There is no doubt that Fund is right, Christians have slaughtered many in the quest for "converts". BUT the difference is that eventually they settled down and for the most part are no longer zealous enough to kill to make their point. And I suspect that there are many FBI dossiers on the anti-abortion crowd for simply that reason.
Headlines
Can there still be no argument for profiling?
- Thread starter macjazzy
- Start date
There is no doubt that Fund is right, Christians have slaughtered many in the quest for "converts". BUT the difference is that eventually they settled down and for the most part are no longer zealous enough to kill to make their point. And I suspect that there are many FBI dossiers on the anti-abortion crowd for simply that reason.
fund razor
Founding Member
Right. The other difference being that it is socially acceptable for a Christian to stand up against another Christian who is crazy.
gerritm
New member
When was the last time a Christian missionary planted a bomb on themselves and blew it up killing others that don't agree with them including others of a different sect of their own religion? Since when is a missionary on par with a Muslim terrorist. Have you ever seen a Muslim missionary working with the poor? How many Muslims missionaries are in Haiti helping those poor people or anywhere else in the world. Mother Theresa was a missionary. I think you have a skewed sense of history and Christians. If you read my post I do agree that Christians had their moments of religious ferver and did their best to forcefully make the rest of the world agree, but I think civilization has moved the Christian religion into the 21st century. The Muslims have tried to kill or conquer the world since Mohammed was born. Check your history books and look at the last couple of hundred years. The Crusades and Spanish Inquisition have been over for centuries.
gerritm
New member
Not a very good comparison in my humble opinion. One quarter of the earth's population is Muslims. We have a lot more to worry about from them. The anti-abortion wackos are what a couple of hundred at best. Or do you compare everyone who is anti abortion to Muslim terrorists. Lets get real on what we are talking about. I am against abortion and I don't think I am a terrorist or support any kind of terror against the abortion crowd. But that is a different argument.
fund razor
Founding Member
It was the only current example of radical christian fundamentalism that we could find Gerritm, which in a sense makes your point that there ain't much these days, doesn't it?
And Islam comes in at 21%, which is 1.5 Billion. They are just behind Christians who are at 33% (2.1 billion), and those who don't give a phuck, which are at 16% (1.1 billion.)
And Islam comes in at 21%, which is 1.5 Billion. They are just behind Christians who are at 33% (2.1 billion), and those who don't give a phuck, which are at 16% (1.1 billion.)
fund razor
Founding Member
I think that social pressure from non-radicals against radicals would do more good than anything else.
fund razor
Founding Member
Interestingly Judaism (Jewish) .22% (14 million)
Rastafarian (600 thousand)
Rastafarian (600 thousand)
fund razor
Founding Member
For the record, I am supportive of profiling... just being devil's advocate on the facts.
MarylandMark
Charter Member
Without getting in to the Irish Republican Army, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Orange Volunteers or any of them, check out the global terrorism database:
http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?chart=regions&casualties_type=&casualties_max=
http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?chart=regions&casualties_type=&casualties_max=
MarylandMark
Charter Member
:usa:
Expensive Date
New member
Funny
macjazzy
Charter Member
I agree with Fund, and that is pretty much the point I was trying to make earlier in ths thread.
Profiling would undoubtedly hassle and put out thousands of people who are completely innocent. But those people would eventually get tired of that hassle and begin to turn in the people that are the problem.
I truly believe that while most of the Muslim world are NOT terrorists I bet a good portion of them know someone who is or supports terrorism. They keep quiet or ignore it or maybe even tacitly help them. Not to mention proably a fair number who may not be radical enough to strap on a bomb, but may be ok with what the radicals are doing. So they look the other way because it doesn't effect them negatively enough to bother stopping or even fully considering the fall out of the radicals agenda.
Untill those people, the innocents who look the other way, become so fed up with it and turn on the radicals we will never be able to end this.
catastrophe
Registered
Thank you for that.
Before people register here they should be asked if they have ever read a book.
catastrophe
Registered
Adolf Hitler was raised Christian Catholic.
Chalk up 6 or 7 million to his account.
Chalk up 6 or 7 million to his account.
macjazzy
Charter Member
Sooooo, is the thought here that since the Christian "body count" is higher we should cut the radical muslims a break until they catch up?
Not sure I understand the thought there.
Hitler is dead, we ended his dream of world domination.
The crusades ended almost a thousand years ago.
Both were terrible but they are not currently a threat to anyone's life, jihadists are.
Not sure I understand the thought there.
Hitler is dead, we ended his dream of world domination.
The crusades ended almost a thousand years ago.
Both were terrible but they are not currently a threat to anyone's life, jihadists are.
fund razor
Founding Member
I can't find any posts where anybody relates that thought. My comment on the christian body count was in regard to the statement that muslims were on top. My point was to suggest that we don't use that criteria, as it fails the smell test from the get go. Christians have largely changed tactics in the last couple of hundred years. The point wasn't to villify living Christians, either.
Not aimed at you macjazzy.... but it's amazing how people jump to a conclusion that you do not make, simply because you make a parallel point, or address a single falsehood in an otherwise reasonable premise.
I am sorry that I hijacked this thread so much by bringing in a fact. It was very distracting. This thread wasn't actually about comparative religion. It was about whether profiling is an appropriate and effective means of identifying persons for further investigation. I think that it is. Nobody should "get a break."
Birdog
Charter Member
:sifone:Similar threads
