett was convicted and served two years.

Murders of abortion doctors:


5/2009 Kansas Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed in his church in Wichita, Kansas. Anti-abortion extremist Scott Roeder confessed to the murder and was found guilty of first-degree murder and two counts of aggravated assault and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole in 50 years.
10/1998 New York Dr. Barnett Slepian was shot and killed in his home in Amherst, New York. James Kopp was convicted of second-degree murder in state court and received the maximum sentence of twenty-five years to life in prison. He was also convicted and sentenced to life on federal charges of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.
1/1998 Alabama Officer Robert Sanderson was killed during a clinic bombing in Birmingham, AL. Emily Lyons, a nurse at the clinic was severely injured in the blast. Eric Robert Rudolph pled guilty and is serving a life sentence for the bombings at Olympic Park, a gay bar, and two abortion clinics including the Birmingham clinic.
11/1997 Manitoba Dr. Jack Fainman was shot and injured in his home in Winnipeg, Manitoba. James Kopp is a suspect in the shooting.
10/1997 New York An unnamed physician was shot at in his home in Rochester, New York. James Kopp is a suspect in the shooting.
11/1995 Ontario Dr. Hugh Short was shot and injured in his home in Ancaster, Ontario. James Kopp has been charged with attempted murder in the shooting.
12/1994 Massachusetts Shannon Lowney and Leanne Nichols were shot and killed by John Salvi at two clinics in Brookline, Massachusetts. Five others were injured in the attacks. Salvi was sentenced to two life terms but committed suicide in prison in November 1996
11/1994 Vancouver Dr. Garson Romalis was shot and seriously wounded in his home in Vancouver, British Columbia. James Kopp is a suspect in the shooting.
7/1994 Florida Dr. John Bayard Britton and his escort, James H. Barrett were shot and killed in front of a clinic in Pensacola, Florida by Paul J. Hill. June Barrett was also shot and injured in the incident. Hill was executed by lethal injection on September 3, 2003.
8/1993 Kansas Dr. George Tiller was shot and injured by Rachelle Shannon at his clinic in Wichita, Kansas. Shannon is serving an 11-year sentence for attempted first-degree murder. She is serving additional prison time for six arsons and two butyric acid attacks
3/1993 Florida Dr. David Gunn was shot to death by Michael Griffin in Pensacola, Florida. Griffin is serving a life sentence for murder

I spent my last three years working hate crimes. I can report to you that a lot of "Christians" who beat the crap out of gay people didn't do it out of love. But they quoted Bible verses to me as to why they did it.

I can respect that. But again, if you'll refer to my posts, I mentioned that a religion should not be judged by its adherents but by its tenets--and the intepretation must be done properly. And it's really not that hard, considering most Bibles contain commentaries/footnotes that provide popular interpretation expressed by biblical scholars. However, hermeneutics is not identical across the board. The Bible is composed of numerous genres that each serve their own purpose (allegorical, historical, instructional, etc.). The Old Testament, for example, contains predominantly historical narratives, Law, wisdom writings, psalms/poetry, and prophetic/apocalyptic books. Each are to be interpreted within their historical and literary context; what one defers from the psalms (general observations about life rather than instruction or consistently universal truths) will not be the same message that can be extracted from historical narratives (which simply tell a story in which God's nature or even a moral can be revealed). The Qur'an is an entirely different breed, and thus the same hermeneutical principles that apply to, say, the Old Testament wisdom writings or the New Testament epistles are entirely different. The Qur'an is largely composed of instruction and doctrine for its believers; unlike the Bible, the Qur'an does not distinguish between universal instruction and the instruction that was specific to those living in the first century. This is all information that's readily available across the web, in libraries, etc.


I'll give you two - just off the top of my head:

ME,

and:

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/5209167/Little+Richard+beztytuu.jpg

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

:biggrinjester:

Oh dang, that's enough to make my whole argument fall apart... :biggrin5:


I'm a Christian and I'm proud of it. But I don't buy everything "man" says to me about God. God speaks to me through my conscience and when I listen to Him, my life goes pretty well. When I let my head take over, it doesn't go so good. But I grew up listening to some man standing on a podium telling me that if I didn't follow the Bible to the letter, I was going to Hell. I was less than 12 years old and knew that there was no way I could live my life so perfectly so I assumed that I was Hell bound, literally.

I left that church as soon as I was old enough to make my choice and now attend a church who preaches God's grace and tolerance of others. To tolerate someone doesn't mean I have to live their lifestyle, but it's not my place to say they're going to Hell or anywhere else.

You're right; it's not humanely possible to follow the Bible to a T in order to get to Heaven. If that were the case, there would have been no need for Christ's death/resurrection. However, it is the obligation of the Christian to strive to be Christ-like...people will ALWAYS slip up along the way because it's human nature--even the Bible acknowledges that. I'm sorry you had to sit through false doctrine/fire-and-brimstone teachings, but that preacher is not representative of Christianity. There are many sects, each with differing doctrinal beliefs; some sects, when abandoning proper hermeneutics, even begin to become cult-like. Sick individuals or even those who are simply fed the wrong information (or delve into incorrect interpretation themselves) may do some atrocious things in the name of Christianity. But the point is, the meaning of the text does not the condone or encourage acts of terrorism. But if the debate is going to revolve around "people exploit religions to perpetuate acts of violence," then there's no point in arguing because that statement is entirely true. But that "Christianity/the Bible instructs its adherents to commit heinous acts against nonbelievers/immoral individuals" is severely erroneous and irresponsible to maintain.

No, I don't know the Bible inside out; but I make a point of studying it on a consistent basis so that I don't walk blindly in faith. I'm a skeptic at heart--I constantly question my beliefs which consequently keeps me in check with reality, even going as far as to strengthen my faith. I haven't been on this earth long, but I've had a few stumbling blocks thrown in my path including self-proclaimed Christians who committed grotesque acts or who manipulated the Bible to fit their desires, some of which are way too private and painful to delve into specifically. However, the acts never led back to Christianity but always to the individual(s) in question.

OK...I promise I'll be quiet, at least for a while! :biggrin5:

I thought I would chime in with my opinion on the location of the mosque in NY. I don't think it's an appropriate location for it BUT, ALL religions have a right in this country to believe and worship whatever it is that - that group or person chooses to worship. If it gets built there then well, it gets built there. I won't be happy with it because of the affiliation the islam faith had with 9/11 but I'm not going to condemn the people that are going to worship there at that specific mosque. That's not really fair to them. I'm not the one that's supposed to judge them anyway so why should I be a loud mouth about it? The group of men that initiated and carried out 9/11 were Islam EXTREMISTS. Every religion has them and every religion has to deal with them. It's all a matter of interpretation for each religion. Such as mine. I'm a Christian and it says in the Bible that "any man that lies with a man is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord." The passage is referring to homosexuality. Now, does that mean I get to snuff off every gay person that crosses my path and give them the stink eye or even worse? A person could interpret it that way but that's not what God is saying there. He's saying "any man that lies with a man". He's talking about the ACT of homosexuality, not the person as a whole. God loves every single one of us no matter who we are. Yes, there are things that we can do that will upset God but if repentence follows the act of the sin then God will always forgive us.

In the end if I was put on the spot in front of a camera on national TV and asked what I thought about this I would STILL say exactly what I said at the beginning of this post. Everybody has a right to believe what they want and where they want in this country but I just think the specific location of this mosque is a little inappropriate considering the circumstances.

Bringing back an oldish thread. But I have a friend I went to HS with that stayed in the Chicago area. He's done pretty well for himself ended up going to Harvard law. So of course he's a lawyer in Chicago, what's that tell you? Yep very liberal.

The other day he posted some story about this on facebook and one of his coworkers was like, any one who opposes this is a racist and it violates the 1st amendment. To my amazement a whole bunch of people jumped in and agreed with him. I must admit the whole thing left me speechless and so PO'ed I couldn't see straight. By the time I got my blood pressure back under control I decided I wasn't going to post on that topic or my head was probably going to explode.

The other day he posted some story about this on facebook and one of his coworkers was like, any one who opposes this is a racist and it violates the 1st amendment.

The funny thing regarding the 1st Amendment? They have a constitutional right to want to build it and the rest of us have a constitutional right to protest it. How libs see this as violating the 1st is typical liberal hypocricy.

I'll admit that I did not read all responses to this thread. But these problems (probably poor word choice) are the main reason I dropped out of religion in the first place. I know nothing about any religion other than the one I was formerly in. I saw the hipocrasy in the way it was run and I hear the same of other religions. I don't want to generalize all religions together, that's not my point. But I will say I believe the violence that has been perpetrated by all religions is the result of the radical few who twist the majority. I am not an atheist, agnostic or anything else. I believe in a higher power just not 'your' higher power. As for the issue at hand, I too think the mosque could be placed somewhere else. The wounds of the attack will never fully heal anyway but, it's placement only makes the healing harder and will open it up to violence from the extremists who are on the other side.