Article

2006-09-29 Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia

Assailants throw gasoline bombs at Russian mosque

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2006-09-29 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11137 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 About time too!!!

Please let this spread throughout Europe!

Posted by Cheregum Crelet7867 2006-09-29 05:25|| 2006-09-29 05:25|| Front Page Top

#2 I don't think so. Upon the adoption of Christianity by the Roman Empire, I do not recall there being circuses (circi?) in which the pagans were fed to the lions. The muzzies do that sort of thing, bombing innocents, apparently because their religion says it's OK. Ours doesn't. It's part of what distinguishes us from them. Let's not change for their sake. Forgetting our religious heritage did not work well for Europe in the last century. Must we encourage them to repeat the mistake?

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-09-29 05:45|| 2006-09-29 05:45|| Front Page Top

#3 nimble, you have too fight fire with fire

Posted by sinse 2006-09-29 07:51|| 2006-09-29 07:51|| Front Page Top

#4 I fight fire with water and halon. Perhaps in the forest fighting fire with fire works, but not so well in civilized areas.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-09-29 08:05|| 2006-09-29 08:05|| Front Page Top

#5 To the extent that Militant Islam fights the west MILITARILY, as a nation we should respond with overwhelming force. To the extent that Islam infiltrates western culture and values, our culture should respond in kind to stop it's spread. Individually however, sectarian violence is never the answer. This degrades a man to the same level as the death-cultists.

"Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." Rom. 12:21

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-09-29 08:38|| 2006-09-29 08:38|| Front Page Top

#6 Look again Cheregum Crelet7867

same mosque was targeted in a similar attack and two synagogues were vandalized elsewhere in Russia, highlighting rising xenophobia in the country

Posted by gromgoru 2006-09-29 09:19|| 2006-09-29 09:19|| Front Page Top

#7 Russia is more right wing than left.
In the US, we would give them free trailers to live in and government cheese, and the ACLU would reach a climax over the whole affair.
I predict more of this until the muzzies are gone from Russia. Maybe I'll retire there.

Posted by wxjames 2006-09-29 09:29|| 2006-09-29 09:29|| Front Page Top

#8 Maybe you should.

Posted by Pappy 2006-09-29 09:44|| 2006-09-29 09:44|| Front Page Top

#9 I have to agree with Nimble Spemble and mcsegeek1. This is not what Jesus would do. We should at least try to give these people a better answer than violence and death. Some of them might hear it.

Posted by Sleaper Thraviter2776 2006-09-29 10:59|| 2006-09-29 10:59|| Front Page Top

#10 I don't think this is a good sign. It sounds more like the old Great Russian xenophobia and racism.

Now, if the imam had been preaching to kill the infidels and been stockpiling weapons, then, sure, lock everyone inside and then torch the place. Unless and until I know that's happening, it's not good.

Posted by Jackal">Jackal 2006-09-29 11:46|| http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2006-09-29 11:46|| Front Page Top

#11 This is not what Jesus would do. We should at least try to give these people a better answer than violence and death. Some of them might hear it.

Jesus ended up on a cross. Christianity only came to the front when the General/Emperor Constantine having obtained his position by the sword, made it the state religion, backed by those same legions.

Posted by Omomoger Ulavins7202 2006-09-29 12:10|| 2006-09-29 12:10|| Front Page Top

#12 With all due respect, Omomoger Ulavins7202 (please come up with a nick!), Jesus did go to the cross, but he didn't 'end up' there.

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-09-29 12:19|| 2006-09-29 12:19|| Front Page Top

#13 Well they've got their work cut out, as 20% of Russians are Muslim.

Posted by Grinemp Shasing5211 2006-09-29 12:58|| 2006-09-29 12:58|| Front Page Top

#14 "Jesus did go to the cross, but he didn't 'end up' there. "

correct he was ripped down and thrown in a shallow grave

Posted by pihkalbadger 2006-09-29 13:29|| 2006-09-29 13:29|| Front Page Top

#15 ripped down and thrown in a shallow grave

huh?

Posted by Frank G 2006-09-29 13:33|| 2006-09-29 13:33|| Front Page Top

#16 pihkalbadger, R U insulting for effect, or simply a troll?

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-09-29 13:45|| 2006-09-29 13:45|| Front Page Top

#17 For effect, i dont want rantburg to turn into a christian vs muslim debate using thousand year old txt's. No offence really intended but if ya want a soapbox to protelyse some god worshiping sect then here aint it.

Posted by pihkalbadger 2006-09-29 13:54|| 2006-09-29 13:54|| Front Page Top

#18
re:#8 Pappy - lol!

I'll take the fighting fire with fire bait. It's true there are times you fight fire with fire, but generally burning down your own house defeats the purpose of that exercise.

Posted by anon 2006-09-29 13:58|| 2006-09-29 13:58|| Front Page Top

#19 pink badger - I think this is a perfect place to discuss it. I haven't seen any rantburgers, myself included making alter calls. In case you haven't noticed, this is a war that pits the basic tenants of Western Socieity which are based on the tenants of Judeo/Christianity (law and tolerance) against the basic tenants of liberalism and Jihad (totaltariansim and intolerance).

Posted by anon 2006-09-29 14:02|| 2006-09-29 14:02|| Front Page Top

#20 and I use liberalism in the context of what it has become today.

Posted by anon 2006-09-29 14:06|| 2006-09-29 14:06|| Front Page Top

#21 pihkalbadger, your hostility to all things religious is duly noted. However, You'll notice I did not insult your beliefs, and would only ask you to extend the same courtesy.

As to whether Rantburg is a good venue for discussing it, I've found it to be a delightful venue to discuss all kinds of things, with people who sometimes believe very differently than I do. It's called discourse.

As to soapboxes, when did I ever try to get on one and proselyte you? Discussing the religious ramifications of a thing is not proselyting, nor is quoting the scripture to illustrate a point.

I have many Jewish, agnostic, irreligious, and even atheistic friends here on Rantburg, and they don't find it necessary to throw insults. The point was that we Christians recognize imposters when we see them. You may disagree with this premise, but why insult my faith in order to do so?

Lastly, I'm sincerely happy that you aren't the one determining what is or is not appropriate here. Fred, Steve, etc. do that just fine.

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-09-29 14:10|| 2006-09-29 14:10|| Front Page Top

#22 In such a war, tolerance is a weakness. We WILL adopt their methods or we WILL lose.
Your feel good methods will only allow the lunatics to stop and prepare to fight another day. This has been happening for centuries, and it has led directly to 9/11.
When the hell do you all wake up ?
The enemy is Islam. All colors and all flavors are bent on killing us. Just ask them; if there are only a few, they will smile and deny any such intentions, but if many, you'll be lucky to escape with your life. Retire this !

Posted by wxjames 2006-09-29 14:16|| 2006-09-29 14:16|| Front Page Top

#23 This has been happening for centuries, and it has led directly to 9/11.

excuse me? Tolerance led to the peaceful society that we live in today. The only reason we are once again dealing with Jihad is because the current global nature of the world and petro dollars has put two civilizations, once separated by ideals in conflict with each other.

Posted by anon 2006-09-29 14:21|| 2006-09-29 14:21|| Front Page Top

#24 I fight fire with water and halon.

Remember not to breathe after you discharge that Halon extinguisher, especially if there are any open flames. While Russia's track record for xenophobia is dismal, it in no way diminishes the Islamic threat.

NS, when this Islamic wildfire marches up to your front door, you may want to start seeing the forest for the trees. Very soon, we may be obliged to light some serious back-burns, like deporting all un-naturalized Muslim immigrants or interning all naturalized non-native Muslim citizens. Until Islam renounces violent jihad and dhimmitude, our fight has not ended. If they refuse to renounce such vile tenets, then it must be a fight to the death.

Hint to anon: Distorting a poster's nym gives your arguments all the moral authority of a schoolyard taunt. You seem to have a nasty habit of baiting people. I'd advise that you get over yourself.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-09-29 14:23|| 2006-09-29 14:23|| Front Page Top

#25 yawn. I was just too lazy to go back and look up his wierd spelling. I'm not sure why you thought "pink badger" was such a big deal.

Posted by anon 2006-09-29 14:28|| 2006-09-29 14:28|| Front Page Top

#26 All colors and all flavors are bent on killing us.

Nitpick: Not all brands of Islam are virulently anti-American, wxjames. Look at the Iraqi Kurds and the Ahmadi Muslims. The fact that these two sects comprise less than 1% of all Islam does remain relevant, but your blanket condemnation does not hold.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-09-29 14:32|| 2006-09-29 14:32|| Front Page Top

#27 yawn. I was just too lazy to go back and look up his wierd spelling. I'm not sure why you thought "pink badger" was such a big deal.

Your laziness betrays you, anon. If your brain cannot make the mental leap required to connect "pink" with "pinko", you'd probably best remain in the discussion pool's shallow end. Your baiting is equally repugnant to pihkalbadger 's inflammatory words.

Another hint: Please overcome your self-admitted lethargy and simply run your mouse across a person's nym at the bottom of their post, while holding down the left hand mouse button. After highlighting the string of characters in question, merely hit "Control C" and, at the appropriate location in the text of your own post, hit "Control V". If you are unable to follow these simple instructions, there's a nice short bus waiting for you out front.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-09-29 14:43|| 2006-09-29 14:43|| Front Page Top

#28 take a pill.

Posted by anon 2006-09-29 14:45|| 2006-09-29 14:45|| Front Page Top

#29 C'mon now Zen my friend, Cut some slack. I'm sure anon knows the concept of cut and paste. I've had my nick butchered seven ways to Sunday.

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-09-29 14:49|| 2006-09-29 14:49|| Front Page Top

#30 [intercom voice] The humor light is now "on".

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-09-29 14:56|| 2006-09-29 14:56|| Front Page Top

#31 take a pill.

Me taking a pill won't cure your pissy attitude.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-09-29 14:58|| 2006-09-29 14:58|| Front Page Top

#32 yer so funny.....

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-09-29 15:03|| 2006-09-29 15:03|| Front Page Top

#33 At least I never spell your name funny.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-09-29 15:10|| 2006-09-29 15:10|| Front Page Top

#34 Zenster, you are correct about the Kurds, like I stated the other day, moderate muzzies confuse the shit outta me.
Anon, The only reason we are once again dealing with Jihad is because the current global nature of the world and petro dollars has put two civilizations, once separated by ideals in conflict with each other.
Does this explain the church burning rampage in Nigeria ? Are they all terrorists ? NO !
It's a war of Islam against all other beliefs. That's what it is all over, but they are not yet strong enough, or as in the case of Iraq, they are far too busy getting even with the other sects, whom are considered infidels anyway. Or, the ones making all the oil money are keeping their populations poor and focused on the Joooooos.
In the end, I predict we dare not allow Islam to continue without major rewriting of the Koran, and the end of the madrass brain washing of children.

Posted by wxjames 2006-09-29 15:14|| 2006-09-29 15:14|| Front Page Top

#35 Whoops, italics should have ended at 'each other'.

Posted by wxjames 2006-09-29 15:16|| 2006-09-29 15:16|| Front Page Top

#36 Hey Zen, be careful you don't start to sound like ex-lib. A pissy attitude is best ignored.

Posted by SR-71 2006-09-29 15:29|| 2006-09-29 15:29|| Front Page Top

#37 Good advice, SR-71. Thank you.

[intercom voice] The ignore light is now "on".

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-09-29 15:35|| 2006-09-29 15:35|| Front Page Top

#38 Children!!! Maybe it's time to go out and play -- or to take a nap.

I mean, REALLY folks!! Snark is fine, deadly snark is both funny and fitting at times but name calling of this sort is pathetic.

Posted by lotp 2006-09-29 15:37|| 2006-09-29 15:37|| Front Page Top

#39 Listen up lads, that's a former WAC speaking. Defiance might result in grease-trap duty!

Posted by Besoeker 2006-09-29 15:40|| 2006-09-29 15:40|| Front Page Top

#40 And it's cold and dark in there.

Posted by wxjames 2006-09-29 15:43|| 2006-09-29 15:43|| Front Page Top

#41 if you leave now wx, I'll pay your way.

Posted by Uneremp Elmavish4785 2006-09-29 15:53|| 2006-09-29 15:53|| Front Page Top

#42 I don't understand the meaning of your statement,
UE4785.

Posted by wxjames 2006-09-29 15:58|| 2006-09-29 15:58|| Front Page Top

#43 What one calls prostlyzing is another's correcting of the record. Religion IS a major factor in the War on Terror, and no less an authority than Dr. Victor Davis Hanson has remarked, in one of his books, that Christianity, strictly taken as a religion, interferes with and vitiates the Western Way of War. I couldn't think of a comback for that. And no less a liberal-lefty than Aris Katsaris has stated, in blunt terms, that when it comes to the War on Terror, that becoming a Christian was just plain stupid BECAUSE of what Jesus Preached. Everyone at my Church to which I've cited THAT fact to have never been able to come up with any good response either, and they don't even say "And that's the way it SHOULD BE."

I am no slouch when it comes to defending Christianity as a religion, but I think it does deserve being discussed at Rantburg as one BIG factor IMPEDING our ability to win the War on Islamofacists. I think that a good fraction of the one third of the American population who decided to stay neutral during the American Revolution used that as a personally good reason for doing so.

Posted by Ptah">Ptah 2006-09-29 15:58|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2006-09-29 15:58|| Front Page Top

#44 Does this explain the church burning rampage in Nigeria ? Are they all terrorists ? NO !

That is a fair point, wxjames and in the end, if we are to win, I think that your conclusion is right - but it will be less a rewriting of the Koran than allowing for a new interpretation of it. At least that is the best we can hope for in our life time.

This is just my opinion. We need to fight and kill the soldiers of Jihad. We need to include in that fight those who finance it, organize it and spread the propaganda. But in the end, we have to bring them to understand the ideals that make a peaceful civilization possible.

Posted by anon 2006-09-29 16:05|| 2006-09-29 16:05|| Front Page Top

#45 I am no slouch when it comes to defending Christianity as a religion, but I think it does deserve being discussed at Rantburg as one BIG factor IMPEDING our ability to win the War on Islamofacists

ok. I'll buy that even though I disagree. While you can find Christians who are pacifists and you can make the argument that Jesus was a pacifist, it is not a view held by all Christians. Rather most Christians believe that you need to fight against evil.

Look, there are several reasons I bring up religion on this board. None of them have to do with saving your souls. This is a board about the war on terror or against Islamofacism or whatever you want to call it. But I get tired of the bigotry and the misrepresentation of what a good majority of Americans believe in.

Second - I don't think many people have a clue as to what Christianity is about. For years the media culture has promoted this idea that Christianity is just a form of mental illness that drones follow blindly behind.

Like I said on this or another thread today, discussing Christianity is a bit like discussing accumulated interest. You have to grasp the deeper concept to discuss it with any authority at all. In a way, accumulated interest is a good example, I'm happy with it for the sake of this discussion. In both cases it requires a combination of understanding, faith, and action - you show some restraint to achieve a better return on down the road in both this world and the next. And not everyone has to understand either to benefit from taking advice from those who do.

But you do have to understand it to discuss it and be taken seriously by those who do.

Posted by anon 2006-09-29 16:25|| 2006-09-29 16:25|| Front Page Top

#46 I'm the one who made the comment about what Jesus would do or not do and I don't apologize. If you don't believe in Jesus that's fine but like it or not Christianity had a lot to do with the development of Western Civilization and that is what we want to defend against Islamofacist barbarians, is it not? So, if we become an unruly mob that throws molotov coctails, are we any better than our enemies? I don't object to demolishing a mosque as a matter of government policy if you make sure the people are evacuated out of it first. Then you can burn the Korans and shoot the clerics if they preach jihad. But first try to make these people understand that there is a better way. I don't want to preach but if you show them God's love first instead of a molotov coctail we might avoid another holocaust in which millions of people on both sides die. Show them some civil, well reasoned discourse and some sexy, whiskey and democracy and see if we can bring them around to a more sensible point of view before we have to drop the big one on them.

Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2006-09-29 16:30|| 2006-09-29 16:30|| Front Page Top

#47 Thanks, anon.
Ptah, maybe Jesus only preached to the society of the day. He was not interested in overthrowing Rome, but then Rome allowed the Jews their own religion and customs. Jesus did not preach against nuclear weapons, but surely he would not condone such violence. Would Jesus advise a man to turn the other cheek if a rapist were attacking his 5 year old daughter ? I think not. I think Jesus preached to a civil people who allowed materialism and greed to lead them astray. He exposed them as closed minded and hypocritical control freeks. He intended his lessons to be learned by the soldiers as well.
There's not enough of us or enough time to convert every muslim lunatic to a more gentle existence. We must fight and make peace with God when the time comes, or we send the innocent to their slaughter and slavery while we lose our honor. Jesus may have forseen such violence, but he did not share that with us.

Posted by wxjames 2006-09-29 16:31|| 2006-09-29 16:31|| Front Page Top

#48 The West {in the form of the British Empire} did not have to kill all Hindus to wipe out the Thugee; but they did have to kill all the Thugee, burn all of the Thugee manuscripts, and level all of the Thugee temples that the British could find. We as the modern West will eventually have to do the same thing to any Muslim sect that does not actively fight/preach against/forbid terrorism.
Or if we lose a couple of cities in the West to nuclear weapons, simply glass over the major Muslim population center in the world.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2006-09-29 16:34|| 2006-09-29 16:34|| Front Page Top

#49 Ptah, I'm going to concur with you in a limited sense. I can't positively say that the pacifistic elements of Judeo-Christianity are impeding or crippling our war-fighting ability. There may well be some connection between them and all this Order of the Garter crap we need to discard, but the jury is still out for me on that count.

Where I do connect these dots is in how Bush's own over-emphasis on religiosity has obliged him to accord far too much leeway to Islam as some sort of "fellow faith". This unnecessary focus upon religious issues, as opposed to the simple fact that war has been declared, or the politically ideological nature of Islam, has stalled a lot of important retaliation where it has been needed most.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-09-29 16:35|| 2006-09-29 16:35|| Front Page Top

#50 We as the modern West will eventually have to do the same thing to any Muslim sect that does not actively fight/preach against/forbid terrorism.
Or if we lose a couple of cities in the West to nuclear weapons, simply glass over the major Muslim population center in the world.

I agree, Shieldwolf. We're looking at doors #1 and #2 on the stage and the decision clock is ticking down before door #2 becomes the default choice.

Shieldwolf, I'm curious what you think about my idea to take Mecca (and maybe Medina) hostage and hold them until Islam reforms itself. It would be the ultimate flypaper and also represent one of the few nondestructive measures we could take with punitive impact upon all Muslims.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-09-29 16:50|| 2006-09-29 16:50|| Front Page Top

#51 This is a good discussion and I'm only going to say that I think that Ebbang Uluque6305 (cut and pasted) hit the nail on the head.

Christianity had a lot to do with the development of Western Civilization I would also add the Jewish principals of law into that equation.

Posted by anon 2006-09-29 17:19|| 2006-09-29 17:19|| Front Page Top

#52 Zenster, if I may...that is a good idea, but Islam is not centralized. There is no council of elders to deal with your demands. You would have to rewrite the koran yourself and try to get them to buy your changes. Maybe if you whipped them or used electric shock treatments too.
In the end, your idea yields unpredictable results at undetermined costs.

Posted by wxjames 2006-09-29 17:34|| 2006-09-29 17:34|| Front Page Top

#53 Back to topic. These kids have the right idea. Let's be blunt, Islam isn't a religion, it is a cult started by a desert terrorist who had his political enemies murdered and like sex with 8 year old little girls. Muhamhead convinced his horde to steal and murder for him. For good measure his teachings demand our conversion or death.

With those facts in mind I don't see the problem with removing one of the Pedophile for Profit's home bases. For that matter who in their right mind can defend Islam's right to exist?

For that matter the porKoranimals have a long tradition dating back to Muhammad, of burning churchs for sport.

It's us or them and it is only a matter of time before the sand monkey's go nuclear on one of our cities.

Posted by Icerigger 2006-09-29 17:44|| 2006-09-29 17:44|| Front Page Top

#54 Zenster, if I may...that is a good idea, but Islam is not centralized.

Which is precisely my point, wxjames. While Islam's sources of doctrine are not centralized, the haj, as a pillar of Islamic faith, is. This would be one of the few ways to make it crystal clear to all Muslims that there is a price tag attached to their continued tacit or overt support for Islamic terrorism, or, more exactly, their continued lack of vocal and physical rejection thereof.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-09-29 18:00|| 2006-09-29 18:00|| Front Page Top

#55 rupttippy tumpti pum
" Then you can burn the Korans and shoot the clerics if they preach jihad. But first try to make these people understand that there is a better way. I don't want to preach but if you show them God's love"
onward christian soldiers trumpypum.

For those of you without a sense of humour failure and who remember the old dictum about become the enemy we loath whilst doing everything to we can to oppose them, may find some humour herein

Posted by pihkalbadger 2006-09-29 18:48|| 2006-09-29 18:48|| Front Page Top

#56 21 You'll note that your beliefs are, by definition a matter of faith and I would be happy if your personal relationship with your own cuddly deity are not used as a defining manner in an otherwise rational argument.

You are quite correct in fact in most of the rest of your statement I'm so glad its fred et al and not me that runs this part of the blogsphere.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die:

Posted by pihkalbadger 2006-09-29 19:52|| 2006-09-29 19:52|| Front Page Top

#57 This isn't about Islam against Christianity--those that pretend it is are missing the larger point. Islam has declared (over and over again) war against "Infidels"--that hardly limits the fight to merely Christians. If Christians are too caught up into incorrect readings of scripture and continue to believe that this battle isn't a concern of theirs, it is a sad day indeed.

The "turn the other cheek" language cited often by pacifists was Jesus's instruction to *individuals*, not to nation-state entities. Striking one's cheek was considered an insult in Bibilical times, not an assault--Jesus was instructing followers to defer from responding to insults. Nowhere in scripture can it be found that Christians are instructed to sit on the sideline and watch while the world goes to hell all around them. That's not Christianity--that's pacifism...and morally unsound.

Posted by Crusader 2006-09-29 20:02|| 2006-09-29 20:02|| Front Page Top

#58 pihkalbadger, without otherwise entering into the conversation re: Christianity and our approach to the Islamacists, I do want to say that your quote from Deuteronomy in response to a Christian (whose theology explicitly sees the old Law as superceded) betrays a certain ... unfamiliarity with the topic.

Posted by MDiv 2006-09-29 21:04|| 2006-09-29 21:04|| Front Page Top

#59 I'm sorry, the bible & modern christianity are exclusive are they? contradiction in terms OH! I'm bad .

Posted by pihkalbadger 2006-09-29 21:25|| 2006-09-29 21:25|| Front Page Top

#60 We've discussed this before, here at Rantburg. And if I may speak for the Judeo side of this Judeo-Christian thingy everyone is so keen about (and I'll just assume that each of you at your monitor now whispered to yourself, "Oh yes, dear trailing wife, do so speak!"), at the time of the Maccabee rebellion against the Greco-Syrian inheritors of Alexander the Great's empire, it was realized that insisting on abiding by God's law against doing any work on God's days of rest and His holy days (the Sabbath, Passover, Yom Kippur, all that kind of thing... but not Hanukkah because of course that hadn't happened yet) -- including the work of picking up weapons to defend against attack -- as I was saying, the pius ones who insisted on obeying every jot and tittle of God's law in a time of mortal danger were subjecting the entire People to extinction. The rabbis made a ruling at the time, that the Law of God is not a suicide pact, and that God expects us to do whatever is necessary to defend ourselves when attacked.

I think we all agree that Jesus is portrayed in the New Testament as well educated in the Jewish Law of his time, as evidenced of the tale of his teaching in the Temple. Thus he would have been aware of this famous ruling handed down by the rabbis 250 years before, and therefore his "Turn the other cheek" statement could not possibly have referred to the kind of suicide-by-attacker modern day anti-war types are so fond of promulgating.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-09-29 21:30|| 2006-09-29 21:30|| Front Page Top

#61 I do want to say that your quote from Deuteronomy in response to a Christian (whose theology explicitly sees the old Law as superceded) betrays a certain ... unfamiliarity with the topic.

Yeah, out with the Ten Commandments and in with the Ten Suggestions.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-09-29 21:31|| 2006-09-29 21:31|| Front Page Top

#62 Thank you for calm and appropriate contribution of fact, trailing wife.

OH! I'm bad .

No, but you're either deeply ignorant of a topic you are soap boxing about, or you are being disingenuous. Neither advances the discussion.

Ten Suggestions

Sigh.

I suppose this sort of thing at least keeps y'all off the streets on a Friday evening.

Posted by lotp 2006-09-29 21:33|| 2006-09-29 21:33|| Front Page Top

#63 obeying every jot and tittle

Careful there, trailing wife, we've got to keep this place safe for work, you know!

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-09-29 21:35|| 2006-09-29 21:35|| Front Page Top

#64 Come now, lotp. Do you mean to say that you haven't seen that Christian bumpersticker:

THEY'RE NOT CALLED THE TEN SUGGESTIONS!

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-09-29 21:37|| 2006-09-29 21:37|| Front Page Top

#65 well said, tw and thanks lopt. We girls don't always have to agree, but we need to hang together because if doesn't matter if we are Jewish, Christian, Muslim, liberal, or whatever. No one stands to lose more than we do in this fight.

Posted by anon 2006-09-29 21:41|| 2006-09-29 21:41|| Front Page Top

#66 "doesn't matter if we are Jewish, Christian, Muslim, liberal, or whatever. No one stands to lose more than we do in this fight."

So true, so be aware.

Posted by pihkalbadger 2006-09-29 21:55|| 2006-09-29 21:55|| Front Page Top

#67 are you female, pickledbadger?

Posted by anon 2006-09-29 22:04|| 2006-09-29 22:04|| Front Page Top

#68 pihkalbadger, it's obvious you didn't get your talking points by personal experience or deep research. Probably got them from handouts on "how to confound christians" dating from the 60s.

Crusader is correct: Christianity is not a state religion because all the directives are given to individuals and churches, not to the State. While there are warnings about hell and living in a way that makes you fit for it, that hardly amounts to stating a death penalty (although I would imagine pihkalbadger could somehow talk himself into believing that.) In contrast, the old testament and the Koran are very specific on what constitutes capital punishment. State religions tend to dictate things like that.

Yeah, Constantine made Christianity an acceptable religion (It was not the sole state religion: it merely was declared legitimate). However, calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg, and insisting that a tail work like a leg is going to lead to difficulties. Declaring a religion not built to be a state religion would hencefore be THE state religion does not make it fit to be one, and the ensuing mess was bad for human beings and the religion. pihkalbadger believes Christians slavishly follow the Old Testament only because the Roman Catholic Church had to dig through the Old Testament for help on being a state religion, because the New Testament was totally and completely silent on the issue. Shows you how much he knows about Judaism, Christianity, or history...

What's funny is that, when I tell people at my church that Christianity is not a state religion, and thus shouldn't tell the government what to do, the people who agree with me are politically conservative, and the ones who oppose the idea are invariably liberals. It doesn't exactly help their feelings toward me when I point out that David slept with Bathsheba at the same time he was carrying out a war against the Ammonites because of an insult done to his messengers. When nathan came to confront David, he didn't say a thing about the war, but had a lot to say about Bathsheba. They usually laugh nervously and run away on suddenly urgent business when I get around to asking, if Nathan was around today, whether he'd go after Bush or after Clinton, considering the priorities that he demonstrated when he confronted David.

Posted by Ptah">Ptah 2006-09-29 22:21|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2006-09-29 22:21|| Front Page Top

#69 Umm, maybe I'd better address the topic: I'm with those who oppose vigilante behaviour against buildings, while supporting more vigorous police action against Imams and Mullahs preaching Islamofacism. The Mosque doesn't DO anything: It's the people INSIDE that need to be scrutinized.

Posted by Ptah">Ptah 2006-09-29 22:25|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2006-09-29 22:25|| Front Page Top

#70 anon, now that your gender has been made know, the question you posed the other day seems a bit less like baiting.

Good point, Zenster. And in that logic, I'm sure you will soon be taking to the streets to condemn the men in this world who abuse women, sexually harrass them and exploit them. IIRC something like on rape happens every sixty seconds or something like that. Being a man - clearly you want to organize something to disassociate yourself from that - right?

I don't know how long you've been participating at Rantburg, anon, but I'm going to assume that you're new here. If you have ever read any of my posts, then you already know that I find Islam to be unworthy of its religious status solely on the basis of how it mistreats women, without even going into the unforgivable nature of Muslim terrorism. You might also have noticed my routine objections hereabouts to the abomination known as female ~~circumcision~~ genital mutilation.

If you read yesterday's thread, "IWPR- Desperate Zimbabweans Resort to Transactional Sex", then you should already be aware of my stance on marital infidelity and child prostitution.

Finally, I do actively disassociate myself from the kind of people who abuse females and generally treat women like sexual objects. I have intervened in cases of spousal abuse, including my own mother's, and reported similar cases in my neighborhood to the police. When my ex-neighbor's macho ex-boyfriend can over armed with a shotgun on New Year's Eve in an attempt to murder her, I was the only one who threatened him with death if he didn't get off of the property, my call to 911 was the first received. For most of my entire life I have not fit in with "the guys" because of how I refuse to degrade or discriminate against women. That misfit status is something I wear as a badge of honor.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-09-29 23:16|| 2006-09-29 23:16|| Front Page Top

#71 Zenster - you are right and I have noticed the things that you mention.

When my ex-neighbor's macho ex-boyfriend can over armed with a shotgun on New Year's Eve in an attempt to murder her, I was the only one who threatened him with death if he didn't get off of the property,

That takes guts and reminds me of my father, actually. On a Christmas Eve many years ago, my sister came home with a black eye. Her husband was a very big guy - lumberjack big. I remember my father getting right in his face and telling him if he ever did that again that he'd ...well...actually I don't remember what he said but I remember that he made my sister's husband look very small.

I don't imagine we will always agree, Zenster - but I will always respect the fact that you say what you believe. :-)

Posted by anon 2006-09-29 23:47|| 2006-09-29 23:47|| Front Page Top

#72 Just to further derail the thread, and because Zenster asked, AND because it's the end of the day, "jot and tittle" goes waaaay back to the early days of the Jewish scribes. It's nought to do with titillation (you'll note that's spelt quite differently). "Jot" is an old-fashioned pronunciation of the Hebrew letter "yod," the tenth letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and quite the smallest of them all. The "tittles" were the crowns that the scribes drew on top of key letters throughout the Torah (Pentateuch) scroll, and perforce they were quite small, too. So paying attention to every jot and tittle was to (is, actually, as Torah scrolls are copied by hand on parchment in the exact same way today) be scrupulous to execute to the smallest detail.

Just in case anybody wondered, and happens across this post in the few minutes before Rantburg turns over to tomorrow... or the wanderer through the archives in the dim centuries hence, looking back in wonder on the early days of the long-since won War on Islamofascism, curious about the foes of those long-extinct jihadi idiots who embraced their fate when they attacked all forms of freedom everywhere at once as objectionable to their evil view of God.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-09-29 23:50|| 2006-09-29 23:50|| Front Page Top

#73 hey - not that there was a shotgun involved..or anything ... didn't mean to downplay that threat - but I meant the comparison as a compliment because my dad also was one who was willing to risk his own saftey to stand tall.

Posted by anon 2006-09-29 23:51|| 2006-09-29 23:51|| Front Page Top

#74 tw - or as we Americans say today: dotting the i's and crossing the t's ...

Posted by anon 2006-09-29 23:54|| 2006-09-29 23:54|| Front Page Top

23:54 anon
23:53 JustAsking
23:51 anon
23:50 SR-71
23:50 trailing wife
23:48 Iblis
23:47 anon
23:42 Zenster
23:39 Classical_Liberal
23:32 Zenster
23:29 RD
23:27 Sherry
23:16 Zenster
23:10 Old Patriot
22:47 ed
22:36 ed
22:35 gorb
22:25 Ptah
22:25 JosephMendiola
22:25 Hyper
22:25 ed
22:21 Ptah
22:20 anon
22:19 Jackal