String the terrorists up! Nice job...

[Bruce Burleson]

Valden mentioned that the US news never refers to homegrown terrorists as the "American taliban" in the post that RB took exception to. To the best of my understanding, she was not referring to the entire religious right either. Her point, and mine, was that there are groups that are every bit as fanatical and violent as the taliban in the USA.

I challenge the assessment that these nutties were "Christian." There is a tendency to mix religion with nationalism, and you end up with some very unsavory stews. "Christian" is just a label that is appropriated by various groups for political or other purposes. Since Jesus (unlike Mohammad) never took up arms or taught his disciples to kill people, it's really a stretch to label these people as his followers.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Valden mentioned that the US news never refers to homegrown terrorists as the "American taliban" in the post that RB took exception to. To the best of my understanding, she was not referring to the entire religious right either. Her point, and mine, was that there are groups that are every bit as fanatical and violent as the taliban in the USA.

I challenge the assessment that these nutties were "Christian." There is a tendency to mix religion with nationalism, and you end up with some very unsavory stews. "Christian" is just a label that is appropriated by various groups for political or other purposes. Since Jesus (unlike Mohammad) never took up arms or taught his disciples to kill people, it's really a stretch to label these people as his followers.

If they call themselves christian, that is enough for me. Or do you have some special god-powers to distinguish 'real' christians from the other kind?

[Ian]

Christians cherry-pick the bible to decide for themselves what constitutes Christian morality. Naturally, they're going to decide for themselves that some fellow Christians don't qualify as real Christians either.

I'd wager anything that those Hutaree psychos don't consider the more moderate types like Bruce to be real Christians.

[Wumbologist]

Valden mentioned that the US news never refers to homegrown terrorists as the "American taliban" in the post that RB took exception to. To the best of my understanding, she was not referring to the entire religious right either. Her point, and mine, was that there are groups that are every bit as fanatical and violent as the taliban in the USA.

I challenge the assessment that these nutties were "Christian." There is a tendency to mix religion with nationalism, and you end up with some very unsavory stews. "Christian" is just a label that is appropriated by various groups for political or other purposes. Since Jesus (unlike Mohammad) never took up arms or taught his disciples to kill people, it's really a stretch to label these people as his followers.

There really is No True Scotsman these days....

[Bruce Burleson]

If they call themselves christian, that is enough for me. Or do you have some special god-powers to distinguish 'real' christians from the other kind?

Stalin and Mao called themselves atheists. That is enough for me. Or do you have some special non-god-powers to distinguish "real" atheists from the other kind? This is such an infantile argument that you should be asking Madelyn Murray O'Hair to forgive you.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

If they call themselves christian, that is enough for me. Or do you have some special god-powers to distinguish 'real' christians from the other kind?

Stalin and Mao called themselves atheists. That is enough for me. Or do you have some special non-god-powers to distinguish "real" atheists from the other kind? This is such an infantile argument that you should be asking Madelyn Murray O'Hair to forgive you.

An atheist is just someone that doesn't believe in any god or gods. if Stalin and Mao met that criteria, then they were atheists. Where's your problem?

[Ian]

If they call themselves christian, that is enough for me. Or do you have some special god-powers to distinguish 'real' christians from the other kind?

Stalin and Mao called themselves atheists. That is enough for me. Or do you have some special non-god-powers to distinguish "real" atheists from the other kind? This is such an infantile argument that you should be asking Madelyn Murray O'Hair to forgive you.

Atheism is a word that shouldn't exist. There is no "ism" to speak of, no underlying philosophy. Christianity has an actual book in print.

[cursuswalker]

Not much in the why of guns from what I've seen. Relatively speaking, of course.

I thought the why of guns was covered in the second amendment.

I believe it was so citizens could protect themselves against the government.

Of cause when the government has 10,000 tanks and a shit load of ballistic missiles, a couple of pistols and a shotgun ain't gonna help you much.

You cannot overthrow a government with legally held arms.

[Wumbologist]

If they call themselves christian, that is enough for me. Or do you have some special god-powers to distinguish 'real' christians from the other kind?

Stalin and Mao called themselves atheists. That is enough for me. Or do you have some special non-god-powers to distinguish "real" atheists from the other kind? This is such an infantile argument that you should be asking Madelyn Murray O'Hair to forgive you.

If they didn't believe in the existence of deities, they were "true" atheists. It's not an exclusive club, we don't have a membership review board checking the qualifications of new "applicants". MOST people who call themselves "Christian" would not pass muster for actually following Christ's teachings.

[Martok]

Valden mentioned that the US news never refers to homegrown terrorists as the "American taliban" in the post that RB took exception to. To the best of my understanding, she was not referring to the entire religious right either. Her point, and mine, was that there are groups that are every bit as fanatical and violent as the taliban in the USA.

I challenge the assessment that these nutties were "Christian." There is a tendency to mix religion with nationalism, and you end up with some very unsavory stews. "Christian" is just a label that is appropriated by various groups for political or other purposes. Since Jesus (unlike Mohammad) never took up arms or taught his disciples to kill people, it's really a stretch to label these people as his followers.

If Jesus, Mohammad, and Buddha were to come back today Mohammad and Buddha would still recognize the religions they left behind. Jesus, if the stories of his life are true, would be shocked and horrified at wants been done in his name.

[Bruce Burleson]

If they call themselves christian, that is enough for me. Or do you have some special god-powers to distinguish 'real' christians from the other kind?

Stalin and Mao called themselves atheists. That is enough for me. Or do you have some special non-god-powers to distinguish "real" atheists from the other kind? This is such an infantile argument that you should be asking Madelyn Murray O'Hair to forgive you.

An atheist is just someone that doesn't believe in any god or gods. if Stalin and Mao met that criteria, then they were atheists. Where's your problem?

Who are you to say what an atheist is? Are you the atheist Pope? I've observed many arguments over the issue of whether "atheist" means "no belief in gods" vs. "belief in no gods." Now you step in with Sinaitic authority and claim to settle the issue. Who died and made you the True Scotsman Atheist?

[Bruce Burleson]

If Jesus, Mohammad, and Buddha were to come back today Mohammad and Buddha would still recognize the religions they left behind. Jesus, if the stories of his life are true, would be shocked and horrified at wants been done in his name.

Agreed.

[Wumbologist]

Are you the atheist Pope?

Words fail me.

[Ian]

[RuleBritannia]

If they call themselves christian, that is enough for me. Or do you have some special god-powers to distinguish 'real' christians from the other kind?

Stalin and Mao called themselves atheists. That is enough for me. Or do you have some special non-god-powers to distinguish "real" atheists from the other kind? This is such an infantile argument that you should be asking Madelyn Murray O'Hair to forgive you.

An atheist is just someone that doesn't believe in any god or gods. if Stalin and Mao met that criteria, then they were atheists. Where's your problem?

Who are you to say what an atheist is? Are you the atheist Pope? I've observed many arguments over the issue of whether "atheist" means "no belief in gods" vs. "belief in no gods." Now you step in with Sinaitic authority and claim to settle the issue. Who died and made you the True Scotsman Atheist?

"Atheist" means both, "no belief in gods" and "belief in no gods", which is a shame because these are very different things, but that's what it means.

Comparing "atheist" to "christian" is incorrect anyway, the correct comparison would be "atheist" and "theist", as they are both absolutes. "Christian" on the other hand isn't, and that's where you get into the "no true Scotsman" region.