Christian terrorists hijack a plane

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by blueangel

But, could there possibly be a peaceful interpretation of the above quoted Q'uran passages? It seems to be all about "forcing" others to convert.. not about "witnessing" or "spreading the word."

Many Christians believe in forced conversion, particular the earlier missionary efforts. Witnessing and spreading the word can be very forceful and frightening depending on who the person witnessing is and who the person being witnessed to feels about it.

Either case, there's nothing "peaceful" about figurative warfare. But it doesn't make it any less figurative.

[blueangel]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Many Christians believe in forced conversion, particular the earlier missionary efforts. Witnessing and spreading the word can be very forceful and frightening depending on who the person witnessing is and who the person being witnessed to feels about it.

Either case, there's nothing "peaceful" about figurative warfare. But it doesn't make it any less figurative.

I have not seen a Christian behead anyone to force them to convert. Have you?

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally Posted by blueangel

I have not seen a Christian behead anyone to force them to convert. Have you?

No, they just burned them alive instead. So much better!

Nancy Grace is a "law reporter" as well, but that doesn't mean she's not a bumbling idiot.

[Taualumna]

When it was revealed that Catholic priests had been molesting children for years and years, many Catholics were upset about it, and demanded an apology. When radical Muslims were blowing up airplanes or doing other inappropriate things, few Muslims spoke up. Why is that?

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by Taualumna

When it was revealed that Catholic priests had been molesting children for years and years, many Catholics were upset about it, and demanded an apology. When radical Muslims were blowing up airplanes or doing other inappropriate things, few Muslims spoke up. Why is that?

I call Bullsh*t!

I'm sorry did I miss something? Cause I do remember all of the Canadian Muslim orgs. condemning 9/11... in fact the Star ran the page of Imam's names condemning it. Further after the London bombing it was a nearby Mosque that organized a "safe area" for first response counselling and arranged for car transport for victims from the scene -> followed of course by the wide denouncements the next day and through-out the week. What kind or level of a denouncement were you expecting, or what would be "acceptable" condemnation?

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by GeekyPenguin

No, they just burned them alive instead. So much better!

Nancy Grace is a "law reporter" as well, but that doesn't mean she's not a bumbling idiot.

And having been a "law reporter" myself, I can say that it in no way correlates to significant legal knowledge, let alone knowledge to critique the methods of attorneys.

[valkyrie]

Originally Posted by GeekyPenguin

Nancy Grace is a "law reporter" as well, but that doesn't mean she's not a bumbling idiot.

LOL @ Nancy Grace. She's an example of "Those who can, do. Those who can't, report, if by "report" we mean go on endless biased rants about evil, evil defendants."

That said, I have no idea what law reporters have to do with this thread.

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally Posted by valkyrie

LOL @ Nancy Grace. She's an example of "Those who can, do. Those who can't, report, if by "report" we mean go on endless biased rants about evil, evil defendants."

That said, I have no idea what law reporters have to do with this thread.

blueangel brought up her status as a "law reporter" to seem more credible.

This is my favorite law reporter. What's yours?

[valkyrie]

Originally Posted by GeekyPenguin

blueangel brought up her status as a "law reporter" to seem more credible.

This is my favorite law reporter. What's yours?

I was totally trying to make fun of her for doing that. I was very subtle because I didn't want to get reported, you know, like you'd get reported in second grade.

I really like the Pacific Reporter.

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally Posted by valkyrie

I was totally trying to make fun of her for doing that. I was very subtle because I didn't want to get reported, you know, like you'd get reported in second grade.

I really like the Pacific Reporter.

'

Does that contain decisions from the evil Ninth Circuit?

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by blueangel

I have not seen a Christian behead anyone to force them to convert. Have you?

Yes.

[shinerbock]

We Christians really gotta stop blowing stuff up. Its getting out of hand.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

We Christians really gotta stop shooting abortion doctors in the face, destroying federal buildings, and creating white supremecist organizations based on the "word of God." Its getting out of hand.

fixed?

This really isn't that difficult a concept, guys - we're going in circles, everyone has skeletons in the closet. The question is whether the media handles Muslim skeletons in a different manner than Christian ones, not whether they're literally analogous.

It's not a pissing contest.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

fixed?

This really isn't that difficult a concept, guys - we're going in circles, everyone has skeletons in the closet. The question is whether the media handles Muslim skeletons in a different manner than Christian ones, not whether they're literally analogous.

It's not a pissing contest.

I cannot even begin to describe how terrible this analogy is. You've listed isolated events, some of which don't even participate in violence (the huge majority of white supremacy groups). You're comparing these to large and well funded organizations who do plan and carry out attacks on innocent people. The Oklahoma City Bombing had nothing to do with the people they were attacking. I believe they've even claimed that they had no real intention of harming the victims. The crime was intended to be against the government. How is that comparable to attacks which target civilians solely because of their faith or belief? Its not. As for the hijackings, I guess a couple guys not threatening any passengers and not harming anyone is comparable to cutting the throats of pilots and passengers and proceeding to fly planes into buildings filled with people. My bad.

The point is not that Muslims are more violent than Christians, although at this point in time you could make a very good case that they are. The reason Islam is portrayed as violent is because of the actions people take in the name of the faith. Are most Muslims violent? Almost certainly not. Are acts of violence in the name of Islam isolated or rare? No.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I cannot even begin to describe how terrible this analogy is. You've listed isolated events, some of which don't even participate in violence (the huge majority of white supremacy groups). You're comparing these to large and well funded organizations who do plan and carry out attacks on innocent people. The Oklahoma City Bombing had nothing to do with the people they were attacking. I believe they've even claimed that they had no real intention of harming the victims. The crime was intended to be against the government. How is that comparable to attacks which target civilians solely because of their faith or belief? Its not. As for the hijackings, I guess a couple guys not threatening any passengers and not harming anyone is comparable to cutting the throats of pilots and passengers and proceeding to fly planes into buildings filled with people. My bad.

Again, missed my whole point - read the part about "not being literally analogous", which should indicate that I agree with quite a bit of the above - and try to relate your feeling to whether media coverage is biased. You're wasting some good rants here, when you could be addressing the topic.

BlueAngel has done a good job of derailing this thread, though.