Well, when weapons and connections to 9/11 were primary reasons to invade, it's more than a mere fib, and with those branched out numerous lies. Heres a link to the countless lies and several quotes as well.

http://www.bushlies.net/pages/9/

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”
“U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein
had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable
of delivering chemical agents.”
“We have also discovered through intelligence
that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."
"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people
now in custody reveal that
Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida."
"Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
"Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites."
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
"We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

All of these people have affiliations with specific sects of Christianity. Each of those sects has it's onw set of interpretations. There are less than a handful of Christian sects that say we can know when the end of days will arive. None of the men listed are a part of that handful of churches. They are contradicting the stand of their church. If I were still a Lutheran (I was raised Lutheran, as my father was a Lutheran minister), and I were to go on record as a member of the LCMS (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, a specific church body) and say that homosexual ministers or women ministers were alright, the church would have to release a public statement that my opinions don't reflect the stance of the church. Baptists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Episcopals, Methodists, Presbyterians, Seventh Day Adventists, and Apostolics are just a few Christian denominations who do not believe in the predicting of the end of days.

I'm not saying they're right or wrong, but if they are following their faith like good little Christians they'd know that apocolypse predicting is right up there with fortune telling by their own churches admission.

There's a big difference again in motivation. Pat Robertson isn't saying to those who listen to him to kill people in diamond mines in the name of GOD. Robertson is probably just trying to make more money. Bin Laden is telling his followers to kill in the name of religion. Bin Laden wouldn't be a terrorist if his construction holdings (I think that's where his money primarily came from) were exploiting people. Robertson might be a bastard, and he might have religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean his religious beliefs make him a bastard

What you are argueing , intentionally or not, is that Bin Laden's RELIGION made him a bastard. You (and others) are condemning an entire religion based on the actions of a very few.

Too bad all those darkies are crooks. I know that cause one robbed my house.

Call it what you want, looks like bigotry to me.

robertson nodded along while Jerry Falwell said that 9/11 was the fault of the GBLT community.

i'm sorry, but that does make him a bastard for his religious beliefs. he may be my brother in Christ, but he's done his damndest to disown me.

any ideology, religious or not, that allows for the destruction of human life for the expediency of other gains... is a huge problem. Bin Laden has such an ideology, and i'm afraid Robertson, and other fundamentalists have such a worldview as well.

Religion isn't the problem, it's the people. Every religion has its extremists and fundamentalists. Bad apples etc....

I'm curious to know if you think you have some right to be loved by everybody.

If you spend all your time worrying about who doesn't like you, you're going to be miserable and not much fun to be around.

/just sayin...

Robertson also was providing financial support to the minority christian population in Nigeria. Christians control that country, but constitute about a quarter of it's population. The muslims are horribly oppressed both politically and economically.
So, it IS also a religious problem.

And the ONLY difference between our christian nuts and the muslims christian nuts is position.

Falwell has it, Bin Laden doesn't.
Do you really think Osama would be directing planes into buildings if he was a religious leader in the most powerful, influential country in the world?

Do you really think Falwell wouldn't be directing planes into buildings if he lived in a third world country where the most powerful nation in the world (and a muslim one) had military bases in close proximity to Jerry's holy land? And was pushing their muslim culture and values on Jerry's people?

It's all a matter of position. Jerry has it, Osama doesn't.

There's a difference between not liking someone and inciting others to hate a group of people.

You repeat yourself without answering my post.

You didn't ask a question, you simply said WMD's and 9/11 were the only things that were lied about because I stated he's lied so many times, and he has, regarding WMD's and 9/11 which branched out to a bunch of other lies. Read the site and you'll see.

All you've said is that WMD's and 9/11 "branched out" into other lies. It seems to me from what you've posted are simply permutations on those same two items.

What you haven't addressed is the other points that I posted that everyone agrees are true which were also reasons we went to war.

Occams Razor has been effective at predicting future events in the past, with an astonishing amount of power. For whatever reason, it seems to work.

In other words, the existance of the internet, and other tools of technology, is a pretty powerful basis for arguement.

I don't have, or expect any such right. In fact, it is I that has the obligation.

It's quite a challenge, however, when Mr. Robertson has taken it upon himself to direct hateful language at the GBLTQ community.

I don't stay up nights worrying, nor do i resent him personally for this. But i think he will be accountable for inciting homophobia (John 13:34). I should rather hope that he repents of it now, but i cannot force him to do so, i can only ask.

I appriciate your concern about my sociability, but i hardly think that i am being unreasonable or bitter in this matter.

Did you see the title of the thread? This whole thread is started to say that the "Religious Right" poses a threat to the US. The original topic is nothing but condemning an entire religion based on the BELIEFS (not even actions) of a very few.

And the actions of Bin Laden and others are not widely condemned by the muslim community, many parts support them. As was stated earlier, when some christian nut bombs an abortion clinic, the majority of christians will condemn the act and seek the bombers punishment. This is not how things are done in the muslim community, where terrorism is supported.

And how this is bigotry is beyond me. I think YOU might have problem, why would you automatically assume that by muslim I ment arab? There are muslims across the globe contributing to terrorism, it's actually kinda refreshing to see something bring people of so many backgrounds together.

Where did he say he wanted the "destruction of human life"? They might disappove of actions, but there has been no evidence given that Falwell or Robertson have asked their followers to start killing people, nor that they have supported the killing of others in the name of religion.

I refer to the "religious right" in this thread starter, because that is the
mainstream media name for the republican supporters who are presumed to
commit their support because of their religious beliefs. It is not "sect"
specific. "The leaders of the religious right were identified by Time magazine,
and in the articles I posted, not by me. They seem mostly to be Christians
influenced by what they believe is their literate, usually unerring, interpretation of the bible. They seem to have much in common with
Islamic fundamentalists, who differ by choosing to interpret the Quran, instead of the bible. The threat that I see is that Bush & Co are influenced
by the leaders of the religious right, unduly out of proportion to the numbers of U.S. citizens who they seem to represent.

Read the transcript of the 700 club...Falwell clearly attempts to implicate the GLBTQ community, amongst others, in the biggest mass murder in US history. Robertson nods along. They clearly sent the message that GLBTQ people exisiting with in the US was why the attacks were sucessful. What's the only logical conclusion? To prevent terror attacks, we should not have GLBTQ people in our country.

That's a problem.

While there has been much discourse, I haven't really seen the questions proffered in the original post answered outright so for the sake of being a stickler and so I can blow off a little more time at work I'll give my own answers.

1 .Do I believe it? Nope. Don't buy the whole Rapture, Heaven, Christian thing. I grew up a Southern Baptist and by the time I was nine I'd decided if God was the person our minister fire and brimstoned about every Sunday then he wasn't my friend or very smart either. Just couldn't stand up to the scutiny of a nine year old much less an adult.

2. Can you defend it ? If not, is it harmful to the rest of us and to the world's muslims?
No need to defend a view I do not have. Is it harmful? Anytime a group of people are vilified for their beliefs or there is intolerance for different views, cultures, or values we are all harmed and in danger.

3. Do LaHaye and the rest of the Christian Right's mullahs influence Bush significantly and negatively. How can we resist and minimize the potential for damage?
I don't know that the chrisition right is a major influence on Bush. They influence in that he already has these beliefs and he acts as he does due to those beliefes but not because he is pressured by christian leaders. Bush is a man born to power and privilige. He has never had to question his beliefs or have any idea that there is a way to live and believe different than his own. To truly understand that to some people christian beliefs and American style democracy and culture are not desireable is simply beyond him. He doesn't have the capacity for such thinking.
As for resisting and minimizing the damage, half of America is resisting and the other half doesn't understand why we don't just accept that they're right and join in on all the apple pie eating fun! Damage wise, we're screwed. Much of the world thinks us bullies or at the least terribly short sighted and naive. We are trillions of dollars in debt and it will only get worse as we spend more and more on this ill-advised war. Our grandchildren will pay the price for this folly. A religous zealot sent two planes into the twin towers and murdered thousands. Reeling from the shock and thirsting for vengeance America was driven insane. We are a divided and frightened people. We will recover, but it will be a long and difficult road.

That's a far cry than calling for deaths. What if he feels that people should quit behaving in that manner? I would assume that from his perspective it's no different than wanting people to quit being murders, rapists, thieves, embesslers, adulterors, or any other sinful act. He sees gays as sinful, and wants them to quit living in sin, not be killed. There's no problem with that.

would you like to be blamed for 9/11?

would you feel safe if people around you believed you to be responsble for 9/11?

would you have issues with the people who said you were responsble for 9/11?

Of course there is a problem with that. Should we blame 9/11 on jaywalking? No. Just as it cannot be blamed on gay people - for one simple reason: jaywalkers and gay people had no bearing on 9/11 whatsoever.

Anyone who uses their position of power (i.e. their television show) to claim such a thing needs to be called on such nonsense at every turn. And most certainly not defended with "There's no problem with that".

I disagree. People seek comfort in religion in a world that is torn apart by what else but religion...Good people....bad priorities.

Not all instances of religion tear the world apart. I'd estimate that most don't. My mother's practice of Roman Catholicism certainly never has.

The instances that do are the ones that make the 10:00 news.

I thought that what Robertson basically said was that God had forsaken America because we coddled the GBLTQ community, and that we were able to be attacked sucessfully because God had forsaken us. Isn't that correct?

If so, yeah, it's preposterous, it's silly, but it's not accusing the GBLTQ community of being responsible specifically for 9/11. Or did I miss it when he said that one of the planes was hijacked by the "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" cast? ;)

I think you misunderstood me. I was referring to religion as a concept in and of itself is, in general terms, to not be the problem but rather it is the people who are extremist or fundamentalist that take that religion and "do crazy things" in the name of that religion to be the real problem.

I really wouldn't care if people thought I was responsible. I'm already assumed to be responsible for poverty, crime, the lessening of morals, that "damn rap music", and any number of other things.

Having issues with someone is different then them wanting you dead. That is the comparison you were trying to make.

Of course it's nonsense. But spewing nonsense doesn't make someone Bin Laden, nor does having an unpopular opinion. THAT was the comparison-not if Falwell was a fool. I was just calling someone on what I saw as baseless hyperbole.

Bin Laden shouldn't even be mentioned in this conversation. He is a political terrorist. His motives are not founded in religion (despite what American news networks might claim). Osama has never even used the word jihad against America. He could be compared to other political anarchists and terrrorists, but not religious fanatics. Interesting, eh?

The Christian fundamentalists mentioned are responsible for spreading hate, and that is inexcusable. I won't compare it to terrorism yet, but it is certianally a step in that direction. Preaching about God and preaching about hate are two very different things. These men preach about hate fueled by their ignorance and fear.

The threat mentioned deals with the question of Bush's level of compliance with the forementioned christian fundamentalists' teachings (or insane rants, if you will). While I can't say for sure what level of compliance there really is (and no one on this board is really qualified to address that specifically), you have to notice how often God is mentioned not only in general speeches, but in giving reasons for political moves. How often was God mentioned before, during and after the war on Iraq? That's what scares me. If he is relying on what he thinks God is telling him about foreign policy for his decision making, we might as well elect God Himself. Maybe He should run next election. He'd certianally have the evangelical vote. :crazy:

Did you, or did you not say:


Isn't that implying rather strongly that Bin Laden's religion made him a bastard?

To suggest that those that follow Islam are bastards because they do is ludicrous. Or because they don't condemn their extremists as you would like. That is flat out bigotry against a huge % of the worlds population.

I did not title this thread, and I believe Host answered that issue. As for your last paragraph above, I'm not sure what you are suggesting beyond that I have a problem. Not sure how asking about your statements means I have a problem.

But I guess you are clearing up any confusion I might have about things.

Bin Laden is a religious bastard-he uses his religion as an excuse for heinous acts. That is the point I was trying to make.

It isn't "as I would like". Any condemnation would be a start.

My response about the thread title is directed at your comment about broadly brushing people with certain beliefs. You were claiming that it is wrong to condemn an entire religion based on the actions of a few. I was merely wondering why you weren't as aggravated when christians were being stereotyped and judged by the beliefs (not even actions) of their fringe elements.

And you weren't asking anything, you made a bad assumption, a faulty analogy, and tried to call me a bigot. I assumed by your analogy and the term bigot you were thinking I was saying all arabs were terrorists, I was trying to separate the arab people and islamic terrorists. I was also tryign to acknowledge the fact that there are muslim terrorists of all races. My statement about you possibly having a problem was based on my feeling that bigotry is a problem, and your seeming inablility to separate islam and arabs. I was saying maybe because you assume that arabs are instantly muslim, or vice-versa you might have some bigotry.

Then you took your argument too far by claiming there was no problem with it. Clearly there is a problem with it, it might not be a kill-3000-people problem, but it is not something that should ever be dismissed.

Maybe those were the wrong words, ill admit my phrasing could have been better. IFalwell's words shouldn't be ignored, but to compare Falwells comments to Bin Laden's actions is silly. They aren't on the same scale.

sounds about fair.

Bin Laden can only dream of undermining the rule of law and the rights of
individuals as we enjoyed them in pre-9/11 America, compared to Falwell's
plans to attack America:

i was a bit concerned when i saw the way this thread was framed that it might deteriorate into a kind of "my religion is better then yours" thread and sure enough...the "fundamentalist christianity is better than islam" trend above appeared.

which served, as it usually does in these sorry times, as a pretext for trotting out the kind of uninformed nonsense about islam that seems to circulate out there to motivate folk who support bushworld to hedge themselves round with distorted views of the Other--in this case islam---in ways that are little more than transposed racism.

it seems that if you locate yourself within the context of defending fundamentalist protestant ideology in its recent american variant, then any level of racist idiocy is justified because it becomes intertwined with matters of "faith"--and thereby becomes an arbitrary committment the utility of which is not to be evaluated with reference to any descriptive power.

this type of argument is then an almost perfect example of the matter i have been going back to again and again in arguments with conservatives here--this style of argumentation boxes you in by shifting the premises from description to belief. so it follows that you can make apparently coherent arguments about islam without knowing the first thing about it. because in the end, these arguments are not about a world external to the believers--it is about the ways images of the world are processed in order to buttress a set of (arbitrary) convictions. it is also about how the right is mobilized politically.

you can see it as demonstrating why the right works with and through a horror of substantive critique..because their premises do not and cannot withstand it---from which follows their interest in using truncated arguments of "principle" as wedges to shut down the spaces within which critique can operate...see the thread on tenure and "accountability" at the university level for an example.

Exactly what rights have you personally lost since 9/11?

Osama does belong in this conversation. Jihad is a two way street. I mean doesnt the religious right believe theyll sit next to God when muslims have been annihilated. Isnt that the end of times prophecy of the religious right?

Osama does belong in this conversation...Jihad is a two way street. I mean doesnt the religious right believe theyll sit next to God when muslims have been annihilated. Isnt that the end of times prophecy of the religious right?

I would say he is a bastard terrorist. He uses religion as a tool/excuse/whatever, but that isn't the religions fault. He is a grown ass man, and has personal responsibility for his actions. Your continued linking of religion to the cause is what I see as the problem. It isn't right, and it seems like bigotry to me. Again, not the religion's problem any more than religion is the problem in Ireland. The people that choose to kill/damage other people are the problem.

As I am not in that community, I can't say how they feel with any confidence. I don't read the op ed pages of the Jakarta Post. I apologize for assuming that you aren't intimately familiar with that community. If you are. Otherwise, it seems like the problem you see is that people of that religion arne't communicating in our media apologizing for their extremists.

I'm guessing we aren't apologizing for our extremists in ways they see, either.

I think asking questions in threads is a good thing. I wouldn't object to a thread called "Do Islam's beliefs pose a threat to the US" either. Questions are good.

I also buy Host's explaination of his intent, and written shorthand. Rest assured, I will object when I see someone saying that Catholicism's beliefs make someone a bastard.

Always good to be reminded to be fair tho, thx.

Sorry for my bad writing. Felt like an implied question to me. "how do you mean this". Analogy felt accurate to me, based on my reading of what you wrote. But I'll try to be more clear in the future.

What you seemed to be saying is that Islam makes people bastards. Terrorists are terrorists, to me. Doesn't have anything to do, in primary causes, with arabs OR religion. You seem to think it does. If you think a religion causes terrorism, then I'll try to be more clear when trying to call you a bigot.

Again, not sure how you read that in what I wrote. Seems like self projection, to me. Islam IS separate, but overlapping, to the arab population. And BOTH are separate, but overlapping, to terrorism.

Sorry for the confusion.