Catholic? I had to go look them up. (I wanted to make sure it wasn’t the one about coveting thy neighbor’s ass.) Did you know that different religious traditions number them differently? I didunt. (Sorry if that doesn’t work in print - trying to spell the contraction for did not the way posh people pronounce it.)
Anyway, that’s pretty much one of the major things that grandparents look forward to, innit? That, and saying goodbye to the little ones as they leave to go to their home.
I ran across a site the other day that seemed fairly officious-looking that renders this as Woosh. Wack, no? It always has had a “wh” sound to it the many times something has gone over my head.
Aye, I did know that there were different traditions to numbering. To be honest, I got lazy and just Wikied it… I honestly don’t know which tradition I got! Catholic, you say? Pure luck of the Google…
Spoiling the grandkids, without holding the primary responsibility! What could be better! All the benefits, few of the burdens.
SDMB tradition is “Whoosh” – and I hasten to add I’ve been whooshed myself no few times. But, really, I was just joshin’.
(re “didunt,” grin! I know a guy who has some Boston in his ancestry, who says “dint” or perhaps “din’t.” Something between the two.)
Of course, the Muslim community has also been instrumental in turning in their extremist brethren, preventing other attacks, so harassing all Muslims instead of the extremist few would actually be detrimental to protecting Americans. (And of course some Americans are Muslim, and vice versa.)
Slavery in the U.S.A. being seen as normal? That’s just inconceivable, and the Good Christians Rhett Butler, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson will duel any man who says different.
Of course, Mr. Jefferson might also chime in on the ‘female abuse’ part. But who needs to go back to him, when there are all kinds of current Christians who can do pretty well on that for you.
Part of the issue is that Islam, even in its earliest days, spread thru conquest rather than evangelism. It was part of the theocratic state right from the get-go, rather than being adopted as the state religion after earlier periods of persecution. Sure, Christianity (and Buddhism, etc.) spread thru conquest, but conquest was not fundamentally a part of the theology as jihad is part of Islam.
This doesn’t mean all Muslims are terrorists.
Bush 43 was the first I remember pushing this notion of “Islam is a peaceful religion”. I understand that this kind of political correctness is and was intended to prevent a backlash against innocent Muslims in the wake of 9/11, but that doesn’t make it true. Especially not with Islamic organizations like Hamas and Hizbollah preaching death to Israel and Iran preaching death to the Great Satan and so on. And there are various polls in which non-trivial numbers of Muslims endorse what the West would call terrorism.
I don’t think the West is fooling itself about the dangers of Islam, nor is it overestimating it. Islamo-fascism is a significant but not universal problem in the 21st century. Denying it is as silly as exaggerating it.
It didnt for the most part. Muslim armies did take over large amounts of territory but there was very rarely forcible conversion, it being frrowned upon in Islam. Most conversion to Islam happened so that the convert could get tax exemptions or enjoy full civil rights. Or, in those areas of the world not having been conquered, the spread of the religion happened thanks to Muslim merchants and missionaries. Im not going to say forced conversion never happened but it wasnt the norm.
Nope, lots of us lived through 9/11 and don’t wish to paint all Muslims with the broad brush of terrorism. It’s an unjustified (if someone understandable) response to a difficult situation. But being it’s wrong and it’s not a good way to achieve the end goal (staying safe in a violent world).
That’s kind of a distinction without a difference. Conquering your territory and depriving you of civil rights unless you convert is not significantly different from “spreading thru conquest”.
The reason you are an ignorant bigot is because you attribute as the cause of the terror attack that these people were Muslim, rather than that they were terrorists who happened to be Muslim. If being Muslim were a cause of terrorism, then with 1 billion Muslim’s on the planet, there would be a lot more terrorist acts in the world than there are. Terrorists are disaffected psychopaths who happen to seize on whatever religion and grievance that they have available to fulfill their desire for violence. As we have seen with the Irish problem, Catholics and Protestants can be terrorists. As we saw with Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kazcynski , non-religious people can be terrorists. The cause is not religious ideology, but rather violent psychopathy.
Sure there is. Neither is, admittedly, very nice. But one is religious persecution and one is religious genocide. For an example, compare the Jewish population of Muslim Spain in 1300 to the Jewish population in Christian Spain in 1560. The Jewish population in Muslim Spain was persecuted and sometime the subject of violence. But it survived and their was actually a fairrly large and prosperous Jewish community. After the Reconquista, the Spanish demanded the Jews of Spain convert or leave. And, by 1560, while there were a few people practicing Judaism in secret, there was no more Jewish population community in Spain. The secod is forced conversion. The first isn’t. Thats why Egypt was majority Christian until the tenth century. There wasn’t a lot of zeal by the Muslim conquerors to spread their religion. In fact, a lot of rulers tried to discourage conversion.
The intentions of individual Islamic people ≠ the “intentions” (if we should call them by that) of the collective social-structure entity, Islam worldwide.
It’s absolutely parallel to the situation with regards to organized Christianity. I’ve known many many very good Christian people with the best of intentions, good responsible social ethics and consciousness and so on, and read about many many others throughout history. That doesn’t alter my impression of what the presence of organized religion in society has meant to the species over the centuries.
Any rigid orthodoxy that holds central axiomatic truths that all of its followers are supposed to believe and are forbidden to question, and which incorporates an apostolic desire to spread, and to impose as enforceable laws the imlementations of its truths upon all the people in the areas to which it has successfully spread, has the same “intention”.
They may differ in mostly unimportant ways as to details but orthodoxy is the agenda and it is not a good intention.
Jolly amusing game - these threads that are meant to flush out the “ignorant bigots” among us so that they may be properly chastised. I almost chuckled.
I’m glad to see more literal minds than mine have had the common sense to specify that it isn’t a simple yes or no question. My mistake for assuming that was a given.
Anyone who holds that all members of any given group are either all good or all bad is a bit of a crusader, I’m afraid. And deluded.
It stands to reason that from whichever direction the current wind blows that is the area we will want to be watching regardless of whether they are our own homegrown “patriots” or our most newly arrived citizens.
It’s not prejudice. It’s roots run more deeply than that. Survival instinct is normal, natural and rational.
It becomes prejudice when a person assumes that each individual of that group has the qualities he fears and acts upon that irrational fear.
Of course casting aspersions on a billion people is prejudiced. It’s how our brains work, but it’s still prejudice - and a very shallow analysis of the situation. And yes, there is some shallowness on both sides. But really, this was talked to death years ago.
Pretty much this. I think it is more important to educate the ignorant bigots than to chastise them. Perhaps if I think of a better label to put on them, like “stupid bigots”.
I have a problem with the suggestion that the vast majority of Muslims are peace loving folks that do not support the radical factions that terrorize those that don’t think like they do. Why, I have to wonder, does that majority not protest the actions of what we are told are the relatively few?
As we all know- prior to the civil rights movement in the 1960s, African Americans were often denied basic human rights. Many were lynched simply because of the color of their skin. Finally, the majority of our people decided to take a stand against those wrongs. Some people did it in small ways, even in ways as simple as shaking a man’s hand in public. Others gave their lives, black and white, in protests and marches because it was the right thing to do.
I don’t see that in the Islamic world. I don’t see the majority of Muslims protesting against what we’re told are the radical few. In fact, after 911 I watched newsreels of men, women, and children dancing in the streets, celebrating the tragic deaths of thousands of innocent people that didn’t believe the same things and the same way they believed. Those videos are still easy to find if you don’t believe it.
Why, then, do the many not protest the few? Think about it.
If you Google “protests against terrorism” you’ll find some stories about protests against terrorism (mixed in with all the complaints about Muslims failing to protest terrorism). The Civil Rights Movement didn’t work the way you say it did, and the logic of this claim is very spotty: terrorists aren’t going to be deterred by protests, you know.