189 replies to this topic

[Dream]

I certainly have many problems with America. - Not the least of which is our current political administration, including the leader of our executive branch. I like to call him "monkey-boy". And then there's the fact that America is getting (as a whole) less intelligent and more deluded by the virus that is religion. Religion is not the only reason for the current and obvious decline of American society, just a major reason. It breeds complacency, fatalism and absolutely ridiculous national policy. It breeds stupidity. - Stupidity like the idea of invading a sovereign nation and "fixing" it when your nation can't even adequately solve huge, pressing issues of large numbers of its own populace...such as poverty, drug addiction, homelessness, health care...I could ramble on. Additionally, when I ask myself why I love America, the knee-jerk response is because it's a free country. - Is it really? I see the erosion of many of our freedoms in America explained away by quite a few as justified by our "war on terror". Ya can't fix terror until you fix stupid, and ya can't fix stupid with a grenade. The war on terror is starting to look alot like the war on drugs. The money may have been better spent dropping billions of leaflets all over the USA and the entire middle east illustrating the logical inconsistencies of major world religions. Possibly the leaflets could also contain a nice fat joint of maryjayne and a smiley-face pin-on button.

That having been said, it sure is nice to live in a country where I have a very good chance of NOT being beaten or raped on my way to work. Add that to the fact that I do have access to Some healthcare, I actually have a job to go to, and I own a computer with access to the internet. I have a roof over my head, running water, heat, air-conditioning, electricity, clothing. I am in the "working-poor" class of Americans, but because I work my butt off, I have a higher quality of life than most of the other people in the world. And advancement potential based on how flexible, clever and dedicated I am at offering value.

So...lots of problems in the USA, but I am still happy to be here. It really bothers me that I didn't win the presidential election though. I did get at least one vote... [lol]

[Athanasios]

It all sounds very good, if you have a job that gets to pay for your Harley, I live in San Diego, the MEDIAN cost of a Home is 600 k, last year I made 70K, funny I cant make ends meet, I would have to take in at least 140K with a 20% down in order to afford a condominium,, wich I do not have

I drive an 87 Bronco II, pay rent and take my kids to school (not private) I worked for Qualcomm, they sold their share to Kyocera, it was not profitable, after two years Kyocera moved their plant to Tijuana Mexico they needed to cut costs, after they moved the company to Mexico, they couldnt compete, they went belly up, I worked for Sony, they moved out to Brazil, same reasons as above, I worked for Sanyo, they were 10 dollars above chinese made product, even that chinese were paying for Shippiong overseas, 3 years later they close their doors, Where do you live ???

Currently I outsource products from my company, I lived in China 3 years, Hong Kong and mainland, WE CAN NOT COMPETE with their prices, the only thing that is currently holding them down, is that they do not have sufficient technology, so their products are basic, but is only a matter of time, wake up and smell the coffe, we are going down, it is no longer attractive for high end scientists to work in USA, we are loosing our ground steadily, and I am very sorry to see it everyday

Keep riding your harley, all this will not happen in your time, but we have become fat and leazy, and you better have some money stached away, otherwise you will not be able to retire, my friend.

I know we are deep in the thread, but i wanted to point something out that many overlook. Why can we not compete with china's prices? Why can't we make up for it by selling products back to them? Why the increasing trade deficit? They are keeping their currency drastically undervalued compared to the U.S. to drive growth at our expense. Check out the big mac index to see what I mean.

[Dream]

Why can we not compete with China's prices. Hmm. I would have to suggest that the main reason we cannot do that is because we pay our labor force far to much to be competitive, though it is (barely) humane.

[Dream]

It's a nice fantasy that we will beat China at that game...but we won't. Witness America in decline. Such a glorious start and such a proud people, reduced to narcissistic fantasies, and so not paying attention to the real deeds that need doing. What a pity. Reminds me of Rome. Decadence will be our downfall. I suppose we can still wage endless war against "terror" and even unleash our nuclear arsenal to try and convince the world that we are "worthy" to exist how we do, but I don't buy it. I weep as a citizen of this nation over the less-than-honorable things we are forced to do to maintain our status as a superpower because our general populace is just not as motivated or intelligent as "the other guy". It's an ugly sight to look at America bare of all its clothes. We have alot of work to do, and not alot of time to do it in if we wish to legitemately remain a major force in this evolving world.

[Centurion]

We need to ban them from the entire world. They grow within Europe and United States, and everywhere! We cannot let this primitivity take over everything.

It'll never happen. Look at Northern Ireland. Terrorism does not overthrow democracy. It hasn't worked for the IRA in 35 years, it won't work for the muslims.

[mikelorrey]

RElated to the title of this thread:

http://www.dansimmon...ews/message.htm

NB: while I gather there are some inaccuracies, the overall picture is scary

It's nice fiction. But that's all, no need to be scared..

"Move along people, nothing to see here, move along..."

[mikelorrey]

We need to ban them from the entire world. They grow within Europe and United States, and everywhere! We cannot let this primitivity take over everything.

It'll never happen. Look at Northern Ireland. Terrorism does not overthrow democracy. It hasn't worked for the IRA in 35 years, it won't work for the muslims.

The distinction was that Irish catholics were the natives in Northern Ireland, the Unionists were the interlopers, supported by their colonizing foreign government. No matter what the politics of Sinn Fein, their only goal for many years was equal democratic representation, while their opressors kept Catholics out of government entirely and used terrorism and oppression to keep them out. The terrorism of the Ulster Unionists has certainly overthrown democracy in northern Ireland.

Conversely, the muslim invasion of Europe and North America (not just the US) is made up of interlopers who have no ethnic, cultural, or religious links to the societies and peoples who founded these nations (outside of more violent invasions of Sicily, Spain, and the Balkans in the middle ages, which were beaten back), interlopers who have largely shown little interest in assimilating into their new societies, instead remaining isolated, even to the point of refusing to learn the new language 2-3 generations in. While this isn't entirely unique, there are plenty of jewish, asian, and latino enclaves in the US with similar residents, with the sole exception of latino and asian crime gangs, these populations don't engage in violence, and none of them engage in specifically ethnically or religiously motivated violence, while anyone can make a cursory reading of the Qran and understand it to be a book which advocates violence in many places against infidels, christians, jews, women.

Where jews keep to themselves, and christians evangelize in peace and humility, only islam evangelizes in violence, arrogance, and distain for other human beings.

[Centurion]

The distinction was that Irish catholics were the natives in Northern Ireland, the Unionists were the interlopers, supported by their colonizing foreign government.

Misconception #1 - Wrong. The ulster unionists had no more support from the british government than the irish, you're making an assumption

No matter what the politics of Sinn Fein, their only goal for many years was equal democratic representation, while their opressors kept Catholics out of government entirely and used terrorism and oppression to keep them out. The terrorism of the Ulster Unionists has certainly overthrown democracy in northern Ireland.

Oppressors? unionists were the only terrorists were they? There is a protestant majority in Northern Ireland, democracy is currently in their favour

I suggest you become a little more familiar with the situation in this country before presuming to dictate what you perceive the facts to be to me, a national of this country.

Conversely, the muslim invasion of Europe and North America (not just the US) is made up of interlopers who have no ethnic, cultural, or religious links to the societies and peoples who founded these nations (outside of more violent invasions of Sicily, Spain, and the Balkans in the middle ages, which were beaten back), interlopers who have largely shown little interest in assimilating into their new societies, instead remaining isolated, even to the point of refusing to learn the new language 2-3 generations in. While this isn't entirely unique, there are plenty of jewish, asian, and latino enclaves in the US with similar residents, with the sole exception of latino and asian crime gangs,  these populations don't engage in violence, and none of them engage in specifically ethnically or religiously motivated violence, while anyone can make a cursory reading of the Qran and understand it to be a book which advocates violence in many places against infidels, christians, jews, women.

This still makes it no more likely that Europe will be "taken over" by muslims. Your use of the word invasion is also a loaded term, try the word immigration.

[Centurion]

Your "unionists are evil oppressors enslaving the irish" attitude is very much an epidemic in the united states, partly fuelled by the fact that many americans place a certain admiration on irish catholics. It has no basis in fact and is blatantly one sided.

The cause for this misguided argument is easy to spot. You attempt to reason on the basis that the unionists in Northern Ireland are "oppressors" as though it were the unionists who live here today who carried out the plantation itself with Oliver Cromwell, a crude misobservation.

Additionally you assume nationalist = republican and unionist = loyalist. This is also grossly misguided and a generalisation to say the least.

Also, you claim sinn fein's only aim was peace. Sinn fein has proven links to the IRA. Sinn Fein = IRA. the IRA is not a peaceful organisation. If you look carefully at Northern Irish media you will not see Sinn Fein disputing the fact that they are linked to the IRA.

I am saying that the blame lies with both sides. Anyone who has lived here and has seen the devastation without having let it develop a bias in them can also say the same.

Edited by centurion, 21 August 2006 - 07:20 PM.

[Utnapishtim]

I am not sure if the Islam is an intrinsically more violent faith than Judaism...

The Hebrew bible cheerfully condones the genocide of the Canaanites for example. A society modeled on the book of Leviticus, which sets out Gods laws for the hebrew people would in many ways resemble Taliban controlled Afghanistan.

Elsewhere on these boards I have defended the bible on literary and culture-historical grounds and stated that the notion of a benevolent creator god gives comfort to unthinking people that I wouldnt want to take away from them.

However attempting to use it as a literal blueprint for building a society is a horrific prospect.

Israel does not resemble Saudi Arabia this because the Jewish people long since stopped depending on the ACTUAL CONTENT of their holy book for moral or legal guidance. They merely pay it lip service.

The problem with the much of the moslem world is that they actually take the content of their holy book seriously. Both Judaism and Islam if followed in the manner intended by their core texts lead to ugliness and violence. Fortunately there are not as many good jews in the world as good moslems.

A diluted Islam consisting of form without content is our best hope for a peaceful world. If the Jewish people can do this with their faith why not the Moslems?

Edited by Utnapishtim, 21 August 2006 - 07:23 PM.

[Centurion]

Agreed Utnap, its nice to see some logical, rational deductions taking place here. The use of absolutes, painting entire religions with sensationalist labels such as "oppressor" or "evil violent invader" is not indicative of a careful analysis of a situation.

Muslim extremists subscribe to a version of their faith that the majority of muslims see as warped and misguided.

[mhaughian]

Your "unionists are evil oppressors enslaving the irish" attitude is very much an epidemic in the united states, partly fuelled by the fact that many americans place a certain admiration on irish catholics. It has no basis in fact and is blatantly one sided.

The cause for this misguided argument is easy to spot. You attempt to reason on the basis that the unionists in Northern Ireland are "oppressors" as though it were the unionists who live here today who carried out the plantation itself with Oliver Cromwell, a crude misobservation.

Additionally you assume nationalist = republican and unionist = loyalist. This is also grossly misguided and a generalisation to say the least.

Also, you claim sinn fein's only aim was peace. Sinn fein has proven links to the IRA. Sinn Fein = IRA. the IRA is not a peaceful organisation. If you look carefully at Northern Irish media you will not see Sinn Fein disputing the fact that they are linked to the IRA.

I am saying that the blame lies with both sides. Anyone who has lived here and has seen the devastation without having let it develop a bias in them can also say the same.

What part of NI are you from Centurion? I agree with most of what youre saying its an insult to the people who died in the troubles to say everything was one sided.

[phylodome]

Personally, I'm more scared of the fundamentalists within our own borders, those that wreak havoc on any attempt at effective legislature and legitimate executive power.

They truly polarize and paralyze our nation and our world, despite the fact that their interpretation of the Bible and Jihadists' interpretation of the Quoran remain quite similar. It's quite entertaining to hear many Americans speak of the events in the Middle East from an ivory tower of mixed hatred/ignorance/indifference. Thought Experiment: Mexico wins the Mexican-American war. Mexico somehow uses the oil in Texas and resources in California to become a much more dominant economic and military force than the US (a stretch, i know, but just a hypothetical). Mexico then implements a strictly Catholic sovereign nation within our borders and imports millions of Mexicans, let's say....right in the middle of the Bible Belt....What happens? Who does our nation then hate? Do we bomb mexican buildings? Do we go to war with those against our "faith"?

I know if i saw my neighbors faces being blown off, and babies being born with no heads because of depleted uranium shelling, I might consider drastic measures as well.

Also, most people do not understand the true roots of this conflict. Does anyone know why Islamic fundamentalists turned against America? Hmm, Maybe because we totally used them during the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations. Maybe because we gave the Taliban over 1 Billion dollars to fight our wars for us and then turned our backs on them. Same goes for Saddam, do you know he used to do Recon for the CIA? Yah, right before we helped him overthrow Iraq's government to make way for the western-oil-friendly Ba'athist party, 4 times.

Basically, our policies, initiated by those blinded by greed, have again come to bite us in the ass. This conflict is not religious at the high levels that it is being fought, only guised as so to fool a largely ignorant populous in BOTH regions of the world, inspiring hatred and fear, driving war so that (from our perspective) we might funnel more of our dollars, already supported over $0.25 by China's equity, into our military budget while cutting veteran benefits, eliminating corporate pensions, and largely ignoring the pathetic state of our educational system. From the "terrorists" perspective it is much more simple, they want to trick their even less educated populous into hating the West and halting progress simply for the sake of retribution. And lo and behold, enter Lebanon, whose public now simply loves Hizbollah, and now completely loathes Israel. Funny...at the beginning of the war the youth blogs between the two countries were rather peaceful; now, stuffed to the sphincter with hate, they verbally assault, waiting for their own personal retribution.

Also, I doubt it will be too long before we have "Christians" bombing not only abortion clinics, but scientific and technological labs as well.

Who are the real enemies of progress? Those who live in poverty with no access to information outside of their radical Islamic leaders, or those, who in the face of knowledge and opportunity, demand that we all stick our heads in the sand with crosses round our necks, the albatrosses of Western civilization?

America, the dutiful.

[mikelorrey]

The fact that Unionists insist on doing their offensive marches directly through Catholic neighborhoods on Orangemen Day is indicative that they are an organized hate group, no different from the KKK or neo-nazis marching through black neighborhoods here.

There are always two sides to a conflict. Thats a tautology. Without two irreconcilable sides, there would be no reason to fight. The question is, who is more right?

Now, you can take the pacifist route, and just say that the question is why can't we live in peace (but that, of course, ignores the racist marches of the Orangemen as instigators of strife and opression) but that presupposes that if everyone laid down their arms tomorrow, that everyone would have equal access to government. The Catholics tried that one already, to be met with absurd demands that they surrender their only means of self defense against future opression.

Surrender of arms by the IRA would imply that the Unionists won and the Catholics lost, and that the Unionist cause was in the right. While the British media focuses on the IRAs refusals to disarm, they ignore that the Unionists also refuse to disarm.

I frankly don't give a damn that Sinn Fein has links to the IRA. The GOP has links to the NRA, so what? I completely recognise the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, and to organize and assemble in defense of their rights. The problem here is that the British and their Unionists do not.

[olaf.larsson]

Im sure the muslim takeover will take science to a new higher hintertoo
not seen level which will be followed by a golden age for science.
Muslim scientist will cure cancer, aging and inhabit Mars and Moon. [":)]

[Centurion]

The fact that Unionists insist on doing their offensive marches directly through Catholic neighborhoods on Orangemen Day is indicative that they are an organized hate group, no different from the KKK or neo-nazis marching through black neighborhoods here.

1) I suggest you read more, the orange order are not racially oriented.
2) the IRA march, they did so twice in ballymena last year, but you wouldn't know that because you only know what you're told
3) Catholics were fine with the marches until sinn fein made it an issue. Catholic bands and Protestant bands used to share drum sticks in a shortage - go figure
4) There is no such thing as "orangemen day" It's called the twelfth. Again, go read or something.

Now, you can take the pacifist route, and just say that the question is why can't we live in peace (but that, of course, ignores the racist marches of the Orangemen as instigators of strife and opression) but that presupposes that if everyone laid down their arms tomorrow, that everyone would have equal access to government. The Catholics tried that one already, to be met with absurd demands that they surrender their only means of self defense against future opression.

First of all the marches are not racist. Orangemen and nationalists are by and large the same race - white. Go figure!
Oppression? your language is once again loaded, nobody is oppressing the irish catholics. They vote with everyone else.
Secondly, Catholic != Nationalist, Protestant != Unionist. Did you not read my previous post? You should, you might learn something.

Surrender of arms by the IRA would imply that the Unionists won and the Catholics lost, and that the Unionist cause was in the right. While the British media focuses on the IRAs refusals to disarm, they ignore that the Unionists also refuse to disarm.

I frankly don't give a damn that Sinn Fein has links to the IRA. The GOP has links to the NRA, so what? I completely recognise the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, and to organize and assemble in defense of their rights. The problem here is that the British and their Unionists do not.

The right to bear arms is an American right. Even if it was a british right there is a difference in bearing arms and using them! The IRA do not have the right to bomb as they did in omagh, or rob the northern bank.
To be frank, you have a rose tinted, immature view which is an insult to the many who have died in this country. You are underinformed and overopinionated. You draw parallels which are inappropriate and haphazard and you fail to see things with an objective view. In short you are wrong. I have lived here all my life and I know the score, you, do not.

You see the british as some kind of oppressors, they are not. Every opinion poll held to date shows the majority of NI residents want to remain a part of the UK. Once that changes, there will be a referendum and it will be decided democratically. Let me ask you this, if the British are oppressing the Irish, how come they have not took up arms and started killing "catholics" as you are so fond of calling nationalists and republicans?
This situation is more complex than you are either willing or capable of understanding. Tell your right to bear arms rubbish to the victims of the Omagh bombing or the Shankill massacre. You will get a much more venomous answer than mine, I can tell you that in advance.

Moderators: I suggest this thread be closed. Not only is MikeLorrey openly supporting and advocating terrorism, he is doing so as a result of ignorance and disinformation. The fact that he would presume to tell a resident of this country how his own country is doing is besides the matter, he is openly in support of illegal activity and that is surely not part of imminst's mission.

America saw terrorism first hand in 9/11, I have no doubt if someone here were to praise the perpetrators of the atrocity which took place that day, nobody would bat an eyelid at deleting the post and banning the member. MikeLorrey is essentially doing the same, he is supporting and advocating the horrible atrocities which have taken place in this country for over 30 years. I did not become a member of imminst to listen to promotion of violence, I came here to discuss health and immortality.

Edited by centurion, 28 August 2006 - 07:53 PM.

[olaf.larsson]

Here is a picture of the prosperity we might expect:

http://www.tom.steph...tion_of_war.jpg

[jaydfox]

Hmm, no time to go through all this and figure out who started what. Which I suppose is a problem in many of these types of conflicts (Palestinians vs. Israelis, Catholics vs. Protestants, Arabs vs. Israelis, Indians vs. Pakistanis, Muslims vs. Israelis, etc.): the outside world loves to chime in like their opinion is somehow superior and/or objective, but most of the time, we don't know what the **** we're talking about.

So, should I step in and tell Mike to behave? Tell centurion to behave? Close the thread? I don't know. I suggest everyone behave, even if the heated exchanges aren't your fault. "Can't we all just get along?"

[Centurion]

I am behaving Jay, I'm just somewhat agitated by what I'm reading and if my posts seem polarized I apologise. I have however lived here for 20 years and am in a better position to comment on what has happened than an American with a leisure interest in Ireland who reads the occasional Sinn Feinn brochure.

The following in particular sums Mike's approach to the issue:

I completely recognise the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, and to organize and assemble in defense of their rights. The problem here is that the British and their Unionists do not.

This is open advocation of terrorism. It is also an insult to many who have died, including my older brother who never lived to see me born, a victim of an IRA mine. The only question I need to ask you is how long I would last before being booted out on my ass, if I were to say I recognise the right of al qaeda to bear arms and use them on the WTC.

[Lazarus Long]

(phylodome)
They truly polarize and paralyze our nation and our world, despite the fact that their interpretation of the Bible and Jihadists' interpretation of the Quoran remain quite similar. It's quite entertaining to hear many Americans speak of the events in the Middle East from an ivory tower of mixed hatred/ignorance/indifference. Thought Experiment: Mexico wins the Mexican-American war. Mexico somehow uses the oil in Texas and resources in California to become a much more dominant economic and military force than the US (a stretch, i know, but just a hypothetical). Mexico then implements a strictly Catholic sovereign nation within our borders and imports millions of Mexicans, let's say....right in the middle of the Bible Belt....What happens? Who does our nation then hate? Do we bomb mexican buildings? Do we go to war with those against our "faith"?

I love thought experiments like this that not only completely alter a particular event in order to assert a series of seemingly logical yet unfounded post-dictions but also ignore the historical trends of the times as borne out by history.

First if Mexico had won the war in question, oil was not yet discovered (nor its importance) but the war between nationalists and imperialists was about to be fought, again. That war was in direct response to many abusive aspects of the Catholic Church and its internal alliance with the military dictatorship as it had come to uphold the oligarchic and parochial society of the past. The rebellion in question just happened to be led by a disaffected former seminary student.

Far fetched?

Not really his name was Benito Juarez and to this day Mexico actually on paper has more strict rules for the separation of Church and State than we do. In fact the churches DO to this day pay some taxes and the land they occupy is owned by the state since they are not only denied the right to own land as an institution but anyone in their ministry is prevented from running for or serving in public office.

So let me provide an alternate interpretation of *What if* Mexico had won that war.

Since the rise of military dictatorship in Mexico was at least in part a direct result of European influence after the fall of Spanish rule, factionalism and preindustrial socioeconomics, the success of preserving the archaic structures of old hardliners is actually stretched to the breaking point by the military victory.

The rapidly advancing extensions of that state create proto-industrialized centers far away from the central authority of Mexico City and in short order the military acts to oppress them except for their dependence on the wealth these areas generate and their burgeoning cottage industries. The Catholic hegemony leads even faster, or at least as fast to the Reform War (yes folks that is its real name) and the Catholic church's power is suppressed and the California and Texan republics are formed or they in fact force the decentralization of Mexico that allows it to enter the industrial age afterward earlier than it was able to in real history.

The refuge that Mexico provides as a breather to native North American tribes is strengthened and the tribes form the independent Plains Republic by uniting with some settler/refugees after the US Civil War isolates the South if it wins its independence or the net result of Union victory is essentially the same but the Eastern Republic is better able to confront the rise of European powers at first because it is not also focused in the Pacific though this prevents the rise of the US not being the current global power that it finds itself as. In fact unless the nascent Western republics chose to unite with the union the odds are that what we call the US today would not exist. Texas after all was a Republic first and if that struggle had to get restarted as it most certainly would have during the later Reform War, it most likely either would have forced the decentralization of Mexico or it would have formed an independent republic and stayed that way.

Nonetheless as far as cultural and religious freedom the net result is a far richer and more plural populace with cross over ties that are established both to native populations and across ethnic immigrant lines.

Note to Centurian, I am truly impressed and glad that someone like you is addressing global misconceptions about local conflicts from a first hand basis and I thoroughly enjoy reading your perspective but please tread carefully in projecting your offense at the ignorance of those not familiar with the details of the history so as not to reignite the inflammatory nature of that history in our pages here.

You are doing a remarkable job of presenting a more in depth analysis and I think it is high time for people to stop treating these situations in such simplistic manners. Oh and other than having a bit of fun with the historical revisionism of parallel universes phylodome I echo your concern with respect to MILITANT fundamentalism from any group. Does anyone remember that Mormons were once militant fundamentalists and that some of their splinter members still are?

This thread has been better than some at exposing bias but I think it is time to also address the nuance and complexity of reality. Most people of all faiths are not fundamentalist, yet due in part to their radical doctrine, extremists are often successful at forcing entire populations to march to their drum. I suggest that a better question to ask is: How is it that is the case?

[Centurion]

Thanks Laz. Yes I have been a tad venomous, I apologise for that. Simplistic views on such a complex scenario can be agitating. I went to a mixed Catholic / Protestant school and my best friend Brendan is an Irish nationalist. To say that all protestants are unionists and all unionists are loyalists is wrong. To say that all catholics are nationalists and all nationalists are militant republicans is also wrong.

To Mike: I apologise if what I have said sounded venomous or inflammatory, but you do need to realise there is more to this issue than you are currently aware of and by treading insensitively you are rubbing salt in a very deep 30 year old wound that this country is only beginning to heal. I am all for informed debate, and have enjoyed it with my nationalist and unionist peers all through school, with no violence arising. The key is to be open minded and willing to change you opinions in light of new information.

[jaydfox]

Does anyone remember that Mormons were once militant fundamentalists and that some of their splinter members still are?

Perhaps I am somewhat ignorant of some of the history involved, but as memory serves a great deal of the Mormons militance was in self defense, as they were very harshly criticized/attacked for some of their beliefs. After all, if a person claiming to be the living prophet(1) of the restored(2) church of Jesus Christ came into town, and started talking about havin seen God the Father and Jesus Christ in the flesh(3), and that they were two separate beings(4), and that an angel(5) had given him plates containing another ancient record(6) of God's people and a personal ministry of Jesus Christ in the Americas(7), and that John the Baptist had personally(8) restored unto him the priesthood of Aaron(9) (brother of Moses), and that Peter, James, and John had personally(10) restored unto him the priesthood of Melchizedek(11), he wouldn't be well received in the Bible Belt circa 1830's. (Imagine a Christian missionary in the Middle East.)

1 = This was heresy
2 = This was heresy
3 = This was heresy
4 = This was heresy
5 = This was heresy
6 = This was heresy
7 = This was heresy
8 = This was heresy
9 = This was heresy
10 = This was heresy
11 = This was heresy

As I recall, at one point it was legal to kill Mormons in the state of Missouri (in fact, as I further recall, that law wasn't repealed for over century). As I recall, Mormons were often persecuted with about the same vigor as Jews were in late 1930's Germany, often the females raped and the males shot by angry mobs, their homes and businesses burned, their printing presses broken (to prevent more copies of their "heretical" book from being published).

Edit: BTW, it should be evident that my view of the early Mormons isn't entirely objective, having been built by information I've acquired "from within". While I seriously doubt any blatantly false information was passed on to me, I wouldn't be surprised that much was omitted.

Edited by jaydfox, 28 August 2006 - 10:23 PM.

[DJS]

1 = This was heresy
2 = This was heresy
3 = This was heresy
4 = This was heresy
5 = This was heresy
6 = This was heresy
7 = This was heresy
8 = This was heresy
9 = This was heresy
10 = This was heresy
11 = This was heresy

Well, if you gonna do it, do it right. [lol]

[Lazarus Long]

Jay I never said that Mormons didnt have good reason to be militant but you stepped into my trap with both feet and basically proved they were. )

Nonetheless religious fundamentalism does not automatically mean militancy, as we see in the Amish, Quakers, Sufi etc but religious fundamentalism combined with militancy is a formula for Wahhabi.

[jaydfox]

Laz, maybe I'm missing the tie-in?

Self-defense against having "the females raped and the males shot by angry mobs, their homes and businesses burned, their printing presses broken (to prevent more copies of their "heretical" book from being published)" is hardly "militance", in the current-day connotation, and especially in the connotation of the word "militant" when used in reference to fundamentalists.

There is a very different mindset between killing in active self defense (e.g., muskets are being shot at you) and killing preemptively and unprovoked (not actively provoked, at any rate) to injure an enemy.

[Lazarus Long]

Jay fundamentalist militancy is always seen as a form of self defense. Most Muslim extremists feel they are defending their way of life too.

The reason the defense was called for in the first place was how radically different the form of faith was to contemporaneous Christians and eventually the Mormons did go a through a reform movement to give up polygamy and for the most part assimilated after a period of exodus and isolation.

The common Christian communities of the time thought the Mormons were a threat to them This is how the cycle of violence begins. Those were after all violent times and violence was often the result of lowering your defenses anywhere. But the real difference is that as time went by the militancy is abandoned in favor of assimilation but not by all and there are militant polygamous splinter groups of Mormons that are now treading close to Waco situations.

They are armed and separatist, their choice today to be armed and in violation of this nation's laws is an issue of rebellion that will inevitably lead to violence. They are not being persecuted for their beliefs they are being threatened with prosecution for their practices. This is not the 19th century.

In today's' world many of the groups have histories of persecution, the veracity of which is invariably denied by those they are in conflict with. Many groups use scapegoats of hate to unite their factions and also are scapegoated often by those opposed to them. Few are interested in being *rational* about it or even bothering to understand their enemies.

Mormons today are not represented by the extremists that have splintered off the main house but nonetheless they are associated with them and in a sense this is a similar problem with those that see Islam in a monolithic manner. Always beware of *us and them.*

[Lazarus Long]

Don't you just hate it when something I say has an immediate real world support like this?

Fugitive polygamist leader Jeffs caught

I really prefer offering more time but sometimes events get the best of even me. [wis]

[jaydfox]

Heh. I've always wondered about splinter groups of the LDS church.

I can understand "splinter" groups of protestant churches, since almost by definition they have no divine authority (no modern prophets, "the heavens are closed", etc.). A splinter group is just a group that follows the same basic principles, but has a different (and supposedly better) twist on one or more of the finer points of doctrine. It's easy to get people to follow you, since it's the interpretations of one group of men versus the interpretations of another group of men, and the "incumbent" group isn't necessarily in the right.

But a splinter group from a church that claims divine authority? By definition, the "incumbent" group is in the right. Now you're not disagreeing with the current leader(s) of a church for their personal interpretation of the doctrine, you're disagreeing with God's divinely appointed leaders for their direct revelations from Him. It takes a great deal of Hubris to claim to usurp such control without some sort of unmistakeable Sign from Above, like an angelic visit that the congregation witnessed for themselves. It's not enough for a man to claim he saw a vision that proclaimed him the new source of authority: anyone can make up a story like that, and at any rate, the "incumbent" leaders already have such divine channels at their disposal. So you're trying to sell a splinter group on charisma, and I think it's just a little funny that people would allow themselves to be sold on charisma rather than the doctrine. Even if your personal twist on the doctrine seems better, it's your word as a man versus divine revelation given from a living prophet. I just don't see how people can turn themselves over to something so obviously inconsistent.

Anyway, sorry to get off subject...