Derail from "Slaughter in Paris."

[lilpixieofterror]

To make a reference I'm certain you won't get, the US is a kill-stealer. The US played a part. But the major role? Support it. The Russians held an entire front more or less on their own and helped the British in Africa. They lost ~25 million people in the process. The US? ~400,000. The US wasn't even invaded. Do you think the Cold War would have been as close if the Soviet Union hadn't lost that many people? I don't.

And did you somehow miss the part where China is still a communist nation? Or North Korea? Laos? Vietnam? They sure look defeated to me.

The US also sent tons and tons of materials and supplies to the Russians and you seem to be forgetting that before Stalin and Hitler were at war with one another, they helped one another (or did you forget about the secret deals between Hitler and Stalin). Remember, the war didn't start turning to the allies favor until after the US entered the war.

BTW the Soviet Union usually lagged beyond the west in technology and industry and was only really able to keep up by giving harsher conditions to it's people and the reason they lost 25 million people was mainly due to Stalin's paranoia and fear about his own power in which he killed/imprisoned anybody who could oppose him before the USSR entered WWII and therefore ensured that the country was unprepared to fight the Nazi's. If anything, Stalin's poor choices is what got many of his people killed.

[lilpixieofterror]

China is violent? Really? What facts are you backing that up with? I don't see any. I see an assertion, or an assumption, based on your opinion. One source I found says that "Murder rates in China are roughly one-fifth as high as in the United States." Another source says that violent gun crimes are 18 times more in the US than China, and violent crime in general is 4 times more in the US than China. So your whole question is based on a false assumption.

Check out the states on how many people China executes on a yearly bases dear and get back to me and I also don't recall the US murdering people for being Christians or running down people, on purpose, with tanks, do you?

[Carrikature]

Curious how you totally ignored most of my post (you know, the part where I pointed out a reason nobody has refuted yet) and how you don't want to jump down Andus' throat for saying the same thing I did. In case you forgot what Tazzy Wazzy said, let me remind you:

Did you skip over the underlined part, in your quest to try to make those you disapprove of look bad?

I don't disapprove of you. I have no need to make you look bad (you do that yourself). I generally find talking to you to be a waste of time because you frequently can't even tell when we're agreeing about something.

In this particular case, we agree that Tassman's portrayals regarding violence and religion in the US are wrong. Andius has been challenging things using statistics and comparisons of other countries (things Tassman has also been referencing). I've been challenging things along another track (religious affiliation of criminals). You used an anecdote that doesn't even interact with the subject except tangentially. I'm not 'jumping down Andius' throat' because he keeps making intelligent posts.

The US also sent tons and tons of materials and supplies to the Russians and you seem to be forgetting that before Stalin and Hitler were at war with one another, they helped one another (or did you forget about the secret deals between Hitler and Stalin). Remember, the war didn't start turning to the allies favor until after the US entered the war.

BTW the Soviet Union usually lagged beyond the west in technology and industry and was only really able to keep up by giving harsher conditions to it's people and the reason they lost 25 million people was mainly due to Stalin's paranoia and fear about his own power in which he killed/imprisoned anybody who could oppose him before the USSR entered WWII and therefore ensured that the country was unprepared to fight the Nazi's. If anything, Stalin's poor choices is what got many of his people killed.

None of which establishes the US as putting a stop to Nazism or Communism. I didn't 'forget' anything. I don't find it sufficient to counter my point for all that Stalin is a convenient scapegoat.

[seer]

None of which establishes the US as putting a stop to Nazism or Communism. I didn't 'forget' anything. I don't find it sufficient to counter my point for all that Stalin is a convenient scapegoat.

First, a good case could be made that the Soviet Union and Briton could not have survived the early part of the war without lend lease, which the Soviets shared a large portion. There was no country on earth that had the manufacturing base to match Germany and Japan. We were called the Arsenal of Democracy for a reason. As far as the Cold war it was largely the US alone standing against Soviet expansion, eventually bankrupting them. They were on the moving world wide, even with their lower population. And NATO kept the rest of Europe free (and we the US was basically NATO), we funded the largest share.

[lilpixieofterror]

I don't disapprove of you. I have no need to make you look bad (you do that yourself). I generally find talking to you to be a waste of time because you frequently can't even tell when we're agreeing about something.

And yet, you're trying to jump down my throat for no real reason. How quaint. I also love the passive aggressive back slap you've added in to boot. You're on a roll tonight!

In this particular case, we agree that Tassman's portrayals regarding violence and religion in the US are wrong. Andius has been challenging things using statistics and comparisons of other countries (things Tassman has also been referencing). I've been challenging things along another track (religious affiliation of criminals). You used an anecdote that doesn't even interact with the subject except tangentially. I'm not 'jumping down Andius' throat' because he keeps making intelligent posts.

Tazzy Wazzy makes a bald assertion, so sorry... I'm not spending time refuting bald assertions when he doesn't bother to back his assertions, with evidence. I know that is a hard concept for you to understand, but if Tazzy Wazzy isn't going to take the time to back up his claims, it isn't my job to spend the time to refute him. Anyway, I'm sorry, I thought you lived in the US too, so tell me, if you avoid criminal activities and avoid areas, of your city or town known for criminal activities, what is your chances of being involved in a crime?

None of which establishes the US as putting a stop to Nazism or Communism. I didn't 'forget' anything. I don't find it sufficient to counter my point for all that Stalin is a convenient scapegoat.

I'm sorry, but Stalin's poor leadership and paranoia is what caused his country to suffer as much as it did and you're forgetting that the USSR was given tons of supplies by the US government for it's war efforts and likely would not have survived the war without those supplies (remember, 40% of the USSR's industry was destroyed during the war and the USSR was already behind the rest of the west, including Germany, in industrial capacity). Sorry, but only somebody who is ignorant of history and the basic facts of the WWII could seriously claim the US didn't play a major rule in putting a stop to the Axis Powers or is it just happenstance that the war turned in favor of the allies after the US joined the war and not before? If you don't believe me, just look at all the stuff the US built during WWII, at the end of the war, the US Navy had 6,768 ships in service, the US built 200,000 combat aircraft, over 2,000 liberty ships were built, etc. Go take a look at the other countries outputs and see if they compare. In essence, the Axis powers lost because they couldn't keep up with this mass production effort and this isn't counting the other allies efforts either. To try to seriously claim that the US had 'little effect' in putting a stop to Nazism is foolishness (to say the least). We'll deal with this first before we move onto Communism.

[Carrikature]

First, a good case could be made that the Soviet Union and Briton could not have survived the early part of the war without lend lease, which the Soviets shared a large portion. There was no country on earth that had the manufacturing base to match Germany and Japan. We were called the Arsenal of Democracy for a reason. As far as the Cold war it was largely the US alone standing against Soviet expansion, eventually bankrupting them. They were on the moving world wide, even with their lower population. And NATO kept the rest of Europe free (and we the US was basically NATO), we funded the largest share.

I don't really deny any of this. I don't agree with the representation of them as 'the major role', but there's not much point arguing degrees.

I definitely don't agree with the idea that we defeated them. Communism is still around in a big way. Nazism still exists, though not in any meaningful way, but it's not as if it would have been defeated if there weren't other major powers keeping it at bay on multiple fronts. We had the manufacturing, but I don't think we could have contained them if Britain and the Soviet Union hadn't acted as they did. Imagine what it would be like if Germany had actually managed to flood into Northern Africa and Asia, or eliminated the UK as an European ally.

[Carrikature]

And yet, you're trying to jump down my throat for no real reason. How quaint. I also love the passive aggressive back slap you've added in to boot. You're on a roll tonight!

What back slap? I don't think you have any ability at reading comprehension, and I've never pretended otherwise. I'm not on your side. I'm not on anyone's side.

My comment to you about irrelevant anecdotes has nothing to do with you being the source. I'd have said the same to anyone. It was irrelevant. I prefer people that actually contribute (always have).

Tazzy Wazzy makes a bald assertion, so sorry... I'm not spending time refuting bald assertions when he doesn't bother to back his assertions, with evidence. I know that is a hard concept for you to understand, but if Tazzy Wazzy isn't going to take the time to back up his claims, it isn't my job to spend the time to refute him.

No one asked you to refute bald assertions, but you did try to refute what he said. You just did so extremely unsuccessfully.

Anyway, I'm sorry, I thought you lived in the US too, so tell me, if you avoid criminal activities and avoid areas, of your city or town known for criminal activities, what is your chances of being involved in a crime?

I do live in the US. I have no idea what the crime rate is where I live. It's not something I pay attention to. Whether or not I am involved in crime doesn't drastically affect the crime rate. If the US has a really high violent crime rate, that in no way implies that any given person will have committed a crime. That's pretty basic.

I'm sorry, but Stalin's poor leadership and paranoia is what caused his country to suffer as much as it did and you're forgetting that the USSR was given tons of supplies by the US government for it's war efforts and likely would not have survived the war without those supplies (remember, 40% of the USSR's industry was destroyed during the war and the USSR was already behind the rest of the west, including Germany, in industrial capacity). Sorry, but only somebody who is ignorant of history and the basic facts of the WWII could seriously claim the US didn't play a major rule in putting a stop to the Axis Powers or is it just happenstance that the war turned in favor of the allies after the US joined the war and not before? If you don't believe me, just look at all the stuff the US built during WWII, at the end of the war, the US Navy had 6,768 ships in service, the US built 200,000 combat aircraft, over 2,000 liberty ships were built, etc. Go take a look at the other countries outputs and see if they compare. In essence, the Axis powers lost because they couldn't keep up with this mass production effort and this isn't counting the other allies efforts either. To try to seriously claim that the US had 'little effect' in putting a stop to Nazism is foolishness (to say the least). We'll deal with this first before we move onto Communism.

I didn't say 'little effect'. That's you putting words in my mouth. Repeating the same stuff doesn't make me more convinced of it. Again, I haven't 'forgotten' any of this. I simply don't find it sufficient. There are more factors than just our manufacturing capability involved (one of which is the fact we weren't being invaded by anyone).

[Andius]

It can be disregarded on the grounds that a coherent explanation on how education (Which education?), health, and income distribution contribute to propagation of secularity is not given, and one that gives account as to why it doesn't apply to nations like Ireland or Italy, and even USA. Just insisting on mere correlation makes for a very poor case.

'Ang on.... I thought you're thesis is that development in the areas of education, health, and income distribution leads to higher secularity. What's with the punditry asserting that when there is less religion, the world is more equitable? Shouldn't you be arguing for the other way around?

The Church of Norway as with the Church of England has long been the established church of the land. But in both instances the people are quite indifferent to it as indicated by the Adherents.com statistics.

Presumably Australia ranks no. 2 in the IHDI because it fulfils the required criteria. And religion plays no part in governance at any level. Several Australian prime-ministers have been overtly atheist including one of the most popular prime-ministers ever, Bob Hawke. I doubt an atheist would make it past first base in US politics.

Very true that British and Norwegian folk are very indifferent, nonetheless, Norway's Church still enjoys a fairly privileged position and role (the funds) in the State and society, and yet it's secularity still doesn't match the levels of Sweden or Estonia, despite the presence of Christian religiosity (admittedly though, very limited, and one somewhat subordinate to the interests of the Norwegian State) in matters of State, and even in it's own Constitution. So explain that.

Okay great, and true true. That's one country that fulfills your criteria, however, you still need to explain then how Australia's development lead to the decline of religion, not just say, so and so are correlated, therefore it's true.

I am open to a coherent explanation if you have one, but citing mere correlations by themselves do not make a compelling or rational case. Oh, and correction: The highest incarceration rate, as a minimum, means that the institution of US law enforcement is extremely efficient in putting folks there, and have tons of space for a nation of it's size. It has nothing to little to do with the crime rate.

It is about as reasonable as making the observation upon statistics, namely: "Those folks today that are the most indigenous -- where adherence to indigenous Australian way of life is high -- tend to have the highest propensity to commit violent crimes, while those folks in which indigenousity is weakest -- the European Australians --- tend to have the lowest".

It's using the same logic, and by your standard, it ought to be a reasonable conclusion.

And no, it's not hard pressing to find deeply religious nations ranking high IHDI, Ireland is #10, and Italy is there #23. Italy being my personal favorite.

That's courteous of you, thank you.

Your welcome, what's right is right.

Nevertheless the correlation is there.

No it isn't. Not enough consistency by my reckoning, and more importantly, 0 explanation and justification as to how it comes about.

It doesn't work as a general rule even amongst developed nations, case in point Germany. The eastern states are some of the most secular states in Germany, yes, they tend to have superior education (I think, admittedly I am unable to find data to back that up though), and yet said education hasn't helped much in matching the level of development as western states, whilst the western states tend to have higher rates of religiosity (by German standards) coupled along with high rates of development. By your reckoning, it should be the other way around I think. At most (by your standards), Eastern may have more education, which in turn it continues to reproduce it's secularity, yet it is still lagging behind compared to the western states.

Intellectual sophistication low in the South?? Have you not read their literature?

[Tassman]

There aren't real numbers on it. Conversions while incarcerated are really high, though, which would pretty much indicate that pre-incarceration numbers are low. In truth, 'religious' is much too broad, as one can identify as religious without identifying with a specific religion. More to the point, people following the tenets of their religion aren't likely to be committing crimes that are specifically prohibited by their religion.




It doesn't explain it because you're not looking at what's actually happening. What you should be asking is "what are people being imprisoned for[/URL]?" Currently, ~48% are in federal prison for drug related offenses at the federal level, and ~16% at the state level. Drug-use and religion aren't mutually exclusive (thought most religious will frown on drug-use, I don't know that it's specifically forbidden).

You should also be looking at contributing factors, like income disparity and ethnicity. Correlation is not causation. The percentage of religious people in the US and relative rates of incarceration aren't remotely related, but you're sticking them together as if they were.

So you're disagreeing with the Christian claim that only religion can provide a solid moral foundation for a nation. I concur. The tendency is that nations that ranking high in the IHDI tend to be the more secular nations, not the more religious ones.

[Tassman]

It can be disregarded on the grounds that a coherent explanation on how education (Which education?), health, and income distribution contribute to propagation of secularity is not given, and one that gives account as to why it doesn't apply to nations like Ireland or Italy, and even USA. Just insisting on mere correlation makes for a very poor case.

'Ang on.... I thought you're thesis is that development in the areas of education, health, and income distribution leads to higher secularity. What's with the punditry asserting that when there is less religion, the world is more equitable? Shouldn't you be arguing for the other way around?

Very true that British and Norwegian folk are very indifferent, nonetheless, Norway's Church still enjoys a fairly privileged position and role (the funds) in the State and society, and yet it's secularity still doesn't match the levels of Sweden or Estonia, despite the presence of Christian religiosity (admittedly though, very limited, and one somewhat subordinate to the interests of the Norwegian State) in matters of State, and even in it's own Constitution. So explain that.

Okay great, and true true. That's one country that fulfills your criteria, however, you still need to explain then how Australia's development lead to the decline of religion, not just say, so and so are correlated, therefore it's true.

I am open to a coherent explanation if you have one, but citing mere correlations by themselves do not make a compelling or rational case. Oh, and correction: The highest incarceration rate, as a minimum, means that the institution of US law enforcement is extremely efficient in putting folks there, and have tons of space for a nation of it's size. It has nothing to little to do with the crime rate.

It is about as reasonable as making the observation upon statistics, namely: "Those folks today that are the most indigenous -- where adherence to indigenous Australian way of life is high -- tend to have the highest propensity to commit violent crimes, while those folks in which indigenousity is weakest -- the European Australians --- tend to have the lowest".

It's using the same logic, and by your standard, it ought to be a reasonable conclusion.

And no, it's not hard pressing to find deeply religious nations ranking high IHDI, Ireland is #10, and Italy is there #23. Italy being my personal favorite.

It doesn't work as a general rule even amongst developed nations, case in point Germany. The eastern states are some of the most secular states in Germany, yes, they tend to have superior education (I think, admittedly I am unable to find data to back that up though), and yet said education hasn't helped much in matching the level of development as western states, whilst the western states tend to have higher rates of religiosity (by German standards) coupled along with high rates of development. By your reckoning, it should be the other way around I think. At most (by your standards), Eastern may have more education, which in turn it continues to reproduce it's secularity, yet it is still lagging behind compared to the western states.

Intellectual sophistication low in the South?? Have you not read their literature?

...and their music is good too. But the demographic of higher education in the US is what it's all about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...nal_attainment

[Carrikature]

So you're disagreeing with the Christian claim that only religion can provide a solid moral foundation for a nation. I concur. The tendency is that nations that ranking high in the IHDI tend to be the more secular nations, not the more religious ones.

You're really bad at this. I've said repeatedly that this is NOT what I'm saying.


You clearly didn't understand my previous quote, despite bolding part of it. Incarceration is two-fold: crime rates and successful apprehension of criminals. In the US, drug related crimes are a significant percentage of violations. Nothing in Christianity specifically prohibits drug use (though adherents generally frown upon it).

[Juvenal]

I don't have to. It's what they teach. Not to non-Muslims though. That's where they pretend that Islam means peace (false, it means submission), act bewildered about the concept of abrogation, and tell the gullible that taqqiya is an intra-Muslim insult^[1] (while it is true that the Sunni don't use the same term they have the exact same practice which is called idtirar.

Somebody's really been slacking on their conspiracy calls. Would you believe it, I crossed whole Muslim countries without anyone getting out the word they weren't supposed to clue me in on any of that.

Let's be clear here. It's not true. Muslims talk about these things openly.

I learned that Islam means, literally, submission from Muslims in Morocco, I'd guess, as that's where I first landed, and it's about as basic a first question as you could ask. "Islam means peace" is no more deceitful than "Christianity means love." Or "lao tzu means perfect hair." It's something true believers, and non-existent ones, want associated with their image, or lack thereof, respectively, TWebbers excepted, of course.

I learned about abrogation from an Imam in Senegal. I'd originally gone to talk with him about differences between the more orthodox versions of Islam and the Mourides, an Islamic offshoot with a large following, as in millions, mostly between Senegal and the Gambia. I'd made plans to attend "Le Magal de Touba," and my host, a Sunni, had cautioned me that their beliefs were outside the Sunnah, but deferred answering how to a religious authority.

The biggest difference, according to the Imam, is the Mourides' rejection of Salah, daily prayers, the second pillar. Needless to say, the marabout I spoke to in Touba differed substantially from the Imam in Dakar in justifying the divergence, but they both spoke of abrogation as a point of contention.

I first heard the word taqiyya from the lips of a Sunni verbally attacking a Shi'a in Lebanon. It was a marketplace thing. It was an insult. It was intra-Muslim.

I've lived with these people. That's how I learned about these concepts. You learned about them from conspiracy sites, and sites dedicated to anti-Muslim propaganda.

And it shows.

Both started out as a way for Muslims to avoid persecution by lying (contrast to early Christian martyrs) but later evolved into far more with the justification that Muhammad regularly employed deception against infidels).

Are you familiar with the first pillar of Islam?

I suggest you look into what the Muslims say to each other and what they teach as opposed to the message that they present to non-Muslims. Over the years the Israelis have done a splendid job translating radio and TV broadcasts that they picked up that were meant for internal consumption. The differences between them and the messages provided to outsiders are stark and unsettling.

MEMRI, right? I've seen those, and some are truly disturbing. They're also quite obviously cherry-picked. There's no good way to tell how representative they might be.

And some did nothing to hide exactly what they felt but were quite open about it. One of the most notorious examples was Ayatollah Khomeini (yes I know he was a Shiite, but that hardly disqualifies him as a Muslim) who spoke on the subject of "Peace" and "Jihad," making it clear what the orthodox (Shiite) view is on the matter:
^[2].

2. It should be noted that Shaul Bakhash, an Iranian born Jew who is a noted Middle Eastern historian has said he doubts the authenticity of the quote but AFAICT has never given any reason for why he has doubts. It may be due to the fact that one of those who has cited it, Amir Taheri, does have a history of providing quotes that cannot be substantiated but FWIU he is not the only source (though the most frequently cited one).

AFAICT, Taheri's the original source, and there's no good candidate for anything independent of him. He lost his position in the Iranian revolution and has an understandable grudge against Ayatollah Khomeini because of it. His target audience doesn't need much corroboration.

But since he was a Shiite, let's throw in a Sunni, Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, who was the Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia and Imam of the Grand Mosque of Mecca, who delivered a sermon on the history of jihad as recorded by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan of the Islamic University of Medina, where he said that for Muslims, fighting (with weapons, that is) is "obligatory" against "all those who worship others along with Allah." That includes Christians and Jews. "The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fires of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures."

I wouldn't be surprised to find something at least half-true in there, but you can't lump Jews in with Christians in an imprecation against "ascribing partners to Allah," which is the frame underlying "worship others along with," something else you'd know if you'd learned your Islam from Muslims rather than anti-Muslim apologists.

Frankly, your assurances that "Muslims don't believe this. They don't believe 2:256 has been abrogated" will come as little comfort to the people living in the Sudan, of whom hundreds of thousands and up to a million have been murdered in recent years by Muslim jihadists intent on forcibly converting them. Likewise, similar things are happening in Indonesia with the Moluccas, as well as in Nigeria and west African countries. But they have nothing to fear because you said otherwise.

"Hundreds of thousands murdered" is right. "By Muslim jihadists intent on forcibly converting them" is straight up alternate reality. The Janjaweed went through those villages looking to make corpses, not converts, if you're talking about the genocide surrounding the crisis in Dafur. If you're talking about the civil war, there was indeed a Muslim/Christian/Animist component, and the north actually did try to impose their version of sharia on the south, intermittently at least, but the conflict was first and foremost about control of the oil fields.

It's the same thing over and over again. You can't find the right target because you're practicing apologetics instead of research.

The Meaning of Peace

Doubling down again. You didn't research those quotes. Somebody else did. Those are the sources I was asking for that you didn't provide. Your quote from Tibi starts and ends exactly as given by Bat Yeor in the article. I can find other, longer versions. You ripped that right off, Rogue. I'm calling that busted.

And yes, I accidentally left out the surah number and only put in the ayah. I meant surah 2:256 where it says "Let there be no compulsion in religion." And yes I'm well aware that the Qur'an is organized by chapter length but that isn't why what is written in surah 9 abrogates what was written in surah 2. Surah 9 was written later, and is in fact regarded by many if not most as the last surah written (again some say it was surah 110).

And btw I do have some understanding about how the Qur'an was ultimately compiled.

Oh and as for your...

...don't you think that is rich coming from the same person who made an utter fool of himself the last time he said this?

I can't spend the time necessary to go haring after everyone who's wrong on the internet, so forgive me for leaving you in error on that one. The importance in knowing the difference between Ayah and Surah is that you can put Ayah in a chronological order. You can't do that with Surah. It makes no sense to say that one Surah came before another. That's incoherent, because the Ayah within any one Surah can be taken from both earlier and later Gabey-whispers in comparison to individual Ayah in any other Surah. That means you can speak coherently about a particular Ayah as being the last revealed, but you can't do that with a particular Surah.

What use knowing how the jumble was put together if you can't even recognize it's a jumble?

And for what it's worth, it should be Quran 2:256, according to APA. MLA wants the chapter title, too.



Proven plagiarism, this time.

So how's about taking two steps down from your pretensions of doing anything more than parroting anti-Islamic articles from sources you know better than to name, and trying out some honest research, the kind that's looking for straight answers.

There were real threats exposed in the attacks on Paris. They're not keeping track of their bad guys. The ringleader had already been convicted of terrorism in Belgium, and he was waved on by at a checkpoint after the attacks. Half of them were already on watch lists.

Go ahead and explain to me how casting this as a religious war and barring refugees is going to have any effect on that.

Use your own words this time.

[Tassman]

You're really bad at this. I've said repeatedly that this is NOT what I'm saying.

what

You clearly didn't understand my previous quote, despite bolding part of it. Incarceration is two-fold: crime rates and successful apprehension of criminals. In the US, drug related crimes are a significant percentage of violations. Nothing in Christianity specifically prohibits drug use (though adherents generally frown upon it).

and so on ad nauseam. https://carm.org/what-christian-worl...tians-need-one

[Abigail]

That is not completely true. I agree that secularism came out of the Protestant Christian culture, and may not have came out so easily from a Muslim culture or different religion. I'll give you that. But saying there will be no "Christian principles of love, tolerance and seeking good" without Christianity is absurd. Christianity doesn't own the copyrights to love, tolerance and seeking good. They didn't invent it. As Christopher Hitchens said, "Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it."

I don't think we are talking about the existence of love, tolerance and seeking good etc but rather the extents of it. Matthew 7:9-11 " 9 Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!"

The more secular and liberal people are, the more they tend to be tolerant of others who are different.

I believe this will be proved to be a false impression. We are in the early days of secular liberal power. Nuff said.

[shunyadragon]

I don't think we are talking about the existence of love, tolerance and seeking good etc but rather the extents of it. Matthew 7:9-11 " 9 Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!"

Well, I do believe that the growing lack of tolerance is an issue. Unfortunately tolerance is by degrees intolerance on how people treat and consider those who are 'different.'

I believe this will be proved to be a false impression. We are in the early days of secular liberal power. Nuff said.

Nuff said? The more apparent is that we are progressively being dominated by a right wing Evangelical agenda which proposes a Theocracy. A close (very conservative) friend and I visit different churches. We visited a church and the sermon very much exemplified the problem of what we would have with a Christian Theocracy with an Evangelical Christian agenda. I most definitely advocate a more secular government advocating a separation of Religion and State.

There is a liberal progressive side, most often described in demonizing radical terms by the Conservatives, in American society, and unfortunately an increased polarity of political, social and religious identity and middle ground that is increasingly missing from our society.