Do Religious Right's Beliefs Pose Threat to U.S.?
 

Here we go, folks. Unless you live in the south or
midwest, you may not be aware how accurate this
story is. Huge deluded and intolerant population.

Do you believe it ? Can you defend it ? If not,
is it harmful to the rest of us,
and to the world's muslims? Do LaHaye and the
rest of the Christian Right's mullahs influence
Bush signifigantly and negatively. How can we
resist and minimize the potential for damage?

I once heard a quote.....from which author I do not remember, but it rang very true in my mind:

" More people have lost their lives to religion, than to all forms of disease in recorded history"

I would not purposefully expose myself to Malaria.

Call me any name in the book, but I actually firmly believe a lot of what was discussed at this conference. The author of this article is just as venomous in his hatred for and bias against Christianity, as he claims that the lectures were against everybody else.

The Bible is very clear on many of these issues:

Following the "Rapture" — the supposed moment when Jesus Christ will suddenly appear and all the saved will be "caught up to meet him in the air" — leaving the rest of Earth's billions to plague, pestilence, famine and war, there will be seven years of the "Tribulation."

It's based on Revelation, and other NT books. The imminent return of Jesus Christ will of course be met with skepticism, (veiled fear) by those who hold no stock in it.


How the Christian "God of love" treats those "left behind" makes for lurid reading indeed.

God is also a just, fair God. "Whom the Lord loveth, he chasteneth." The whole "God is love" thing is only one side. It's the side that mainline denominational churches have been preaching for years in an attempt to make religion 'user friendly' again. Those churches have just chosen to omit the parts about God's judgment against sinners because it would not draw the crowds like a good 'feel good' message would.

To sum up the essence of the three speaker's messages all that long Saturday, I have never heard so much venom and dangerous ignorance spouted before an utterly unquestioning, otherwise normal-looking crowd in my life.

Who's labelling who? Who's biased?

There were stunning statements about humans having been only 6,000 years on Earth and other denials of contemporary geology and biology. And we learned that the Rapture, which could happen any second now, but certainly within the next 40 years, will instantly sweep all the "saved" Americans (perhaps one-half the population) to heaven, leaving the United States as "a Third World country" with the European Union becoming the revived Roman Empire.

I firmly believe this myself, as the Bible, specifically the NT (which has been around for 2000 years) has been telling us about this all along.


Applause greeted these words: "Allah and Jehovah are not the same God ... Islam is a Satanic religion ...We will never be able to understand their (Muslim) mentality ... They're going to attack Israel for certain. ..."

This one is a little harder for the "tolerant" generation. But I firmly do believe that God and Allah are NOT the same God. I also believe that Israel will be involved in a major war against Muslim countries in the not too distant future. Politically it makes some sense, you have to admit.

The idea of peace in the Middle East was denounced — specially any accord granting any land whatever to the Palestinians.

The Bible (again, very old, yet verifiably accurate document) says that in the end times governments all over the world will preach one, unified message - peace. Everybody will be looking for peace. Isn't that exactly what everyone is looking for, even now??? Doesn't it make sense? Middle East, Africa, ???

A terrible, final war in the region is inevitable.

How can you not agree with this statement?

I actually think what's destroying the country is the secularists and liberals and their illogical policies and treasonous behavior. Here's proof:

Here's an article discussing a speech that former CO. gov. Dick Lamm gives talking about how to destroy America. Notice any similarities between this and the typical liberal platform?

Compare these troubling issues to the general kindness and generosity of the so-called religious right:

Or this:
I think the evidence is compelling that not only should people move away from dangerous secularism, but work to the same good as the so-called religious right.

Well stated Daoust. I've read all 12 of the Left Behind series, and found them to be an exciting, fascinating look in to what Christians call the end times. While the stories are based on the NT book of Revelation, the writers do acknowledge that their books are works of fiction. When the writer of that article Tom Harpur writes "How the Christian "God of love" treats those "left behind" makes for lurid reading indeed," I would advise you to read the book of Revelation, before making silly assumptions that Tim LaHaye was trying to write a literal interpretation of scripture...

Also, you're going to need a little faith...

If someone stands in front of me and calls me a name, is it not accurate for me to state that the person has just called me a name? Is that my intolerance?

I don't think so.

You probably don't mean that it "makes sense" politically. You probably mean that there is some inevitability of it due to politics. It most certainly does not "make sense" by any measure.

The Bible is not a "verifiably accurate" document.
If everybody is looking for peace why is a "final war" inevitable? Though I suppose if the people in charge of deciding to go to war are also the people that believe it is inevitable, there is certainly a far greater chance that it will take place.

If the Final Days is what I am supposed to have faith in, I would much rather have faith in some form of Utopia. It's all faith anyway, might as well have faith that everyone has a good experience instead of just those who share my faith. Since faith is make believe, I don't see the purpose in making it exclusionary.

fortunatly, i think you over state the influence of LeHay and this crowd on Bush.

Look at the Bob Jones III article again...it's him threatening because he's not getting the payback he wants. Social Security could not matter less to these folks, but that's what Bush wants to do. Evangelic for the election, realist for the second term.

but yes...i tend to agree that pre-millenial dispensationalism (the fancy ass title for what these folks are preaching about rapture) is a dangerous theology. it is dismissed by most of the mainlines, and is a very recent novelty as far as theologies go.

40 years, eh? Does anyone want to give a date by which we can officially call the End of Days thing a load of hooey?

What about 2050? No rapture by then, can we say it's all wrong? What about 2100?

I'll sure be one of the first to say I was wrong if the rapture happens, and deal with the consequences of my choices. Anyone on the 'other' side willing to do the same? I recognize that the rapture would be obvious and clear, and the no rapture isn't so clear.

But surely there is a date where it will be clear?

things like "the rapture" and other such end o the world scenarios are usually best kept vague:
otherwise, you end up with cadres of folk sitting in lawn chairs in a back yard somewhere, outfitted with helmets and mai tais, waiting for the world to end.
then it doesnt, and then there are problems of continuing.
something of ones credibility goes away at that point.
why risk it?

as to the beliefs of the far right evangelical community posing a threat to the rest of us:
it is not obvious what kind of political correlates folk can build from the substance of christian beliefs to a politics. you could think about liberation theology as something of a rosy scenario--emphasizing the dignity of the poor, working to build base communities, generating sophisticated rereadings of gospels, st francis of assisi, etc. then you have the american protestant evangelical movement, and its nasty political expressions....
if the political agenda of these folk were to be adopted without revision or friction, they would indeed be a real danger, in the way that any theological rationale for fascism would be....but i dont think things are going to work out as they would hope. not that i have any faith in the bush administration, but i think that the evangleicals might find that they have been chumped by the karlrove machine, used to mobilize large numbers of folk in old school party machine style--now they want to be paid.

the rosy scenario is that as these folk and their lunatic politics surface, the chances of them expanding gets smaller and smaller--maybe that is the real reason they want to be paid now--this is as good as it will get for them.

they are a real enemy whose work should be opposed in the shorter run: in the longer run, nothing would be worse for them than to have to spell out what they really want.

I disagree. PI is not 3.

Armageddonists have been preaching that the End of Days is within their own lifetime since the day Jesus died. Not one has been right yet.
There was a humongous shitstorm at the end of 666, 777, 999, and other dates that people were able to creatively add up to speciously mean things to them.

Good job by LeHaye of saying "within 40 years" He'll be dead by then and everyone will have forgotten anyway. Calculated so he can keep sowing seeds of fear and hate to those gullible enough to listen to him.

Y'know, there was a homeless guy that used to hang out in the downtown area. He used to proclaim that he was Jesus Christ, and had returned. He got locked away in a mental hospital. Now...given that, I should imagine, Jesus Christ, being who he was and all, would come back as a homeless person, as opposed to..oh...the C.E.O of a major corporation, how so sure are we that we don't have "the savior" locked up in a padded room? :rolleyes:

For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first. 1 Thessalonians 4:16

if it happens the way the bible appears to say it will... i don't think we'll have to worry about the triumphant Lamb of God working at the local 7-11. :lol:

even so, he did not come in the way scholars thought he would the first time... oh well.

I do recognize the helpfulness of a loosely scheduled rapture. I also recognize the 40 years will be after the authors are dead.

My question is for TFPers who believe this: is there a date by which you will say you are mistaken? Or are you too certain, and that certainty means a rolling deadline?

I really would like to understand...

Do you mean will there come a time, after which Christians will give up believing in a Rapture?

No, but there will be a time, after all the Christians are raptured right before the worlds very eyes, that those left behind will make up excuses for what has happened, and they'll believe it. Hundreds of thousands of Christians will disappear into thin air in a 'blink of an eye', and all the world will witness it, and yet in a few short years everyone will totally forget it ever happened. It's called the great lie, brought forth by the anti-Christ, who of course you will not believe in if you don't believe the Bible.

The Book of Revelations is an acid trip as much as Whatsis names Book of Mormons is.

Wow, gotta love scientifically verifiable testimony.

I'm starting a new religion right now.

It states that the world was created by me 19 years ago upon my birth. You'd all better bow down to me or I'll take you all away in a fiery torment upon my death, wherein the world will be reduced to smouldering ashes and choking poison gas.

What's that? There's people in the world older than 19? No, you see, I created those people with pre-existing memories so they'd have the chance to be saved by me. The entire universe is only 19 years old, trust me. I'll even write a book about it.

All that starlight that's been travelling for hundreds of millions of years, I created that as well, already on its way here, so you all could see it.

Yep... 19 years old

It must be true though, because I said it and wrote it down.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Why believe in that? It's so limiting and intentionally exclusionary.

Why not believe in joy happiness and peace for everyone, regardless of what they do or do not believe in? The only reason I can think of that you wouldn't want to believe in the all-inclusive rapture as opposed to the significantly exclusive rapture is because you want other people to do what you think is best instead of letting them live their lives as they feel is best.

I.E., it's simply a form of control. It has nothing to do with being "saved" or experiencing happiness or whatever. It has to do with threats and warnings to toe an arbitrary line. Faith allows you to do anything. That someone would use it to exclude millions of people is ultimately saddening, and I would say, anti-spiritual.

As far as these people's stance on Muslims, it doesn't seem any different then the filth preached in Mosques around the world, let the crazies talk, hell I hope there is a holy war and they meet on the battle field and thin each others numbers a little.

Anyway Ace, how can that be, the world was created when I was born 20 years ago.

That's what heaven is. That is in part what faith is about, even if it is in the next life.

Anyone who claims they know when the end times will come are not Christian. Specifically every Christian belief from Baptist to Catholic believs that Go the Father is the only one know knows when the end times will come. Speculation about the end times is about as ignorant as it comes.

Here we have a basic problem with a charesmatic radical gaining stock because he is a creative writer. He becomes politically powerful in the evangelical churches and people listen to the crap he spews. I've been telling people that religion isn't politics for years. This is a good reason for my claim.

Call me any name in the book, but I actually firmly believe a lot of what was discussed at this conference. The author of this article is just as venomous in his hatred for and bias against Christianity, as he claims that the lectures were against everybody else.

If it happens in the next 40 years, I suppose. Much of what they say, like the great war in the middle east is far from “written in the NT books”.

This all comes down to how you want to use God’s word to control people. What this man is saying is “if you don’t become Christian in the next 40 years”, where did 40 years come from anyway?, “you will be tortured.” And then he accouses
the Muslims of trying to impose religion. Hahaha. Why is it hyp[ocracy comes up in religion so often?

So what they are preaching is wrong? Hmm. That’s interesting. Good job addressing the quote, though.


Manx did a good job on this one...moving on...

When we read Revelation, we are reading something really unique. John was taken by God to see the end times. John , a man with the limited understanding of his time, was brough into whatever age Jessus returns in. The world now is a much different place than it was back then. The “Beast coming out of the Sea” could be an invading force from space a thousand years from now. The 144,000 could simply represent the 144,000 colonized planets by humans, long after war has ended and Islam and Christianity coexist peacefully.


What if Allah and God are the same God? No where in the bible does it specifically say that Islam is wrong, in actuallity, Islam and Christianity are based in the same religion. What if they are the same religion, simply divided the way all churches divide? The fact that these people dismiss this possibility is frightening. The fact that they put this fourth as fact and try go feed hatred of another religion is inexcusable.

Is America preaching peace? Is England? Is Russia? Is the Middle East? Is Africa? Who are you talking about that are “preaching peace”? Name the last time when there were no wars going on anywhere in the world.

I gladly argue with this. As long as some other nations can stop interfering, I thinkl that peace is more than possible in the Middle East. As soon as the oil runs dry and people can learn to share one of the most important religious places in the world, we will see unparalleled peace.

I 100% disagree with you. Faith is just a way you believe. I have never felt threatened, or warned to follow any rules. Because I have faith, I choose to make certain decisions in my life.

What does "faith in God" have to do with hating Islam? What does faith in God have to do with granting land to the Palestinians? That is the part of faith that is a form of control. God does not try to control you, in fact He gives you free will. Men use God's holy message to their sinister and selfish ends. That is the control.

People have been saying the end times will come in 40 years for thousands of years, and will be saying it for thousands more. About faith...faith is what you call opinion when its dressed up for church. Your faith in the Bible is no more correct or infallible than my belief in UFOs...and people call me crazy.

Uh, will, I said nothing about hating islam/land to palistinians. I was responding to Manx. And your post wasn't there when I posted mine.

Well seeing as how you have been called crazy for believing in UFO's, then I guess you understand how I feel when people say things like "faith is what you call opinion when its dressed up for church."

Right...except I don't claim that anyone not beliving in UFOs is going to suffer eternal damnation. I don't try to tell "non-believers" that they are going to be left behind in a world full of pestilence and war and disease unless they spend the rest of their mortal lives preparing for a sunny cheery afterlife in a place in the clouds, walking side by side with a man who in some self righteous fling decided to create a universe out of dust full of people for the sole purpose of worshipping that which created them.

Something about that just seems so much more farfetched than believing that there is other life in the universe that has the capability of transgalatic travel, and that out of all the planets in the entire cosmos they decide to visit this one.

just a bit of personal stuff here.

i work with a lady that honestly believes rapture will happen within her lifetime (probabyl about another 40 yrs) and she lives just like that..doesn't care about the environment, the world, those heathen middle easterners, the heathens in china, the heathens everywhere..but she's out to save as many as she can.....

I honestly don't care what someone believes...as long as they dont' act on that belief in a way that is going to affect me/the world in some negative way....

I'm not sure what you disagree with in my post.

Faith is just a way you believe. Sure thing. So why would anyone have faith that excludes others from happiness unless they change to fit some predefined rules? If you're going to have faith in some great thing, there is no reason to limit that great thing, either in scope of greatness or in scope of who has access to the greatness. For example, the faith being described in this thread is supremely great - there are no undesireable aspects to post-Rapture experience: there are no taxes, there is no fear, there is no death. But the faith described in this thread is very specifically limited to who will experience it. Why? There is no point in limiting your faith.

The only explanation I can come up with is that this "faith" is nothing more than control. Maybe you can provide a different explanation that makes more sense.

So if you die in 80-100 years (medical science being what it is), and there hasn't been a rapture, you are still confident that it's coming later?

What about all those that are certain it will happen within 40 years? Are you willing to accept that they might be wrong, and it will be later?

Is it fair to assume that you agree that having a moving deadline makes it easier to believe? Does that pose any issues for you? Is there ANY date by which you'd agree that this was all one big mistake? 2200? 2500?

Again, just curious how it works.

What if God was one of us?
Just a slob like one of us
Just a stranger on the bus
Trying to make his way home
Joan Osborne - One of Us - 1995

Manx, you're absolutely right about faith in an afterlife being nothing more than a means of control. Promise people back in the middle ages subservience to the rule of the church in exchange for an eternal paradise, who wouldn't accept it? Afterall, no one has come back to life crying "BULLSHIT!" have they?

How many people cried Armageddon before the 2000 new year?
How many people cried Rapture before the 1000 new year?
How many civilizations have cried Eschaton during their time?
How many were right? None, they are either living a lie or blissfully dead.

Do you honestly think that Jesus invented the end times myth?

the whole rapture thing was made up by some preacher guy in the 1860's. i've read the new testament and i haven't found any verifiable evidence of a rapture. plus all the prophecies are vague as nostradomouses. the new testament is a series of letters written to different churches around the arab and medateranian areas. revelations was about the roman empire at the time of the author. I don't believe it was about our time.
and on the subject of the the world being 6000 years old' its just not true. all scientific evidence points to the contrary. Example: it takes roughly 8 min. for light from the sun to reach the earth,so when you see the sun in the sky you are really looking at its
after image. alot of the stars in the sky are dead and gone but since light travels at a certain speed it may take 6 billion years for light from a star to reach earth and by the time it gets here the star itself is long gone. also through carbon dating we can tell how old somthing is. that how we know that man has been on earth for roughly 100,000 yeArs(modern man, are current form, 30,000 years) and not to mention all the others that came before us: cromag,homo erectus, australopithicus,neanderthal
im not trying to say christianity is wrong or anything but i think recently people have hijacked the religion and are trying mold it to fit their own beliefs!

i believe its good to have people from all walks of life in government, that way we get the broadest range of ideas on the table. thats what makes our country so fukin awesome. but when people are extremely militant and close minded it just fuks shit up for the rest of us.

Wasn't Nostradamous fairly legit? I seem to remember something about twin fires at 50 degrees in the sky... (unless that was made up)

But me being religious, I hate end time prophecies and rapture and any other type of bullshit. Growing up my nutjob grandma would tell me some freaky shit like the three days and three nights of darkness, it sucked being so fearful of something so overwhelming and unconcievable, next person that tells me about end times get's a donkey punch regardless of political affiliation.

Nostradamus currently runs about a 17% accuracy rate in his collected works.


Oh...and by the way Mojo..............................End Times


*tecoyah ducks the donkey punch*

DAMN THOSE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE! THEY SHOULD BE BEATEN TO DEATH AFTER REPENTING THEIR HERESIES!!!

oh, wait...

/amused by the so-called "liberals" screaming we have to stop people from exercising their constitutionally protected rights....

I am EAGERLY waiting for the Rapture to come. When it does, I'm gonna have a bitchin' set of "new to me" wheels!!! Hey, they'll be in heaven, so they can't say "he stole it!!!", can they? ;) :thumbsup:

Hey, we get to point out what we see are hypocracies just like you do. Claiming they represent God, the turning around and damning Islam as the religion of the devil = hypocracy. Saying that God is coming in the next 40 years = lunacy.

Is this alternative interpretation of the Book of Revelation worthy of further consideration; why or why not ?

Would replacing the current predominant interpretation of
the Book of Revelation, and it's emphasis on a belief in imminent rapture of "saved" Christians, with this, have any
impact on the politics in the U.S. and the political ambitions of the Christian right?

And parts of Islam doesn't return the favor and label them as "Infidels"?

Religious lunacy like "God is comin' in 40 years!!!" is constitutionally protected lunacy.

My immediately preceding post should help to persuade you that
I sincerely want to understand and to call attention to what
I believe is happening to the reputation of the U.S. Note
that the thread starter was an article that was published in
a Toronto newspaper, and the following was published last year in a British newspaper. If our foreign policy is perceived
to be driven by the imminent rapture wing of the republican
party, then even our closest, English speaking allies, may
write us off as delusional and unreliable. Israel may perceive
that it is being used to hasten the time of it's own destruction.

Well of course it's protected. It's also protected to call them imbred morons who give religion a bad name, too. That was all I wanted to do.

Also, not all muslims are gun toating, bomb wearing psychopaths. A lot of them are regular, low key, productive members of society. While some of Islam can be interpreted as anti Christian, it is not regular practice to have religious prejudice.

Hating the US is a long, well established tradition. And frankly, I think that most Americans don't give a rat's ass WHAT the rest of the world thinks of us. Our President isn't there to make us popular in the world. Our President is there to PROTECT the American constituency and our way of life, and NOTHING more.

We spend more on our military than the next 20 highest-spending countries spend on their militaries COMBINED. That gives us a right to show our asses on the world stage, and if the rest of the world doesn't like it, well, tough shit. We've EARNED the right with American "blood and treasure". The rest of the world doesn't like our culture? Fine. They don't have to buy it. Parts of the world doesn't like the fact that we defend them? They don't have to be defended by us. They don't like what we stand for? They can stand for whatever they like, but shouldn't expect continued handouts from us if we don't like what they are doing. And a government that encourages it's people to chant "Death To America!" should expect death FROM America in response.

Our government isn't perfect. But compared to the other alternatives, it looks pretty good to me. We can be the world's best friend. But we don't HAVE to be. And people around the world should realize that.

Finally, you say something I agree with. But the moderate muslims have an obligation to muzzle their extremists if they don't want the rest of us to think that the extremists represent the mainstream. And almost ALL religions are anti-other religions. If they weren't, they'd never grow and would die off.

Should us moderate christians start muzzling the extremist christians like Falwell, Robertson, Franklin Graham, Bush etc?

I don't want the rest of the world to think the US christians are all as nuts as those people are.
How would I go about doing that without violating their civil rights?

Apparently you can't, and you shouldn't even mention it because then you're an anti-constitution liberal. But if you don't like the Muslims, feel free to trash them.

it's obvious: for conservatives, when it comes to attacking muslims, anything goes: ignorance.....racism--everything is fine.
but christianity, even in its whackjob fundamentalist/evangelical forms, is not and cannot be a problem.

go figure.

There's a big difference. Even in countries that are our "allies" muslim extremists are taught to hate America. These peace-loving muslims seem to be the silent majority. They rarely condemn acts that the rest of the world feels to be heinous. You don't see christians chopping heads off and videotaping it. And for all the liberal hatred of "whackjobs" they are infinitly more tolerant than the muslim whackjobs, who DO chop heads off.

And don't come back with some tired arguement like "christians are there now killing thousands, blah blah blah". If there were fighting against soldiers, or even targetting military targets they might get sympathy. But you can't justify killing someone like Margaret Hassan, who not only spent her life trying to help muslims and married one, but was against the war. Until there is some outcry in the muslim community about such acts, there is no comparison between Islam and Christianity, Judaism, Hindu, or any other religion.

There is a distinct difference between toleration of religion and toleration of murderous acts in the name of religion. Personally, I won't tolerate extremists of any religion.

How many big Christian names are going around preaching religious equality? Approxamatly none. All of the big names are either trying to sell books that are circular at best, or they are condeming Islam blindly and swaying the puppet/President into killing so many Muslims. I don't see that as being much different than the beheadings.

I like how you demand that we don't come back with an argument that you say is tired, when it's the best argument. So you think it's okay that so many Muslims die under American bombs and in front of American bullets? Christians ARE killing hundreds of thousands. Go watch FOX News and try to rebuttle that.

Just curious, would you consider the IRA to be a bunch of good old Catholic boys? Seems to me that terrorism isn't confined to Islam.

IRA wasn't killing in the name of catholicism, they were fighting for Irish independence.

Groups like Al Qaeda kill because they get 40 raisins in heaven after they blow up infidels.

As was stated above, the IRA isn't killing in the name of the Pope or Catholocism. It's true that terrorism isn't confined to Islam, but RELIGIOUS terrorism is. In the few incidents that other religious groups might kill supposedly for religion, the majority professing their beliefs speak out against the terrorists, this is not present in Islam.

Many people here have tried to compare Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and others to the islamic fundamentalists. A more apt comparison would be comparing David Koresh to islamic fundamentalists.

That's certainly how it started, but it turned into a Catholic vs Protestant issue during this century.

There's always been an issue between the two, for centuries, it goes back and forth. The IRA if I remeber correctly largely targetted the British who have historically fucked over the Irish.

Terrorism Q&A: IRA
Looks like Catholics vs Protestants to me. The point being that Christianity isn't as peaceful as some might claim.

It isn't Catholics vs. protestants in any sense that religion factors in. You have the seperatist Irish Catholics who have historically and continually have been treated as second class citizens or worse by the Brits, versus English loyalists, the protestants.

It STARTED with the Protestants punishing the Irish for remaining Catholic

So it started as a religious issue. There were other parts to it, but it wouldn't have even started without the religious aspect.
(Protestants colonizing Irish Catholic owned land)

But in that sense it's more of an ethnic conflict, less of a religious one.

IIRC, the Irish/English conflict started before the protestant reformation reached the British Isles. Hasn't there been conflict over N. Ireland since the 1200's?

True, that wasn't the IRA, but the IRA is an extension of the same conflicts.

That was battling back and forth, but the conflict that is being fought right now is specifically about the Protestant religious invasion.
You can go back and find the start of the "Muslim/Christian" conflict back before Muhammad if you just keep turning back the calendar.

You have got to be joking. First you talk about several beheadings conducted by Muslim fanatics which resulted in about twenty deaths or so, than you go back and say don’t give me the “tired” argument that Christians are killing thousands? This hypocrisy is utter non-sense. If you want to condemn several beheadings performed by several extremists while shunning off tens of thousands of civilian murders brought upon by a lunatic Christian fanatic, your whole argument is void. And the Iraqis ARE targeting the military, perhaps you’re not aware of the numerous roadside bombs targeted at US military convoys, or the countless “insurgents” fighting to the death to remove the foreign oppressors?

I love this. "insurgents" is in quotation marks, while American soldiers are casually referred to as oppressors. WTF is that?

The difference is that the beheadings are being performed in the name of religion, whereas most Americans being Christian is incidental to the militart conflict. Here is no hypocrisy. What is present is your blinding hatred of Christianity.

And where is the proof of the "tens of thousands of civilian murders brought upon by a lunatic Christian fanatic"? Who is this mysterious Christian fanatic, where are these vast hordes of dead civilians? That is a baseless statement with no place in a logical debate.

And there are some "insurgents" targeting military targets. However, the vast majority of those being killed by these terrorists are civilians or Iraqi officials, and they are doing this in the name of a religion that is dominated by hatred and violence.

awww....forget it....

I'm guessing he's referring to GWB. Who, based on some interpritations of world events, is a lunatic christian, who attacked a nation that was not threatening his nation nor his people, killing at tens of thousands of innocent civilians.

That view of the world is self-consistent and probably more common than you'd like to believe. When GWB talks about crusades and being inspired by God, some people take him seriously.

I attribute different motivations to GWB, but the above is a pretty strong message the USA is putting out to the world.

Religion dominated by “hatred and violence”? And you want to talk about baseless comments? Should I begin making you aware of the deaths brought in the name of Christianity? Or does my “blind hatred” discount facts? What led to that assumption in the first place? The fact that I stated both sides possess extremism? I didn’t realize not being racist and biased means I condemn Christianity.

As for the Christian fanatic I refer to, his name is George W. Bush. He is the same man who stated “God speaks through me”, he is the same man who stated, “God told me to strike Al Qaeda and Saddam”. This is the worst form of fanaticism and it has resulted in countless deaths, deaths that you’re apparently not aware of, which is why I provided you with some links. I apologize as I couldn’t find links from fox or cnn, but I hope this is sufficient.

http://www.rense.com/general40/todate.htm

http://www.twf.org/News/Y2003/0709-Civilians.html

http://villagevoice.com/issues/0336/mondo3.php

http://www.evilgopbastards.com/september_2003.htm

http://opednews.com/hughes1003_Protestors.htm

http://baltimorechronicle.com/oct03_DC-Marchers.html

http://www.iraqbodycount.com

the muslims won the crusades. so nanny nanny foo foo!?

this one group of religious terrorists have different motivation than this other group of religious terrorists? Therefore I can say whatever I like about a group of people and that doesn't make me a racist.

Great logic. I like it.

Falwell, Robertson, et al generally don't have their followers going around blowing shit up. We do indeed jump on our religious fundamentalists when they cross the line...they end up in jail, like that abortion clinic bomber guy.

You're allowed to believe whatever you want. Once you start acting in a manner that causes casualties, that's no longer protected and is criminal.

You list a bunch of links to "support" your position, and lead off with a link to Rense.com????? :eek: You're joking, right? (if not, your credibility drops to zero, along with the UFO articles.)

"Well, I saw it on the Internets!"

Is Bush in Iraq to spread Christianity? The muslim extremists do what they do IN THE NAME OF ISLAM. Last time I checked, Bush didn't invade Iraq in the name of Christ.

Look at the number of civilians killed by the "insurgents" in Iraq as compared to the number of US military personnel killed by the "insurgents". They are DEFINITELY targeting the Iraqi people.

No, he is not trying to spread Christianity, rather he invaded a country in the name of God. This "Christian" maniac thinks he is a prophet sent down to free the world of tyranny. This mentality is equatable to that of the islamic fanatics. As for the links, whatever, there is six more for your viewing pleasure, and your beloved iraqbodycount is one of them.

And exactly what are the numbers of civilians and US military killed by the "insurgents"?

So the UN is now God? Here I thought that Bush said the reason to invade Iraq was to enforce the various UN prohibitions on Saddam having WMDs, right? Isn't that why the whole "we've only found some old WMDs!" thing was raised?

People shouldn't allow personal animosity for the man get in the way of rational argument. Some people might think that people who act like that are mentally unhinged. Or, they might send them large rolls of Reynolds Wrap for haberdashery construction purposes.

As for the numbers, I don't know "exactly". But conventional wisdom from BOTH sides is that a hell of a lot more civilians have been killed than US Servicemen, yes?

Bush has lied so many times that there have been countless varying reasons for invasion, all of which proved to be false. Unfortunately he needed more than "God" to maintain international "support" and have backing from the mindless masses in the US who feared the big bad terrorists. You see, once he instilled baseless propaganda to the nation putting them in fear, he than used God as a final crutch to lure them in officially. As for the UN, they don't have "a backbone" so we need to confront the issues by illegally invading a country! Yeehaw!

Yes, it's conventional wisdom that more civilians have been killed than US servicemen, but you stated that insurgents are responsible for more civilian deaths than US military deaths, which I doubt is the case. And besides, what do you expect when they are fighting the most highly trained killers in the world with the most advanced military weaponry? You think a couple of AK's and homemade bombs are sufficient enough, hardly, but they are putting up a good fight with what they have to work with.

Also, I wouldn't mind some of that Reynolds wrap; I'd take it over a blindfold anyday.

Your views on the war are well known, but I can't let this one go unchallenged.

The only "claims" I know to be provisionally false is that there were stocks of WMD's and that they could be rapidly deployed against whoever, and possibly that he had links to 9/11.

The other claims, the Hussein was still breaking UN sanctions, that he posed a continuing threat to his neighbors, that he was a butcher, that he had plans to rebuild his WMDs and that he supported terrorism (in Israel) have been shown to be true.

The CIA report states that there were stockpiles of pre-1990's WMDs found, but that they haven't yet been inventoried since we're not sure how safe it is to open the sealed bunker.

As for Saddam's not being involved in 9/11, well, it's not like he didn't try to claim responsibility for it with his people... see http://www.webmutants.com/strategypa...the_towers.jpg for an example

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...n+diamond+mine
Pat Robertson contributed to untold numbers of peoples murders and suffering in his african diamond mining ventures. Most recently with Charles Taylor in Nigeria.

Difference between Robertson and Bin Laden? Robertson has power in the strongest nation in the world.

I don't ascribe to the fundamentalist interpretation of the Book of Revelation, but it seems to me that you have no more basis for saying this than they do for saying it will happen :D

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.