The difference being that the Christian bible and the foremost Christian example, that of Christ, does not call for violence within Christian groups, or even against other innocent people. But both, Islam's holy books and their foremost example, call for violence against apostates and unbelievers even if they are innocent of any other "crime".
So this you have time for, but my point by point in rebuttal you can only give a partial on one part...okay, well first the OT is filled with a good many condoned and ordered acts of violence, but I agree with you that Christ was a game changer in fulfilling the law. And yet, the Church that followed the NT is the same church I noted warred and raged across Europe and felt justified in doing it. Those Protestants and Catholics had Bibles. And the apostate, in a religious Islamic state, is definitely going to run into OT strong responses.
It's only extremest compared to you.
No, it's extremist compared to the overwhelming majority of Muslims and how they conduct their business. That's why, for the who knows how many times now, it's Muslims doing most of the dying and fighting to put those extremists down.
It's not extremest to murder apostates/unbelievers according to its holy books or Mohammed, who is their greatest example of how to live.
Which again is why when Muslims controlled vast areas of the world and much closer to the days of their prophet the Christian and Jew lived among them and were not put to death for their difference.
lain:
I did quote you, "Islam once controlled a great deal of southern Europe and the Christians and Jews living there were not killed or converted." What you were trying to say was that Muslim rule in Iberia was peaceful and implied that Christians and Jews were free. Yet this wasn't true. The Christians and Jews were treated then like they are treated today in arab countries, which is to say shamefully.
What you did in misrepresenting me was to proffer a distorted "paradise" bit of nonsense that wasn't at all what I actually said. Misrepresenting me wastes time with my having to go back and correct you and I'm going to do that every single time. I didn't imply, I noted that people of other faiths weren't put to death for their difference. I only just did it again. You say that people of other faiths were treated "shamefully" but you don't say how or what that means, so it's a bit like most subjective judgments until you do.
The distinguished historian Bernard Lewis described the status of those outside of the Islamic faith, living in Spain during the reign of the Moors as having a second class citizenship. That is, they had rights (including the right to their faith) but not the same or as many as their conquerors. By comparison with the day it was generous, unheard of even. By our lights, not so much.
Sure, when muslims rule they treat Christians and Jews shamefully instead of killing them. If that's the case, since Christians and Jews were censored, you seem to be OK with that.
You seem to be okay with making things up for me to be okay about. How about you stick to relating your understanding if you can't do better than that? Else, supra.
You conflate "conservative" and "right wing". They aren't the same.
I don't really. I'd say that every right winger is a conservative, but not every conservative is a right winger.
The KKK was far from right wing, although you could say they wanted to conserve chattel slavery as a way of life.
What I said to you and have said about the KKK is that it began for one purpose but quickly became the thing that took shape and power later, a racist, fear driven society of sheet wearing thugs who used violence and intimidation to preserve the power structure and serve white interest in the South and other parts of the nation.
What I've noted about conservatism is that it is the champion of the status quo, the slow change where change must come and the wholesale advocate of tradition in nearly any form. That brings with it the good and the bad. Progressives have similar problems, but you wanted a more limited conversation so we're having that one.
They were democrats through and through, unchanged in general principle to this very day. Democrats hate blacks and treat them horribly because they consider them second class citizens (like the Moors in Iberia treated Christians and Jews).
You're free to believe that, contrary to reason as it is, but there's no point in arguing the point with you given its seat. Most blacks are Democrats and they don't hate themselves or act against their own best interests. To believe as you do you'd have to believe not only that it's true but that blacks aren't smart enough to recognize it. Either way, you have real problems with your logic or your bias.
On FDR. He's like Wilson and many of his day, a pragmatic racist. That he was shrewd enough to do a good for the wrong reasons isn't surprising, given. Most people were, sadly, a lot like him, which is why it took well into the last century to secure rights and liberties for minorities which should have been accomplished by birth in this nation. We're a work in progress. Hopefully, over enough time, we'll continue to right wrongs that are woven into the fabric of our compact.
Exactly. The repubs have to lend lip service, and actual legislation, to get elected by both pro-murder and anti-murder constituents. The dems have how many anti-murder leaders or elected officials? It has to be close to zero.
On abortion the only rational response is to recognize that you can usually vote for the liar who promises to change things and won't or the liar who sells murder as right. Not a particularly appealing set of choices on the issue.
And since leftist love murdering babies before they are born, they will love censorship, too.
There you go off the rails and the only response is that it's both a simplistic and mistaken position, but I don't for a moment think anything I can say to you will move you off of it, so I won't try.
No, the right will have respect for some principles, especially the ones on the hard right, so much that they lose elections because of it.
Rather, the right is who they are and the left is much the same. What changes is the public perception, usually related to the economy. Give us prosperity under Clinton and he walks into a second term. Give us struggle under the Bush Sr. and the great Reagan revolution is shown the door. The public ideology seems to be for sale when you consider it.
And if they are willing to lose elections because they are anti-murder, you can see how they will respect a person's speech even if they disagree with it.
Few candidates on the right have made abortion the centerpiece of their campaigns and if you think calling contrary speech UnAmerican is respectful I've got some swamp land in Arizona you just might be interested in.
