I don't think I need to respond to any of your other comments. This one shows who I'm dealing with.
Who are you dealing with, just curious? Am I wrong? Are seriously going to tell me that the Koran doesnt have examples of killing the infidel? Pick up a book sometime. Again, "political correctness is taking sensitivity over truth". Am I saying all muslims adhere to that? Of course not. But by the strictest interpretation, it is there. Denial for the sake of not hurting others feelings, is still denial.
Who are you dealing with, just curious? Am I wrong? Are seriously going to tell me that the Koran doesnt have examples of killing the infidel? Pick up a book sometime. Again, "political correctness is taking sensitivity over truth". Am I saying all muslims adhere to that? Of course not. But by the strictest interpretation, it is there. Denial for the sake of not hurting others feelings, is still denial.
Quit bringing up your fucking "I don't wanna hurt people's feelings" ideal because that is NOT my point. The "strictest interpretation" is NOT that Muslims should kill infidels.
I know you're not saying "every Muslim adheres to that," and I NEVER CLAIMED YOU EVER SAID ANYTHING LIKE THAT. My argument is that you believe not the strictest interpretation, but the interpretation that is full of propaganda made to target Islam as a violent religion... which, IRONICALLY AS SHIT, happens to be in a thread about propaganda... :rolleyes:
Quit bringing up your fucking "I don't wanna hurt people's feelings" ideal because that is NOT my point. The "strictest interpretation" is NOT that Muslims should kill infidels.
I know you're not saying "every Muslim adheres to that," and I NEVER CLAIMED YOU EVER SAID ANYTHING LIKE THAT. My argument is that you believe not the strictest interpretation, but the interpretation that is full of propaganda made to target Islam as a violent religion... which, IRONICALLY AS SHIT, happens to be in a thread about propaganda... :rolleyes:
That is exactly your goddamn point. You were offended by the word "other wordly", so give me a break. If you take offense to a term is clearly not disrespectful in the slightest, then do not tell me I am wrong in saying you are worried about feelings, and not the actual truth. IMO 90% of the worlds problems are caused by either religion, or greed. So criticizing religion is perfectly rational.
And you didnt let me know what is an acceptable term for you other than "other wordly". So please feel free to do that.
That is exactly your goddamn point. You were offended by the word "other wordly", so give me a break. If you take offense to a term is clearly not disrespectful in the slightest, then do not tell me I am wrong in saying you are worried about feelings, and not the actual truth. IMO 90% of the worlds problems are caused by either religion, or greed. So criticizing religion is perfectly rational.
That was not my entire point actually. My entire point is not not being offensive, it's the fact that we have to use other terms like "otherwordly laws" instead of simply using "RELIGIOUS laws" (which apparently is SO fucking UNTRUE and IMPOSSIBLE to use). But, no, "religious laws" doesn't make people who are religious sound like they are out of this fucking world.. and of course, it's not the ACTUAL TRUTH, so we must use "otherworldly."
Propaganda works in interesting ways... for example saying that Palestinian deaths are a CASUALTY, but Israeli deaths are a MURDER... These two words usually don't sound different in articles, but they affect people subconsciously in different ways, much like "otherworldly" can simply
In my opinion, if most people followed religion CORRECTLY, such as following the fact that the Qur'an does NOT preach violence (or, as far as I know, most other religions), and we followed the true moral code of religions, then there wouldn't be as much problems in the world.
I agree with you about greed being the major problem in the world. Not religion. Religion is simply exploited through GREED people, but I don't think it is to be blamed.
That was not my entire point actually. My entire point is not not being offensive, it's the fact that we have to use other terms like "otherwordly laws" instead of simply using "RELIGIOUS laws" (which apparently is SO fucking UNTRUE and IMPOSSIBLE to use). But, no, "religious laws" doesn't make people who are religious sound like they are out of this fucking world.. and of course, it's not the ACTUAL TRUTH, so we must use "otherworldly."
Propaganda works in interesting ways... for example saying that Palestinian deaths are a CASUALTY, but Israeli deaths are a MURDER... These two words usually don't sound different in articles, but they affect people subconsciously in different ways, much like "otherworldly" can simply
In my opinion, if most people followed religion CORRECTLY, such as following the fact that the Qur'an does NOT preach violence (or, as far as I know, most other religions), and we followed the true moral code of religions, then there wouldn't be as much problems in the world.
I agree with you about greed being the major problem in the world. Not religion. Religion is simply exploited through GREED people, but I don't think it is to be blamed.
Well I completely disagree about religion. I think it is a huge problem and always has been. When people believe they know what a god, who they cant prove even exists, thinks or knows, then it causes problems. Being religious makes it possible to justify almost anything. All you have to say is that it is the will of god. It is completely irrational.
And yes, all the abrahamic religions teach some aspects of violence. To say otherwise is simply false.
Well I completely disagree about religion. I think it is a huge problem and always has been. When people believe they know what a god, who they cant prove even exists, thinks or knows, then it causes problems. Being religious makes it possible to justify almost anything. All you have to say is that it is the will of god. It is completely irrational.
And yes, all the abrahamic religions teach some aspects of violence. To say otherwise is simply false.
It is a hard concept for religionists to understand that their religious "truths" are nothing more than mythology to some of us. So to build a body of law on mythology does, indeed, sound insane.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Obviously, there's a difference between it, but when propaganda still plays a major factor in your school books, NEWS, and government reports, then you can't really argue that other countries "have it worse"... I already gave my example with the Nuclear proliferation. The US needs to fix its own problems before trying to fix other countries' problems. Any argument there?
your first sentence is a contradiction:
first you say there's a difference, only to go on to state that I can't argue that it is worse in other countries...
am I spinning words, too? or am I pointing out how you continue to say there is no difference between the US and Saudi-arabia?
exaggerating the difference in "liberty"(or whatever) between countries is the same kind of disinformation as denying them.
Propaganda doesn't equal the call to kill. (and in fact, I can argue that one is worse than the other)
the usa doesn't equal saudi-arabia, nor any other authoritarian or dictatorial government.
no matter how much you blow up the villain-status of the US(government) and how much you downplay the ideology and demagogy in saudi-arabia.
m.
Godwin's Law:
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Well I completely disagree about religion. I think it is a huge problem and always has been. When people believe they know what a god, who they cant prove even exists, thinks or knows, then it causes problems. Being religious makes it possible to justify almost anything. All you have to say is that it is the will of god. It is completely irrational.
The only people who try to justify what they do by using religion are GREEDY people who use it to their advantage, as I said before. Religion itself however, is exploited. you can blame it for being an INDIRECT source for violence, but to put blame on it as a direct source is, in my opinion, incorrect.
And yes, all the abrahamic religions teach some aspects of violence. To say otherwise is simply false.
I assume you're an expert on religions to say this? Or you have actually studied Islam, Christianity, and Judaism in depth?
It is a hard concept for religionists to understand that their religious "truths" are nothing more than mythology to some of us. So to build a body of law on mythology does, indeed, sound insane.
religionist? Is that what I am now? lol.
Sorry, but it's not hard to understand that many people like to insult religion by calling it make-believe and a "mythology"... it's perfectly understandable, but that's not what the argument is about.
And if every country in the world had a law built around religion, then I'd understand you're argument. However, when some countries have been incorporating religious laws into their government for CENTURIES, then complaining about it now just seems pointless to me.
However, when some countries have been incorporating religious laws into their government for CENTURIES, then complaining about it now just seems pointless to me.
I guess he wasn't around when they started "incorparating religious laws into their government" (?), so the only thing he can do is complain about it NOW.
And I guess the beef isn't with religion itself, but with the saudi government having witch processes in the name of religion...or: teaching their children in school that gay people deserve to be "thrown off a high place".
m.
Godwin's Law:
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
The only people who try to justify what they do by using religion are GREEDY people who use it to their advantage, as I said before. Religion itself however, is exploited. you can blame it for being an INDIRECT source for violence, but to put blame on it as a direct source is, in my opinion, incorrect.
I assume you're an expert on religions to say this? Or you have actually studied Islam, Christianity, and Judaism in depth?
Religion is exploited, I dont deny that. But you cannot separate religion, from religious people. If one's mindset is that there actions are the actions that god wants them to adhere too, then those actions are religious in nature.
And no, I am not an expert. But yes, I went to a Christian college and had to take several classes on the Bible, and had a couple of classes on world religions which primarily focused on Islam.
your first sentence is a contradiction:
first you say there's a difference, only to go on to state that I can't argue that it is worse in other countries...
There is a difference. I'm not saying you physically can't argue it's worse. My point is that it's hypocritical to argue "but there's is worse!" unless you are actually making some EFFORT to fix your own problem. It's like a little kid who just uses the argument "but what he did is worse!" without taking any blame of the problem.
am I spinning words, too? or am I pointing out how you continue to say there is no difference between the US and Saudi-arabia?
exaggerating the difference in "liberty"(or whatever) between countries is the same kind of disinformation as denying them.
Why do people always assume I'm accusing them of something when I'm not. I'm not saying there is no difference between the US and Saudi. All I'm saying is that the propaganda used in comparable, and that the US is somewhat to blame since Saudi Arabia is our ally and we don't do shit to stop them from doing anything, which is something I think we all can agree to.
Propaganda doesn't equal the call to kill. (and in fact, I can argue that one is worse than the other)
You misinterpreted what I meant.
the usa doesn't equal saudi-arabia, nor any other authoritarian or dictatorial government.
Equal Saudi Arabia? Never said it did. Although the US' current administration (and many others) have practiced many unconstitutional acts.
no matter how much you blow up the villain-status of the US(government) and how much you downplay the ideology and demagogy in saudi-arabia.
The villian-status of the US? Are you saying that the US is not to blame for many of the problems in the Middle East? Including the spreading of propaganda? You do realize that almost 100 years ago (particularly in Palestine) Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived together in the Middle East without many problems. it was only until Western powers began meddling in the region that violence began to erupt. But that's a whole other debate.
I guess he wasn't around when they started "incorparating religious laws into their government" (?), so the only thing he can do is complain about it NOW.
And I guess the beef isn't with religion itself, but with the saudi government having witch processes in the name of religion...or: teaching their children in school that gay people deserve to be "thrown off a high place".
As if many people in our own country do not preach against homosexuals?
And my point isn't that you have to be around when it started, but that you can't argue against another government being religious because that's just how many countries are these days...
Based on my observations, I would have to say yes. You are very quick to come to the defense of at least one religion, and appear insulted when anything negative is said about it.
Sorry, but it's not hard to understand that many people like to insult religion by calling it make-believe and a "mythology"... it's perfectly understandable, but that's not what the argument is about.
But it is hard for you to understand. Since I am not a believer in the spiritual aspect of the stories, it really can't be considered anything more than mythology. I can't revere it as truth. I can't hold it sacred. Mohammed and Zeus and J.C. have equal footing for me.
And if every country in the world had a law built around religion, then I'd understand you're argument. However, when some countries have been incorporating religious laws into their government for CENTURIES, then complaining about it now just seems pointless to me.
Not complaining. Merely making an observation. I do complain when my local laws seem to have a religious origin (like years ago when we had no liquor sales on Sundays). But my post was more observation than complaint.
Would you think it insane if a country built its laws around the fairy tales of the Brothers Grimm? Me, too.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Based on my observations, I would have to say yes. You are very quick to come to the defense of at least one religion, and appear insulted when anything negative is said about it.
Does that mean anyone who defends the Palestinians is a Palestinian? Anyone who defends Iraqis is Iraqi? Why can't an atheist defend a religion? Is that "so hard for you to understand"?
But it is hard for you to understand. Since I am not a believer in the spiritual aspect of the stories, it really can't be considered anything more than mythology. I can't revere it as truth. I can't hold it sacred. Mohammed and Zeus and J.C. have equal footing for me.
Why do you claim it's hard for me to understand? it's not. Many people I know do not believe in religion. That's perfectly fine.
Not complaining. Merely making an observation. I do complain when my local laws seem to have a religious origin (like years ago when we had no liquor sales on Sundays). But my post was more observation than complaint.
Would you think it insane if a country built its laws around the fairy tales of the Brothers Grimm? Me, too.
Funny analogy, but not the same for sure. Islam can ideally be used as a way to govern. Do people exploit interpretations and use it to their benefit to spread propaganda? Yes. But ,IDEALLY, Islam (and many other religions) are built upon moral codes and with basic laws like no stealing, killing, etc...
There is a difference. I'm not saying you physically can't argue it's worse. My point is that it's hypocritical to argue "but there's is worse!" unless you are actually making some EFFORT to fix your own problem. It's like a little kid who just uses the argument "but what he did is worse!" without taking any blame of the problem.
why can't you say it's worse, when it is worse?
I don't understand. Can't I say someone is "worse" than me when he killed someone, and I stole a car today. Can't I go to the police and report that man?
I really don't see where you are getting at.
All I'm saying is that the propaganda used in comparable, and that the US is somewhat to blame since Saudi Arabia is our ally and we don't do shit to stop them from doing anything, which is something I think we all can agree to.
and I am saying that it is not used comparably. Distorting history is NOT the same as telling children that jews and gays should be killed.
no matter how often you repeat it.
and you just said that the US should solve it's own problems first. Now you say that we can all agree on that it is partly the US' fault because you don't do anything to prevent things like those school books...
which is it that you want to do?
You do realize that almost 100 years ago (particularly in Palestine) Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived together in the Middle East without many problems. it was only until Western powers began meddling in the region that violence began to erupt. But that's a whole other debate.
it's another debate and a completely simplified view of history that you give here.
m.
Godwin's Law:
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
As if many people in our own country do not preach against homosexuals?
And my point isn't that you have to be around when it started, but that you can't argue against another government being religious because that's just how many countries are these days...
this is what I mean in that you want to compare the US to Saudi-Arabia.
Yes people in the US preach against gays. But the STATE doesn't call for the execution of gays, does it?
and to have a law that threatens the lives of gay people it WORSE than having some people preaching against them.
are you really not able to see the difference?
and no, I can't argue against another country being religious. But being religious gives nobody the excuse to have "witches" sentenced to death or to throw gays off a rock.
m.
Godwin's Law:
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
why can't you say it's worse, when it is worse?
I don't understand. Can't I say someone is "worse" than me when he killed someone, and I stole a car today. Can't I go to the police and report that man?
I really don't see where you are getting at.
Your analogy is way off. It's more like you helped the guy buy the gun that he used to kill the person, THEN you told on him.
and I am saying that it is not used comparably. Distorting history is NOT the same as telling children that jews and gays should be killed.
no matter how often you repeat it.
Do you know what comparably even means? I never said it's the SAME. it's definitely SIMILAR to justify deaths over the past 300 years and CHANGE history completely... but is it the SAME? no.
and you just said that the US should solve it's own problems first. Now you say that we can all agree on that it is partly the US' fault because you don't do anything to prevent things like those school books...
which is it that you want to do?
You answered the question yourself. Read this quote again.
it's another debate and a completely simplified view of history that you give here.
I never said they "never fought", but certainly during the 1800s and early 1900s religion did not cause many battles in the Middle East... obviously back then with the crusades and all, it's a completely different story.
this is what I mean in that you want to compare the US to Saudi-Arabia.
Yes people in the US preach against gays. But the STATE doesn't call for the execution of gays, does it?
and to have a law that threatens the lives of gay people it WORSE than having some people preaching against them.
are you really not able to see the difference?
It's definitely different in some senses. Obviously the actual government preaching something is different to churches and stuff. However, I was just using an example that propaganda is prevalent everywhere. As for actual governments doing it, the US government does distort facts on a BIG scale, and the News corporations in the US spread propaganda... obviously it's not the SAME as Saudi Arabia, but it's SIMILAR, especially because of the fact that the US gov't and News outlets vilify Arabs/Muslims. Do you not see what the majority of Americans think about Arabs/Muslims? It's actually become an insult these days to become called one.
and no, I can't argue against another country being religious. But being religious gives nobody the excuse to have "witches" sentenced to death or to throw gays off a rock.
It's not an excuse obviously, and those are serious issues, but maybe before the US comments on those, we can worry about what WE'RE doing... However, yes, I have agreed throughout this thread that spreading those things in textbooks is, indeed, WRONG.
Your analogy is way off. It's more like you helped the guy buy the gun that he used to kill the person, THEN you told on him.
so does your analogy mean that the US helped establish a fundamentalist regime in S-Arabia (=buy the gun)? This kind of thought way predates US influence in S-Arabia...
I just think it's regretable that this kind of material is taught in schools. And I think that the US distorts their history in their favour in their school books has absolutely nothing to do with the fact, that there should be some "pressure" (for the lack of a better word) put on the saudi to change it.
I would even be satisfied if the Saudis at least reached american standards and "only" distort their history...even that would be better than the demand to kill people...
m.
Godwin's Law:
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
so does your analogy mean that the US helped establish a fundamentalist regime in S-Arabia (=buy the gun)? This kind of thought way predates US influence in S-Arabia...
Maybe a better analogy would be that the US bought the ammo for the gun the Saudi government already had.
I just think it's regretable that this kind of material is taught in schools. And I think that the US distorts their history in their favour in their school books has absolutely nothing to do with the fact, that there should be some "pressure" (for the lack of a better word) put on the saudi to change it.
I would even be satisfied if the Saudis at least reached american standards and "only" distort their history...even that would be better than the demand to kill people...
I agree with you. The only thing I think should happen in addition to that is that the US also try to fix its own problem... unfortunately, that won't happen.
Comments
Who are you dealing with, just curious? Am I wrong? Are seriously going to tell me that the Koran doesnt have examples of killing the infidel? Pick up a book sometime. Again, "political correctness is taking sensitivity over truth". Am I saying all muslims adhere to that? Of course not. But by the strictest interpretation, it is there. Denial for the sake of not hurting others feelings, is still denial.
I know you're not saying "every Muslim adheres to that," and I NEVER CLAIMED YOU EVER SAID ANYTHING LIKE THAT. My argument is that you believe not the strictest interpretation, but the interpretation that is full of propaganda made to target Islam as a violent religion... which, IRONICALLY AS SHIT, happens to be in a thread about propaganda... :rolleyes:
That is exactly your goddamn point. You were offended by the word "other wordly", so give me a break. If you take offense to a term is clearly not disrespectful in the slightest, then do not tell me I am wrong in saying you are worried about feelings, and not the actual truth. IMO 90% of the worlds problems are caused by either religion, or greed. So criticizing religion is perfectly rational.
And you didnt let me know what is an acceptable term for you other than "other wordly". So please feel free to do that.
Propaganda works in interesting ways... for example saying that Palestinian deaths are a CASUALTY, but Israeli deaths are a MURDER... These two words usually don't sound different in articles, but they affect people subconsciously in different ways, much like "otherworldly" can simply
In my opinion, if most people followed religion CORRECTLY, such as following the fact that the Qur'an does NOT preach violence (or, as far as I know, most other religions), and we followed the true moral code of religions, then there wouldn't be as much problems in the world.
I agree with you about greed being the major problem in the world. Not religion. Religion is simply exploited through GREED people, but I don't think it is to be blamed.
Well I completely disagree about religion. I think it is a huge problem and always has been. When people believe they know what a god, who they cant prove even exists, thinks or knows, then it causes problems. Being religious makes it possible to justify almost anything. All you have to say is that it is the will of god. It is completely irrational.
And yes, all the abrahamic religions teach some aspects of violence. To say otherwise is simply false.
It is a hard concept for religionists to understand that their religious "truths" are nothing more than mythology to some of us. So to build a body of law on mythology does, indeed, sound insane.
your first sentence is a contradiction:
first you say there's a difference, only to go on to state that I can't argue that it is worse in other countries...
am I spinning words, too? or am I pointing out how you continue to say there is no difference between the US and Saudi-arabia?
exaggerating the difference in "liberty"(or whatever) between countries is the same kind of disinformation as denying them.
Propaganda doesn't equal the call to kill. (and in fact, I can argue that one is worse than the other)
the usa doesn't equal saudi-arabia, nor any other authoritarian or dictatorial government.
no matter how much you blow up the villain-status of the US(government) and how much you downplay the ideology and demagogy in saudi-arabia.
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
I assume you're an expert on religions to say this? Or you have actually studied Islam, Christianity, and Judaism in depth?
Reason 28904238901234890234890890234890123890123 to bomb the hell out of the middle east!
YAY
Sorry, but it's not hard to understand that many people like to insult religion by calling it make-believe and a "mythology"... it's perfectly understandable, but that's not what the argument is about.
And if every country in the world had a law built around religion, then I'd understand you're argument. However, when some countries have been incorporating religious laws into their government for CENTURIES, then complaining about it now just seems pointless to me.
Very nice.
I guess he wasn't around when they started "incorparating religious laws into their government" (?), so the only thing he can do is complain about it NOW.
And I guess the beef isn't with religion itself, but with the saudi government having witch processes in the name of religion...or: teaching their children in school that gay people deserve to be "thrown off a high place".
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
"people like him" only appeared in this threat...with him...
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
still brainwashed from your education I see:)
thank god we are americans and can have thoughts of our own free of judgement- oh wait.... never mind,
Religion is exploited, I dont deny that. But you cannot separate religion, from religious people. If one's mindset is that there actions are the actions that god wants them to adhere too, then those actions are religious in nature.
And no, I am not an expert. But yes, I went to a Christian college and had to take several classes on the Bible, and had a couple of classes on world religions which primarily focused on Islam.
Why do people always assume I'm accusing them of something when I'm not. I'm not saying there is no difference between the US and Saudi. All I'm saying is that the propaganda used in comparable, and that the US is somewhat to blame since Saudi Arabia is our ally and we don't do shit to stop them from doing anything, which is something I think we all can agree to.
You misinterpreted what I meant.
Equal Saudi Arabia? Never said it did. Although the US' current administration (and many others) have practiced many unconstitutional acts.
The villian-status of the US? Are you saying that the US is not to blame for many of the problems in the Middle East? Including the spreading of propaganda? You do realize that almost 100 years ago (particularly in Palestine) Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived together in the Middle East without many problems. it was only until Western powers began meddling in the region that violence began to erupt. But that's a whole other debate.
And my point isn't that you have to be around when it started, but that you can't argue against another government being religious because that's just how many countries are these days...
Based on my observations, I would have to say yes. You are very quick to come to the defense of at least one religion, and appear insulted when anything negative is said about it.
But it is hard for you to understand. Since I am not a believer in the spiritual aspect of the stories, it really can't be considered anything more than mythology. I can't revere it as truth. I can't hold it sacred. Mohammed and Zeus and J.C. have equal footing for me.
Not complaining. Merely making an observation. I do complain when my local laws seem to have a religious origin (like years ago when we had no liquor sales on Sundays). But my post was more observation than complaint.
Would you think it insane if a country built its laws around the fairy tales of the Brothers Grimm? Me, too.
Why do you claim it's hard for me to understand? it's not. Many people I know do not believe in religion. That's perfectly fine.
Funny analogy, but not the same for sure. Islam can ideally be used as a way to govern. Do people exploit interpretations and use it to their benefit to spread propaganda? Yes. But ,IDEALLY, Islam (and many other religions) are built upon moral codes and with basic laws like no stealing, killing, etc...
why can't you say it's worse, when it is worse?
I don't understand. Can't I say someone is "worse" than me when he killed someone, and I stole a car today. Can't I go to the police and report that man?
I really don't see where you are getting at.
and I am saying that it is not used comparably. Distorting history is NOT the same as telling children that jews and gays should be killed.
no matter how often you repeat it.
and you just said that the US should solve it's own problems first. Now you say that we can all agree on that it is partly the US' fault because you don't do anything to prevent things like those school books...
which is it that you want to do?
it's another debate and a completely simplified view of history that you give here.
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
this is what I mean in that you want to compare the US to Saudi-Arabia.
Yes people in the US preach against gays. But the STATE doesn't call for the execution of gays, does it?
and to have a law that threatens the lives of gay people it WORSE than having some people preaching against them.
are you really not able to see the difference?
and no, I can't argue against another country being religious. But being religious gives nobody the excuse to have "witches" sentenced to death or to throw gays off a rock.
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Do you know what comparably even means? I never said it's the SAME. it's definitely SIMILAR to justify deaths over the past 300 years and CHANGE history completely... but is it the SAME? no.
You answered the question yourself. Read this quote again.
I never said they "never fought", but certainly during the 1800s and early 1900s religion did not cause many battles in the Middle East... obviously back then with the crusades and all, it's a completely different story.
It's not an excuse obviously, and those are serious issues, but maybe before the US comments on those, we can worry about what WE'RE doing... However, yes, I have agreed throughout this thread that spreading those things in textbooks is, indeed, WRONG.
so does your analogy mean that the US helped establish a fundamentalist regime in S-Arabia (=buy the gun)? This kind of thought way predates US influence in S-Arabia...
I just think it's regretable that this kind of material is taught in schools. And I think that the US distorts their history in their favour in their school books has absolutely nothing to do with the fact, that there should be some "pressure" (for the lack of a better word) put on the saudi to change it.
I would even be satisfied if the Saudis at least reached american standards and "only" distort their history...even that would be better than the demand to kill people...
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
I agree with you. The only thing I think should happen in addition to that is that the US also try to fix its own problem... unfortunately, that won't happen.
and that's what the thread was about:)
I back out now...
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."