Roy Moore accused of sexual contact with 14-year old

[Cow Poke]

Then focus on what he actually says and does rather than being preoccupied concocting stories to attack him for. As I've repeatedly says he provides plenty of ammunition to use without needing to make stuff up and thereby ruin any and all credibility.

This is about me, isn't it?

[carpedm9587]

Extremist Muslims appear to be doing what the majority of Muslims believe in

Can I have the source for those polls, please? I'll watch the youtube video later on tonight.

[Cow Poke]

I see the point still escapes you, eh CP?

Feel free to enlighten me, Jimmy.

Jimmy, I know ya got your hands full defending NAMBLA, but when you can spare a moment, perhaps you could get back to this?

[Roy]

And as this iman explains that support for the death penalty for homosexuals and adulterers, cutting off limbs -- in short Sharia Law -- is what the average Muslim believes. They just don't announce it

When finding out what the average Muslim believes, should you ask the average Muslim, or should you ask an Imam who claims to speak for the average Muslim?

I doubt you'd be happy if some-one declared that the average Xtian believes what e.g. Steven Anderson, Joseph Ratzinger, Fred Phelps or Billy Graham claims they do. Yet you're happy to do that for Muslims.

[Teallaura]

OK - color me lost. You seem to say my dates are wrong, but then you give me those exact dates (20s, late 50s, 60s - and I said "early/mid 20th century"). So I'm not sure how the timeframe I provided is wrong.

I also have no clue what mistake I am making that you think I am condemning? I didn't say no one spoke up, I said that the speaking up took time, and tended to be stronger the further it was from the violence of the KKK. My studies indicate the clan peaked in the mid 20s at nearly 6 million members. This was the period when widespread Christian outrage was simply not the case. Yes - there were voices - and there was outrage. But CP's claim is simply not accurate - in that period. After the 1920s, the Klan losses a lot of power. It comes to the fore again during the civil rights era, but a shadow of its former self (fewer than 50,000 members). Still - the claim that there would be universal outrage is simply not true. Indeed, in the deep south, there was significant resistance to integration by both Christian and non-Christian whites.

I think my point stands, Teal - we have had bad from isolated segments of every religion that has ever existed (that I have studied), and the outrage often takes time to express itself. Islam is no different in that, except that right now Islamic extremist have access to a global travel system, and the megaphone and recruitment tool of the Internet. But to paint all of Islam with the same brush is simply unjust - as unjust as painting all of Christianity with the same brush because the KKK claimed Christian membership.

The KKK was no more Christian than ISIS or the Taliban is Islamic - in both cases, you have thugs flying the banner of a religion for their justification. Unfortunately, too many people are buying it, and giving them the exact credibility they seek - damaging an incredible population of good people in the process.

Now what exactly was the mistake I made that I was condemning? Were you under the impression I was saying "all Christians are bad because they didn't all stand up to decry the KKK?"

The dates are wrong - you place the zenith early to mid when in fact it was early for the violence (1922 was the last year with fairly high numbers, if memory serves), mid for the klan. Two separate things that are somewhat conflated in your date line. Interestingly, the klan was at its peak when it was brought down.

My understanding of your post was that no one spoke up - at least not in any numbers or of any consequence. I don't disagree with you in the post quoted above about protest and outcry sometimes taking time.

The mistake I think you made - if I read you correctly the first time which may not be the case - is seeing evil because you were looking for it. The outcry wasn't limited to the North or outsiders - had that been the case, the lynchings/violence couldn't have been stopped when they actually were. But they were (in large part). In the South, the change happened more behind closed doors and in the peculiarities of Southern society - not as visible but just as real.

Terrorists may or may not be sincere reflections of their supposed faith - but that isn't what Rogue was quoting. He quoted Muslim religious authorities. The crazies aren't in question - the leadership is and it seems to support the morally untenable, based on Rogue's research.

You're argument of equivalence fails - it's like trying to say Billy Graham or the Pope aren't representative of Christians when in fact they are both leaders. That many Muslims reject that aspect of their leadership's exegesis (?) speaks well of them but tells us nothing of their religion's genuine theology - unless they can back up the argument based on the koran.

[Cow Poke]

When finding out what the average Muslim believes, should you ask the average Muslim, or should you ask an Imam who claims to speak for the average Muslim?

I doubt you'd be happy if some-one declared that the average Xtian believes what e.g. Steven Anderson, Joseph Ratzinger, Fred Phelps or Billy Graham claims they do. Yet you're happy to do that for Muslims.

It is not an acceptable scriptural principle for the Christian to lie about their faith in order to gain followers, or to justify their actions.

[Teallaura]

Reasons for voting for Judge Roy Moore in the upcoming special election.
Source: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...r-senate-2.php

Actually, Jones made the mistake of beginning an attack campaign. It was the same mistake Strange made. No one cares about Jones and now they know his name associated with that nastiness. Not the way to turn out Democrats (Jones isn't using his party affiliation in the ads) and a really good way to tick off the Republicans that do show up.

[carpedm9587]

The dates are wrong - you place the zenith early to mid when in fact it was early for the violence (1922 was the last year with fairly high numbers, if memory serves), mid for the klan. Two separate things that are somewhat conflated in your date line. Interestingly, the klan was at its peak when it was brought down.

OK, I think this is just a matter of misinterpretation. In my mind, I thought 1900s-1920's, with a modest resurgence in the 1950s/60s. "Early to Mid" covers the span 1900-1950 in my mind, with 1925 dead center. Perhaps I should not have used the shorthand. It apparently led to misunderstanding.

My understanding of your post was that no one spoke up - at least not in any numbers or of any consequence. I don't disagree with you in the post quoted above about protest and outcry sometimes taking time.

Then this is another misunderstanding between us. My post was an objection to CP's claim that every christian everywhere would howl loudly (I am paraphrasing - I don't have the exact quote in front of me). I thought the claim was not one that could be substantiated - so as a comparison with what we see in the Muslim community today, it set up a false contrast that added to the anti-Muslim sentiment we see in our country today.

The mistake I think you made - if I read you correctly the first time which may not be the case - is seeing evil because you were looking for it. The outcry wasn't limited to the North or outsiders - had that been the case, the lynchings/violence couldn't have been stopped when they actually were. But they were (in large part). In the South, the change happened more behind closed doors and in the peculiarities of Southern society - not as visible but just as real.

I certainly didn't intend any of that in my post - so if that is what you read, I may have been sloppy in my expression. I had one major point (probably lost in my propensity for verbosity): the claim that every Christian would scream bloody murder at horrific attrocity" is simply not sustainable. There are prominent Christians and Christian leaders throughout history, even recently, who endorsed and celebrated attrocities, and massive periods of times when the Christian response was slow in coming.

That is not to paint Christians as "evil," but rather to note that Christianity does not get any special pass on being human. We ALL have stood by and said nothing when evil is done - minor or major. My choice of the KKK as an example was to paint a parallel. ISIS and the Taliban are the Islamic equivalent of the KKK. In the 1920s and earlier - that "Christian" organization number 6,000,000 in the U.S. alone. It numbers in its membership political leaders, church leaders, civic leaders of every stripe. Today, Islamic extremism is on the rise. Just as I beleive it would be wrong to label all of Christianity as "culpable and evil" because a group like the KKK claimed the banner and some of its members were in leadership church positions, so too do I believe it is wrong to label all of Islam as "culpable and evil" because a group like the Taliban and ISIS claims the banner and some of its members are in leadership church positions.

Terrorists may or may not be sincere reflections of their supposed faith - but that isn't what Rogue was quoting. He quoted Muslim religious authorities. The crazies aren't in question - the leadership is and it seems to support the morally untenable, based on Rogue's research.

Go back and review your history, Teal. There were prominent church leaders in the KKK as well. So should we resurrect their speeches and paint all of Christianity with the brush of their vile words? I would say no.

You're argument of equivalence fails - it's like trying to say Billy Graham or the Pope aren't representative of Christians when in fact they are both leaders. That many Muslims reject that aspect of their leadership's exegesis (?) speaks well of them but tells us nothing of their religion's genuine theology - unless they can back up the argument based on the koran.

OK, I am not sure what specific part of the equivalence fails. Some christian leaders were prominent in the KKK. Some Muslim leaders are prominent in the Taliban/ISIS and other extremist organizations. Some Christian leaders spewed hateful bile. Some Muslim leaders are spewing hateful bile. The only place I see equivalence failing is scale. The KKK existed and dominated in the teens and 20s of the 20th century - an age when television didn't exist, phone were new and fairly rare, mass transporation did not truly exist, and the Internet was not even a mote in Dad's eye. Today, ISIS and the Taliban (and their ilk) have access to all of these resources - a HUGE bullhorn, tremendous mobility, and a powerful platform for recruitment. So they grew faster and more widespread than the KKK ever did.

Theu are still a group of thugs that doe snot represent mainstream Islamic thought, even in predominant muslim countries. In the U.S., the anti-extremist sentiment is commonly expressed - and you will find it if you look beyond Brietbart and Fox News. Go talk to them! But their voice is comparatively small because "Terrorist Blows Up 50 People" gets more headlines than "Imam speaks out against Islamic Extremism." In the countries where the extremism is at full flare - these people fear for their lives. So the voices are even MORE muted. But they are still there - if you loook for those who can look past their fear and speak truth to power.

The constant bashing of Islam does these people a grave injustice. Instead of endorsing them, supporting them, and working WITH them to tear down the power of a truly odious collection of thugs - they and their religion are vilified and they are equated with the very people they are striving against.

It is enough to make one cry...

[JimL]

Jimmy, I know ya got your hands full defending NAMBLA, but when you can spare a moment, perhaps you could get back to this?

So funny. I think I'll just let your head explode trying to figure it out CP.

[Cow Poke]

So funny. I think I'll just let your head explode trying to figure it out CP.

This gratuitous comment constitutes a constructive contribution to the discussion in your mind, does it?

So, as I figured, ya got nothing.

[Teallaura]

OK, I think this is just a matter of misinterpretation. In my mind, I thought 1900s-1920's, with a modest resurgence in the 1950s/60s. "Early to Mid" covers the span 1900-1950 in my mind, with 1925 dead center. Perhaps I should not have used the shorthand. It apparently led to misunderstanding.



Then this is another misunderstanding between us. My post was an objection to CP's claim that every christian everywhere would howl loudly (I am paraphrasing - I don't have the exact quote in front of me). I thought the claim was not one that could be substantiated - so as a comparison with what we see in the Muslim community today, it set up a false contrast that added to the anti-Muslim sentiment we see in our country today.



I certainly didn't intend any of that in my post - so if that is what you read, I may have been sloppy in my expression. I had one major point (probably lost in my propensity for verbosity): the claim that every Christian would scream bloody murder at horrific attrocity" is simply not sustainable. There are prominent Christians and Christian leaders throughout history, even recently, who endorsed and celebrated attrocities, and massive periods of times when the Christian response was slow in coming.

That is not to paint Christians as "evil," but rather to note that Christianity does not get any special pass on being human. We ALL have stood by and said nothing when evil is done - minor or major. My choice of the KKK as an example was to paint a parallel. ISIS and the Taliban are the Islamic equivalent of the KKK. In the 1920s and earlier - that "Christian" organization number 6,000,000 in the U.S. alone. It numbers in its membership political leaders, church leaders, civic leaders of every stripe. Today, Islamic extremism is on the rise. Just as I beleive it would be wrong to label all of Christianity as "culpable and evil" because a group like the KKK claimed the banner and some of its members were in leadership church positions, so too do I believe it is wrong to label all of Islam as "culpable and evil" because a group like the Taliban and ISIS claims the banner and some of its members are in leadership church positions.

Okay, I get you and we agree more than disagree on this.

Go back and review your history, Teal. There were prominent church leaders in the KKK as well. So should we resurrect their speeches and paint all of Christianity with the brush of their vile words? I would say no.

Er, yes and no - I don't think there is an equivalence of leadership here and it evaporated the instant the klan was discredited.

OK, I am not sure what specific part of the equivalence fails. Some christian leaders were prominent in the KKK. Some Muslim leaders are prominent in the Taliban/ISIS and other extremist organizations. Some Christian leaders spewed hateful bile. Some Muslim leaders are spewing hateful bile. The only place I see equivalence failing is scale. The KKK existed and dominated in the teens and 20s of the 20th century - an age when television didn't exist, phone were new and fairly rare, mass transporation did not truly exist, and the Internet was not even a mote in Dad's eye. Today, ISIS and the Taliban (and their ilk) have access to all of these resources - a HUGE bullhorn, tremendous mobility, and a powerful platform for recruitment. So they grew faster and more widespread than the KKK ever did.

Eh, I don't agree here. If anything, the klan was danged near mainstream - and its numbers were huge. TV undid the klan and it hasn't ever recovered so I'm dubious that internet is that big a factor - the klan has access, too but neither it nor its ilk have grown to anything like pre-1950 numbers.

I also doubt that the leadership is equivalent. Yes, there were Christian leaders involved - but on the local more than the episcopal (and beyond) levels. That does not seem the same as what Rogue was indicating.

Theu are still a group of thugs that doe snot represent mainstream Islamic thought, even in predominant muslim countries. In the U.S., the anti-extremist sentiment is commonly expressed - and you will find it if you look beyond Brietbart and Fox News. Go talk to them! But their voice is comparatively small because "Terrorist Blows Up 50 People" gets more headlines than "Imam speaks out against Islamic Extremism." In the countries where the extremism is at full flare - these people fear for their lives. So the voices are even MORE muted. But they are still there - if you loook for those who can look past their fear and speak truth to power.

The constant bashing of Islam does these people a grave injustice. Instead of endorsing them, supporting them, and working WITH them to tear down the power of a truly odious collection of thugs - they and their religion are vilified and they are equated with the very people they are striving against.

It is enough to make one cry...

Um, what? You're now arguing that the mainstream of islamic thought can't make itself heard even in America - despite CNN, MSN, the internet and a variety of other receptive outlets (you're wrong about Fox, actually - I've seen interviews on Fox with religious moderates). This seems extremely unlikely to me.

Rogue was bringing up religious leaders interpretations of their own theology - that's not 'bashing' anyone. It's looking at the facts. You brought up how representative those individuals are - a legitimate issue - but I don't see that you've proven that they aren't representative of their religion and theology. Granted, you attacked it from the consensus (which is not how either one of these should be evaluated) but even that doesn't actually refute Rogue, let alone prove that he's been trying to 'bash' anyone.

[carpedm9587]

Okay, I get you and we agree more than disagree on this.

Agreed

Er, yes and no - I don't think there is an equivalence of leadership here and it evaporated the instant the klan was discredited.

Three things. One - there were both local and prominent clergy eventually revealed to be active in the clan. Unfortunately, I cannot put my hands on the text I am citing from, so I cannot substantiate that with a reference and will have to let it go until I can. Second, most of the references cited about Muslim leadership are likewise "local" to the areas. Islam lacks the hierarchical structure of many Christian churches, most notably the Catholic church (http://factsanddetails.com/world/cat.../item1448.html). Finally, it is easy for the cross-over leadership to "evaporate" AFTER the klan is discredited - it is harder for them to do so when the KKK was at it's power - which was essentially my point. All of which started with my observation that CP's claim that all Christians would rally in the face of a horror like a beheading is simply not substantiated by history - so perhaps we might cut the Islamic community a bit of slack? They are facing a powerful, violent machine. Could they speak up more forcefully? Absolutely! Is it understandable that the response is a bit slow? Again, IMO, absolutely.

Eh, I don't agree here. If anything, the klan was danged near mainstream - and its numbers were huge. TV undid the klan and it hasn't ever recovered so I'm dubious that internet is that big a factor - the klan has access, too but neither it nor its ilk have grown to anything like pre-1950

Which aligns with my point. By the time these things come along, the Klan has already been discredited in most venues. It is harder for a discredited gorup to regain prominence than for a new group to seize the initiative. However - watch closely, because we are seeing a resurgence of that activity powered by those exact tools, based on the model of the Taliban and ISIS, and powered by the anger many are feeling at being "displaced" and losing ground socially and ecnomicially. Will they be as successful as ISIS and the Taliban? I certainly hope not. But the risk is there.

I also doubt that the leadership is equivalent. Yes, there were Christian leaders involved - but on the local more than the episcopal (and beyond) levels. That does not seem the same as what Rogue was indicating.

See my response above.

Um, what? You're now arguing that the mainstream of islamic thought can't make itself heard even in America - despite CNN, MSN, the internet and a variety of other receptive outlets (you're wrong about Fox, actually - I've seen interviews on Fox with religious moderates). This seems extremely unlikely to me.

I didn't say they CAN'T. I said it is harder. I do not share the knee-jerk reation to the MSM that most on the right have. Other than MSNBC (which appears to be trying to adopt the Fox Business model from the left), the others appear to be largely center, perhaps slightly left of center. What I think they ARE guilty of is sensationalism. A 24-hour news station needs news. It is designed for the 911, Columbine, Las Vegas events. When they are not there, they become like the Weather Channel - ramping up every little story and jumping on anything that gets eyeballs. In the U.S. today - "Terrorist kills" gets eyeballs. "Imam calls for peace" does not. The former will be front page and center - and leading the news segment. The latter will be a "fluff piece" linked to at the bottom of the front page, or tagged to the end of the news cycle, or added as a "commentary" to a piece on terrorism.

We see it every day. And it skews perceptions. Clearly there are more terrorists than there are Muslims calling for peace and decrying the terrorist. Except there aren't. Islam, as a religion, is 1.6 billion people strong. Despite claims to the contrary, studies have shown that fewer than 1% of these globally are "at risk of being radicalized." That's still 16 million people across the world, but "at risk of being radicalized" is not "terrorist extremist." It means these people are in a context, and with a background, that makes them likely to be recruited. Perhaps they have a parent who was killed by a drone strike. Or they are under the sway of one of the extremist IMAMs. And it's not 1% evenly in all countries - the numbers skew significantly in war-torn Muslim countries and drop precipitously in peaceful countries, as we might expect.

The sad thing is - every word and deed that further denigrates the other 99% of Islam as "one and the same with terrorists" is pretty much likely to change those numbers. If I was a law abiding, socially responsible, peace loving person, and people kept denigrating me because of my faith (or my dress, or my gender, or my hair color), anger would be a natural response. Push some people hard enough, and you essentuially recruit them for the "other side."

Rogue was bringing up religious leaders interpretations of their own theology - that's not 'bashing' anyone. It's looking at the facts. You brought up how representative those individuals are - a legitimate issue - but I don't see that you've proven that they aren't representative of their religion and theology. Granted, you attacked it from the consensus (which is not how either one of these should be evaluated) but even that doesn't actually refute Rogue, let alone prove that he's been trying to 'bash' anyone.

I don't remember saing he was "bashing" someone specific. I beleive the tone of this post, and the general message was, "terrorist ideologies are at the heart of Islam." They're not. An extremist IMAM is not different than an extremist Christian, there are just more of them right now, proportionately. Christian leaders have used their holy book and their theology to espouse some incredibly hateful positions and practices - which most Christians reject. Anyone can take a theology and use it to argue almost anything - it just takes being selective about the text, and extreme about its interpretation. That some leaders do this does not disparage the entire theology.

Take "Jihad" for example. The extremist view is to interpet it as "battle with the infidels," which includes anyone who isn't Islamic. The conservative view interprets it as "justified battle with non-Islamic people sekeing to destroy the faith/community." The vast majority of moderate and liberal Muslims will tell you that the true "Jihad" is the battle with the self, against "sin" and "human frailty." To take the extremist interpretation of that term, justified by recourse to Islamic writings, and decide it is at the "core of the faith." is simply wrong.

It would be the equivalent of me taking the ravings of the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church, which he uses scripture passages to justify, and saying, "see - Christianity sucks - look what their holy book says is the heart of their religion." You and I BOTH know that is not true. Few Christians would take passages of the OT and interpret tham as a command to act on religiously. If they did, we would be stoning adulterers, putting homosexuals to death, and the list goes on. That is not what Christianity is all about. Neither is it what Islam is all about.

And I suddenly find myself chuckling that I am an atheist defending the integrity of two religions.

[rogue06]

The number of witches actually executed by the Inquisition was something like less than 100 out of 125,000 trials in 400 years (I've actually read less than 40 from the three main branches of the Inquisition between the 1400s to the 1800s from official Catholic sources). Granted, any number is too high coming from religious authorities who purport to be doing the will of Jesus, but it was hardly the genocide it's often been painted as. Several factors lend to why the Inquisition got the reputation it did for witch burning, the biggest of which is the fact that certain anti-Catholic Protestant writers and preachers ballooned the numbers in order to make Catholicism out as nefarious as possible. They never dreamed that many years later skeptics would use their own numbers to condemn all of Christianity and not just Catholicism. Another big factor is Gerald Gardner's popular theory on "the burning times". Gardner was an early 20th century spiritualist and amateur historian who eventually co-created most of the grounding beliefs of Wicca. He took a lot of his ideas on this from 19th century suffragist and Theosophist/Spiritualist Matilda Gage, who asserted that 9 million women were burned during this period. Modern historians have found that these numbers are radically inflated. The secular courts were responsible for the majority of witch trials and executions, not official branches of the church like the Inquisition. The number of people executed for witchcraft by secular courts during the 400 year period was between 30,000 to 50,000 (both men and women) and mostly in and around Germany. It was the Church that actually stepped in to stop the secular witch executions, with the Inquisition finding that most accusations of witchcraft and sorcery were unfounded, they pushed to have trials dismissed, and were skeptical of all forms of rumors, superstitions, and popular books on witchcraft. Unfortunately, popular thinking has never really let go of the Inquisition myth. The Inquisition's main goal was not to execute people for witchcraft and what they believed was heresy, but to move people back to a proper Roman Catholic view of orthodox Christianity. Technomage (Oustis), Tweb's resident Wicca practitioner, used to preach against the concept of the "burning times" all the time back before the forum crash. JimL must have seen him talk about it a couple times...

Generally I hear the number of somewhere around 200,000 people killed at the hands of the Inquisition, but this is almost certainly exaggerated. As William D. Rubinstein (who has held chairs of history at Deakin and Aberystwyth Universities, and is an elected Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities, the Australian Academy of the Social Sciences, and of the Royal Historical Society) noted in his Genocide: A History:

Critical History of the Inquisition

[shunyadragon]

And not just because they disagree with me.

Ivanka Trump has supported the standard Republic line up until this. What is your objection to her now other than trashing her for her view on Rob Moore.

[Adrift]

Generally I hear the number of somewhere around 200,000 people killed at the hands of the Inquisition, but this is almost certainly exaggerated. As William D. Rubinstein (who has held chairs of history at Deakin and Aberystwyth Universities, and is an elected Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities, the Australian Academy of the Social Sciences, and of the Royal Historical Society) noted in his Genocide: A History:

Critical History of the Inquisition

Most modern historians place the number executed at somewhere between 2000 and 10,000 with Henry Kamen, who taught Spanish history at the University of Warwick and spent 30 years researching the Spanish Inquisition, is one of those who supports the lower number. Agostino Borromeo, a historian of Catholicism at the Sapienza University in Rome estimates that only 1% of the 125,000 people tried by church tribunals as suspected heretics in Spain were executed.

It has long been conceded that the death tolls resulting from the Inquisitions in France, Italy and Portugal were but a fraction of what the Spanish Inquisition wrought.

Right. Just so we're on the same page, I was, of course, referring only to so-called "witches" in my less than 100 estimate, not to every person that the Inquisition was said to have executed (which would have included plenty of non-witches)

Yeah, I think I said as much when I pointed out that, "It was the Church that actually stepped in to stop the secular witch executions, with the Inquisition finding that most accusations of witchcraft and sorcery were unfounded, they pushed to have trials dismissed, and were skeptical of all forms of rumors, superstitions, and popular books on witchcraft."