Liam Neeson’s Converting To Islam

kill em all and then let their gods sort them out.

TMI, I have no problem whatsoever with the Darwinian implications of your myopic moral relativism, but for the fact we might end up with the same flight number.

Those people are not being true to what Christianity teaches. People are people. The Christian religion (and Jesus himself) has always expected that “Christians” like Bush would screw things up royally due to influences like their own greed and need for power. That’s human nature, not Christianity.

True. I’m not sure I see how that weakens my argument, though. It’s not as if human nature has shown any less brutality under atheistic regimes. The violence and other unpleasantness that result from Christianity (cannot speak for Islam as I don’t know enough about it) are due to its being twisted and manipulated by very imperfect people. Personally, I’d rather live by a belief system which at least aims at peace than leave fate up to human nature.

Obama is a muslim, and he continued the “war on terror” – even leaving Robert Gates as sec’y of defense. Since then, we’ve escalated in Afghanistan, fought a “proxy war” in Libya, backed the ouster of Mubarrek (sp? who cares) in Egypt, carried out drone strikes in Pakistan and Syria, assassinated a teenaged American citizen via drone, and oh yeah now we’re sending troops to Israel and Kuwait, and carriers in to the Straight of Hormuz because we’re told to be very afraid of yet another impoverished third-world nation with a vastly inferior defense (Iran). Oh, I realized we pulled out of Iraq, but where was the ticker-tape victory parade?? 5000+ troops dead, untold Iraqi civilians, trillions spent, and we leave it in shambles and on the brink of civil war.
What does all this have to do with Christianity? Zero.

Muslims have governments the murder through government sanctioned wars. It’s going on in many muslim lands – Sudan? If things get tough enough for the Copts in Egypt don’t be surprised if you don’t start hearing about suicide bombers coming from the Copts.

The guys that invented the strap-on-a-bomb were the Hindu Tamil Tigers.

Yeah, because bombing abortion clinics in this country; assassinating doctors who perform abortions; murders of people who refuse forced conversion by the NLFT in India; masssacres, rapes and tortures by the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda; Rwandan nuns who think genocide is serving the Lord; Breivik’s massive car bombing is Olso just 6 months ago; Concerned Christians who thought they’d go straight to heaven for bombing holy sites in Jerusalem, lynchings; raping, bombings and murders in “first klansman” Jesus’ name by the KKK; and every single act of bombing and terrorism in Ireland (both sides) are TOTALLY non violent citable acts which have absolutely NO similarity in philosophical content. And don’t get me started on the shit that Opus Dei has probably bankrolled in Christ’s name. Onward, Christian soldiers.

Wake the fuck up.

In the end, all you’re doing is taking the worst 1% of any particular group and stereotyping it across the board. So what does it matter?

“But, this would keep you from feeling that smug superiority every good Liberal wraps themselves within, so it just ain’t gonna happen, and you’ll keep sniping from a distance, never managing to add to any informed conversation.”

And claiming that Christianity doesn’t prompt acts of violence isn’t a smugly superior stance? OMG, I’m calling out the misguided followers who missed the basic tenets and are using it to serve their own needs – gee, just like Muslim extremists and terrorists – and daring to compare extremists, so I MUST be a “liberal”.

I’m actually not too surprised you spent 14 years in Baptist school – what I would like to know is how many times you were held back.

Sophistry’s not your strong suit, is it?

Arguing freedom of speech under a secular democratic republic vs. that of a theocracy as a sign of the non-violenct aspects of Christianity is a massively lame argument, since we have these rights independent of any established religion, and theocracies aren’t defined as Islamic. ANY theocracy is going to be opressive to thought, word and deed because any religion strong enough to set up, or infiltrate, a government, cannot encourage dissent.
Look up how much freedom of speech or press was allowed in Europe under the Catholic Church and get back to me on the punishments for “heresy” and why Galileo’s works were supressed. And if you never heard of Hypatia, the last librarian at Alexandria who was dragged through the streets and murdered by Christians, who then torched the library under Theophilus’ orders because it contained corrupting “pagan” knowledge, you have now. Caliph Omar (other team) finished the job 300 years later, for exactly the same reason. Knowledge and freedom always suffer when religion is in charge – ANY religion.

And claiming Christianity is “LESS violent” is not your original statement. Christianity, when it was on the rise and then in its established supremacy, was incredibly violent and repressive, and sadly, plenty of its followers today are fine with that. Islam is undergoing the same thing. Take a leaf out of George Bernard Shaw and stop trying to equivocate – we know what the situation is, all we’re doing now is haggling over the price.

Yup, ignorance is still bliss. Because God knows we should never, ever, read, or listen to, or look at, anything written or painted or sung by anyone whose politics or religion we disagree with. Congrats, you just demonstrated why libraries get burned and books get banned.

Now, try to read with some comprehension – I said not all theocracies are Islamic, not that Saudi Arabia, which is a de facto theocracy, isn’t Islamic. All theocracies =/= Saudi Arabia; shocking concept, I know. Having a grasp of sophistry would mean you could at least craft some decent misdirection to disguise the fact you have no argument- as it is, it appears you just lack the basic ability to comprehend.

I gave you recent examples, and I could add Jerry Boykin with his fervency for “holy war” to the pile – all of which, BTW, you term “perfectly true” examples, but because the US is not a theocracy, and the body count is less (hey, Norway, you don’t count, sorry), and we have the right to discuss it in an open forum it means that radicalized or fanatical Christians are somehow “less violent”? Dude, what Christianity lacks is a tradition of suicide bombing, not a tradition of non-violence.

And yes, if ANY religion had an established primacy in the government it would damage intellectual freedom – and that includes Christianity. I wonder if, in the 14 years you spent in Baptist school, you were ever informed that one of the reasons that Jefferson was so fervently for the Establishment Clause was because Baptists in Virginia weren’t allowed to preach freely, and were jailed for daring to challenge the established Anglican church, which was the majority religion among the elite who sat in the state assembly. Patrick Henry, the original “give me liberty” guy, was an Anglican and bitterly opposed it. It’s amazing that only when your own religion isn’t the favored one do you realize why that Amendment is so vital.

msctex, since I spent all day helping women get in and out of an abortion clinic, my bet would be Mr. Christian in the library with the revolver. Your question is ludicrous. But since I have an alarm system and a sawed-off in the closet, I also bet that I’ll live,

TomFrank, that’s high praise indeed – I love you, too. Hey, where’s my shoes???

pfk, Oliver Wendell Holmes, the great American jurist, was also a proponent of eugenics. Yes, yes, he was. I find that far more disturbing given his influence on the law than I did Shaw’s position on eugenics – or indeed, Shaw’s vegetarianism or Shaw’s socialism or Shaw’s misogyny. But what does that, or Margaret Sanger, have to do with this topic?

“Honor killings”, FGM and other barbaric cultural idiocies actually aren’t found in the Qu’ran, but like the violence under the Taliban, they’re an extension of cultural misogyny. What’s ironic is that the Bible exhorts women to submit to their husbands, the Qu’ran recognizes their equality before God. But since no one’s arguing the point about Islam and violence, what exactly is your point? Obviously I’m not the only one who thinks you don’t have one, so check the top of your head – maybe it’s there.

There are straws all over the place, but look to pfk for the source. He made no relevant argument that anyone, other than you, can see – and trying to drag Shaw and eugenics into the mix to set up some sort of weaker side argument, is textbook. You tried to do it earlier with the saem result, so no surprise you’re defending him here. As for “logical phallacy” – if you looked it up, I’m sure you’d see your face next to the definition.

Oh, oh, don’t forget the Ugandan “Kill all teh gayz” bill: http://bit.ly/zbOWFz

Money quote: “A special motion to introduce the legislation was passed a month after a two-day conference was held in which three American Christians asserted that homosexuality is a direct threat to the cohesion of African families.”

You WAKE THE FUCK UP. That same old argument about abortion clinics being blown up, which of course wrong and
not Christian, is so fucking old. You forgot Timothy McVeigh in your dribble. DRIBBLE DRIBBLE DRIBBLE. Oh yeah, let’s not forget “it’s all Bush’s faulth”

Idiot: you have managed to achieve a realization common to most in their early teens, namely that there is a shortage of pure “good guys” in the world. But if you would continue thinking past that point, you might realize that pretending everybody is equally bad is as insane as pretending Men do not do evil things, and force you to consider, historically, which schools of thought are responsible for more real Good than others. But, this would keep you from feeling that smug superiority every good Liberal wraps themselves within, so it just ain’t gonna happen, and you’ll keep sniping from a distance, never managing to add to any informed conversation.

Wake the fuck up? Grow the fuck up.

Also, Brevik was NO CHRISTIAN. That was a narrative pushed by the media, none of it based in fact. His facebook account showing his true beliefs was scrubbed in order to fit the narrative. Dumbass.

POWW, you moron, right or wrong, the people who are doing the bombings and shootings of clinics and doctors think that the Bible is exhorting them to act in Christ’s name. McVeigh didn’t have that motivation, but I’m sure you were having too much fun typing “dribble” to be bothered to stick to the facts..

Unless you know that Bush is behind Opus Dei, in the same way dung beetle knows Obama is a Muslim, his “fault” (outside of a conviction that declaring war on Iraq is a holy crusade) isn’t what I was referring to, but I don’t expect you to be able to reason out for yourself.

“Dribble” and “drivel” originally meant the same thing: drool. But the two words have become differentiated. When you mean to criticize someone else’s speech as stupid or pointless, the word you want is “drivel.”

I do stand corrected. I should have said
DRIVEL DRIVEL DRIVEL

There are a lot of Muslims who believe that jihadi fundies and extremists aren’t being true to THAT faith or its teachings, either. Again, see human nature.

We’ve all been there.

Please send me a map when you find that place. I want to go to there.

In a perfect world….

communism has killed more than all the religions combined

Too late. He broke character after he dropped the DVD commentary.

+INFINITY

It wasn’t meant to weaken your argument, unless you believe that Christianity is only represented by pacifists, which you clearly don’t. Just observing that willful misinterpretation and corruption of inital teachings isn’t limited to Christians. People will twist pretty much any spiritual teaching they can get their hands on to make it serve their needs, and if not, they’ll start their own scam, cult or branch. Islam started out with a call for patience and tolerance and morphed into something else at the end.

I’m actually in agreement with you on that. However, in the absence of a religion to twist around toward selfish ends, atheists use such ideals as superiority of race or nation (e.g. Hitler…) for the same purposes. In other words, people will use just about any excuse to feel that they are better than other people and that is what wreaks havoc on the world. Just my humble opinion, but I think Christian teachings at least try to counteract that mentality, although there will always be people who will misuse them.

In other words, it’s status quo no matter who is “leader of the free world.”

No, that is not what you are doing. You are pretending a rational person could believe it is possible to compare the amount of violence done every day in the name of Islam to that done in Christianity’s name and not notice a discrepancy. Many of the examples you cited are perfectly true, but that does not change the fact this conversation is free and unrestricted in this country, yet under a Muslim authoritarian system might get us beheaded. It happens in Saudi Arabia every fucking week. I never claimed Christianity is in any way pure, you silly jackass, I simply claim it is far LESS violent. See? Work with what I say as opposed to your inferences, and you might actually understand what I mean.

He likes to hear men that smell like ass and armpit sing. He’s gay. Bro when you get a spiritual boner for another man singing that means you’re a homo. Embrace your gayness Liam, embrace your desire to be shat on by smelly yodlers.

Fish is a bigot and should not be taken seriously.

Please. There is nothing to suggest that he’s “converting to Islam”. He simply says that Islamic prayer “got into his spirit” while filming in Turkey.

Sorry, no. I like my playwrights less Socialist. And why would I want sophistry as a strong suit? That’s actually a complement, genius. Does it not cause one or two extra neurons to click in your brain to note that you are looking back hundreds if not thousands of years to support your argument, while my point is on display every day? A thing can be both true and not remotely relevant to the matter at hand. “Knowledge and freedom always suffer when religion is in charge – ANY religion.” Yep. And that has precisely what to do with this subject? That IF Christians had a stranglehold on or Democracy it would damage intellectual freedom? Wow, there’s the Federalist Papers, but then there’s you. A staggering grasp of the obvious used to deflect your inability to address the matter actually at hand. And saying Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. are not “defined as Islamic” is such a blatant, naked sophistry you should be ashamed to have broached the term, unless you somehow meant “the CONCEPT of theocracy is not limited to Islam,” which is itself almost as empty an argument, just down a different road of fallacy. You obviously have a keen and fairly impressive sense of history. Consider applying it to the real world, as opposed the one of moral and ethical equivalence you apparently see all around you. You want to be able to debate, but until you limit your argument to relevant fact, there’s just no point for someone who does.

Agreed, Archie…but why must we invade them when they’re not even close to having ICBMs…and if they do get close Israel will bomb the facilites, or send in Mossad to off the scientists (like they’ve been doing already)…why send our troops into another conflict

Say, Equinox, at one point I used to drink Guinness five times a day—are we the same religion?

“(My) own religion?” And you would mock my reading comprehension. Read the first two sentences that opened this thread/exercise in futility, and you’ll see why you have, yet again, placed convenient assumption ahead of fact, pulsing in neon though it may be. (If it was meant as a more rhetorical “your”, never mind.) And, just for the simple hell of it, it’s safe to say I’ve read more GBS than you, even saw a show in London. Lastly: go back through it all, and find one place where I said Christianity was anything more than preferable to Islam. As I acknowledged before, the Christians WERE incredibly vicious centuries ago, but with a relatively few modern exceptions, that has greatly dissipated with time. Islam, however, MEANS “Submission,” and where Christianity’s stated, by-the-book goal is to “go therefore and teach,” Islam’s is to conquer at the point of a sword. If you can seriously find a way to ignore the danger when it is still so architecturally evident in NYC, and support your argument by citing the fucking Crusades and other various medieval horrors of the Catholic Church, you clearly just enjoy arguing unfettered by sense. The Catholic Church is hideous. No kidding. I’m not even sure what it is we are arguing about anymore; I think it boils down to your unwillingness to stop pretending there is a MODERN (meaning, most fundamentally relevant to our lives right now) equivalency between the two religions in terms of clear and present danger.
Let me leave you with one simple hypothetical question: you are going to be murdered tonight for religious reasons, by a fanatic who is either Christian or Muslim, but if you can guess their religion with no sensory evidence, you get to live. No faces, no accent, nothing. Not even a visible weapon. Who’s going to kill you?

Threads like this make me thankful that I find myself basically in accord with justifiable’s worldview, because if I ever got into a debate with him like this, I don’t think I’d be confident I’d win the argument.

Justifiable, marry me.

HAHAHA! Thanks Uncle Phil for a comment worthy of this blog! The superficial is where you come when you want to hear about the absurd crap people do when they have more money than sense; not thoughtful or accurate analysis of religion or politics.

I’d be concentrating more on how sex-starved Kelly Preston must be by now, but hey, to each his own.

I’d need to know your size and preference. No sparkly velvet heels, though—those are all reserved for kimmykimkim.

justifiable – put it this way: do you think you’re safer helping woman (and little girls) into abortion clinics here in America surrounded by “Christian” protesters than you would be showing your ankles in Afghanistan surrounded by the Taliban?

Just today I read of a situation in Canada where a bomb threat delayed a day of testimony in a case concerning a Muslim Afghani toad, his 2nd wife, and his 21 year old son. You see, the toad’s 3 (gorgeous, beautiful) daughters and 50 year-old 1st wife dishonored him by becoming too westernized. So he, the brother/son, and his stupid cow of a 2nd wife took each one out separately and drowned them, then put them in a sedan and rammed it into a canal with the toad’s SUV.

Oh, btw, did you know that that cute little progressive atheist dandy Georgie Shaw was a profound believer in eugenics? Yes, yes he was, the same as that irreligious progressive Sanger woman. And considering that today the number of abortions among blacks is almost equal to that of whites despite the fact that African Americans are only 12% of the population, I think she’s somewhat succeeding. Don’t you?

PFK,
I don’t really see your point about Shaw buying into eugenics. He was born in the 1850′s. It would be more noteworthy if he weren’t racist.

Man, and I thought I had issues with those people. The question is not ludicrous, it is simply difficult for someone who very much wants to believe things he knows, deep down, to not be the case.
It is quite easy for me to answer, because I’m not kidding myself about the way the world works. Really ask yourself why you refuse to consider the question. Because I guarantee you, you can not come up with a question I cannot address. Not answer, certainly. But I’m not afraid to think about any idea. The question makes you confront a personal illusion, and it pisses you off. If not, answer it. All it does it force you to admit a cold, hard mathematical probability that you do not happen to like.
Truth be told, I tend to like people who would both have the shotgun in the closet and be out doing God’s work, or at least God’s work if he existed and ever set foot in these parts. And, good Clue joke.
Be careful. You’re bordering on a irrational belief that one holds in the face of reality, because it serves as a shield against any number of things one is not willing to confront.. It’s called “faith.”

Again: pointing out that OWH was a proponent of eugenics in no way diminishes the argument PFK was actually making. It is yet another fact wholly irrelevant to the matter at hand. Your entire method of argument is the weakest brand of strawman rhetorical fallacy, because you don’t even bother to link your strawman to the subject at hand. You don’t like football because of the possibility for concussions, well, OJ played football. . .

^ THIS!!!!

+1 lmao

That perfect world is my apartment, I guess. Come over!

I’m a she, and you’re the one who told msctex to take a leaf out of GBS. I was just trying to educate you as to why s/he might not want to do that, and why in the future you might not want to casually shoehorn George into an argument about the source of evil in humans because you want to appear not only self-righteously, sanctimoniously compassionate, but intelligent, too.

The “point” is that Fish stated Christianity is as violent as Islam. I’m surprised that you missed it as that was what msctex was responding to in the first comment of this thread. You know, that comment above that started this entire discussion, the one that you have chosen to respond to again and again?

The Koran does not recognize female equality before God. It might have prevented daddy from throwing his 1st born on top of a hill to starve if that child was a girl, but Muhammad didn’t come back from the desert with an edict from Allah saying “thou shall not cut thy daughter’s clit off” or “thou shall not sell your 6 year-old daughter off to grandpa”, and those cultural mores existed back then. He chose not to address them. In fact, the only thing the daddy did wrong according to his religion in the above news story I mentioned is he did not publicly assert the dishonor his daughters foisted upon him so that every man in the village could then throw rocks at their heads to restore it for him.

I don’t give a crap if the Bible exhorts women to be submissive. It’s nothing to me. What I do give a damn about is that our “secular, democratic republic” was founded ENTIRELY on the belief that each and every person is born with certain inalienable rights given to us by OUR CREATOR yet we are now at a point in our country’s history where there is someone in the WH who thinks the Constitution is an obstacle to be gamed or ignored because it should be the government’s job to hand out little things like liberty and happiness. Whether his name is Pope Pious Obama or Imam Barack or Barry Marx doesn’t really matter to me.

just – I don’t mean to embarrass you, but if the other fellow looked up “logical phallacy” as you suggest, he wouldn’t find anything at all. It is correctly spelled “fallacy,” as he typed in his post. Sorry.

But it ISN’T 1% of Muslims. Every single poll done in Muslim countries show that over 70% of them support Al Qaeda and their acts. When the terrorist attacks happened in 2001, there were mass celebrations in the streets of Muslim countries, with people cheering wildly and dancing. You can still see them on Youtube if you don’t believe me. Don’t make yourself look foolish by trying to argue that Muslims are in any way similar to other mainstream religious groups.

LOL oh ok monkeyass… right… bullshit!

Charming…..you seem like a very educated guy. Whatever your religion is, you’re a disgrace to that religion. Shame on you..