DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Fegasderty** · 07-28-2007, 04:30 PM

The Crusader comparison is so flawed as not to be worth making in the modern world. A small mob of pillagers from Europe, the Crusaders are unworthy of comparison to a global clash of modern, interconnected forces.
As for "eternal", Rome was under the delusion that their empire was eternal too.
Using the term "eternal" in the context of the war with islam is poor language.
No human institution, nor humans themselves, has any expectation of eternal existance.

"I don't think Islam is a temporary phenomenon like communism."

That does not mean it cannot be weakened or changed by prolonged conflict. It took a variety bloodbaths to make Christians behave themselves in the modern world too. Unreformed religion is targeted toward and adored by primitives.
In order for freedom to grow, religion must be weakened by violent conflicts and through other circumstances that cause people to view it more as a social club and less as a heirarchy of divine enslavement.

When the man in the street is free to express scorn and contempt for ANYTHING, then he is free to speak. We must be free to scorn all deities and dissect all beliefs without fear of punishment, or we are not free to believe.
Freedom of speech is the freedom to offend, because otherwise all speech is subject to censorship because it "offends" someone who chooses to be offended by it in order to stifle it.
Religious societies strike directly at such freedom, so they should be destroyed/changed and replaced with secular systems. There is no tool of enslavement like a government that claims it is doing a gods work. The fusion of government and religion in Islam is why it is toxic and has failed to evolve.

Yeah, you're right, "using the term 'eternal' in the context of the war with islam is poor language", because if we take on all of Islam, we wouldn't last that long.

You believe Islam could be "weakened or changed by prolonged conflict." I believe the same is true of Israel. When you are facing a much larger opponent, you need to fight smart.

I think it is much wiser to ally with those Muslims who are willing to help us against the terrorists than to take on all of Islam. I think our job is to destoy terrorists and enemies of Israel, not Islam as a whole.

I don't think the Crusader comparison is flawed, because I was talking about a specific Crusader. It was extremists like Reynaud de Chatillon who brought about the fighting which led to the destruction of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

It was also the extremists who brought about the war with Rome that led to the destruction of the Second Temple. The Roman Empire may not have been "eternal", but it sure lasted long enough to damage our people.

07-28-2007, 04:30 PM	#6
Fegasderty Join Date Mar 2008 Posts 5,023 Senior Member	The Crusader comparison is so flawed as not to be worth making in the modern world. A small mob of pillagers from Europe, the Crusaders are unworthy of comparison to a global clash of modern, interconnected forces. As for "eternal", Rome was under the delusion that their empire was eternal too. Using the term "eternal" in the context of the war with islam is poor language. No human institution, nor humans themselves, has any expectation of eternal existance. "I don't think Islam is a temporary phenomenon like communism." That does not mean it cannot be weakened or changed by prolonged conflict. It took a variety bloodbaths to make Christians behave themselves in the modern world too. Unreformed religion is targeted toward and adored by primitives. In order for freedom to grow, religion must be weakened by violent conflicts and through other circumstances that cause people to view it more as a social club and less as a heirarchy of divine enslavement. When the man in the street is free to express scorn and contempt for ANYTHING, then he is free to speak. We must be free to scorn all deities and dissect all beliefs without fear of punishment, or we are not free to believe. Freedom of speech is the freedom to offend, because otherwise all speech is subject to censorship because it "offends" someone who chooses to be offended by it in order to stifle it. Religious societies strike directly at such freedom, so they should be destroyed/changed and replaced with secular systems. There is no tool of enslavement like a government that claims it is doing a gods work. The fusion of government and religion in Islam is why it is toxic and has failed to evolve. Yeah, you're right, "using the term 'eternal' in the context of the war with islam is poor language", because if we take on all of Islam, we wouldn't last that long. You believe Islam could be "weakened or changed by prolonged conflict." I believe the same is true of Israel. When you are facing a much larger opponent, you need to fight smart. I think it is much wiser to ally with those Muslims who are willing to help us against the terrorists than to take on all of Islam. I think our job is to destoy terrorists and enemies of Israel, not Islam as a whole. I don't think the Crusader comparison is flawed, because I was talking about a specific Crusader. It was extremists like Reynaud de Chatillon who brought about the fighting which led to the destruction of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. It was also the extremists who brought about the war with Rome that led to the destruction of the Second Temple. The Roman Empire may not have been "eternal", but it sure lasted long enough to damage our people.
	Quote