Well, he already had a groundbreaking ceremony scheduled in East Jerusalem that day, anyway.

Quote:
Well, he already had a groundbreaking ceremony scheduled in East Jerusalem that day, anyway.

It is a very good thing. I recall going to Israel in 1972 and seeing some of the apartment buildings being built on newly won land. The windows were strangely small, almost slits, just big enough to stick a machine gun through them.

Recent construction offers larger windows equipped with tempered steel shutters as well as a bomb shelter in each condo. Thank God there are still men like Netanyahu around.

So, the Israelis are the cowboys, and the Palestinians are the indians? And this is why Israel is building forts in Palestine?

What was the name of that area in 1947?

Why are these forts a good idea?

Would you be interested in a condo that required tempered steel reinforced windows, gun slits, and bomb proof rooms to make sure you didn't get killed in it?

Sounds great. I guess that's the price of spreading their....what?

Quote:

What was the name of that area in 1947?

Fort Stinking Desert?

Quote:

What was the name of that area in 1947?

Fort Stinking Desert?

1947 - - check the size of Palestine!

Images won't link, so here's a link... http://www.dartmouth.edu/~gov46/gen-assembly-part-1947.gif

1937...

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~gov46/part-july-1937.gif

Previosuly...

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=h...%26tbs%3Disch:1

Interestingly, this nation that was created by the UN, owes its very existence to the UN, won't listen to the UN.

When you cannot rely on your closest ally, distance seems prudent.

Quote:
What was the name of that area in 1947?

The British Mandate of Palestine

Quote:
Why are these forts a good idea?

To keep the barbarians out

Quote:
Would you be interested in a condo that required tempered steel reinforced windows, gun slits, and bomb proof rooms to make sure you didn't get killed in it?

Better than a tent in Indian country

"They are being used by the Arab nations as political pawns. "

Yeah that's true enough. But WE are being used by Israel as a political pawn too (well, maybe as a Knight or Rook). The way we are constantly in there defending them, giving them money, weapons, technology, using all our political capital trying to "solve" something neither want solved- it's ludicrous.

They are a like the kid on the playground who is always looking to cause trouble, and then calls his big brother in to settle it when things don't go his way. I'm tired of us being a part of the whole thing, and a huge part of 9/11 was our blanket support of Israel. This is not conspiracy theory, it's right there in every screed or video Bin Laden ever made. And what are we getting in return? I really can't name much of anything but more trouble.

I need your help with this one, Dbowker. You agree that the Palestinians are being used by Arab nations as political pawns. Do you mean pawns in support of a stated goal to "drive Israel off the map"? If not, what strategy do you thinik these pawns are intended to support?

You suggest the USA is being and has been asked to solve something that neither side wants solved. Do you think Israel prefers to continue to be faced with attempts to destroy them - that they don't want that ended?

You describe Israel (or at least I think you did) as the kid on the playground who is always looking to cause trouble. How are they doing that? Does Israel cause "trouble" simply by existing?

As for what we are, or aren't "getting" for our past support of Israel's right to exist, should our willingness as a nation and as individuals, to stand for core beliefs, principles, and pledges be a function of what's in it for us at any point in time?

Radical Islam's current goal is the eradication of all Jews everywhere. Once the Jewish thorn is gone they will turn their attention to their ultimate goal. That's the rest of us.
Having the whole world under Islamic rule and law is the goal of Islam. The radicals will kill any group or individual that opposes that goal. The moderates give financial support to the radicals. Without that support the radicals would be much less effective.

I totally agree with Lamont and JoeE here. Supressing the Islamic threat is worth almost anything. But I'll bite my own ass if they don't work from the inside of western countries too, trying to overtake the world by any means. Most Arab cultures were and are - excuse me for my prejudism - robber cultures, and will stay so forever.

This discourse is way bigger than any forum can cover, and I'm sure everyone has their slant on it but here's a few reasons why I said what I did.

First- all the Arab nations hate us for a number of long historic reasons, beginning with our own Catholic/Christian crusades and missionary meddling for hundreds of years. But far worse for them was European colonialism, which right on the eve of it dissolving the final, ultimate and permanent insult was rammed right up their asses in the from of a Jewish homeland.

Now, I don't blame the almost annihilated Jews from wanting a homeland well outside Europe. And maybe there's a big part of this whole mess. The Europeans really didn't want to own up to the horror they just took part in and wanted to easiest and fastest answer they could find. And as they had no respect for anyone of color below the Mediterranean anyway, they figured by the time anyone noticed what happened, it'd be out of their hands. And if you go back a 1000 years or two, sure it kind of was their land, but obviously no-one else on the planet gets that right to re-claim lost lands.

We did decent job of wiping out almost all the Native American population, but I don't see any moves to give the remaining tribes back their original territories and create sovereign states. For many of them, it wasn't even that long ago. I guess it's different when it's in you're own back yard.

So why British Palestine for the European Jews? I mean, Australia has plenty of arid land and a smallish population- why not there? Hell, why not Iowa or Arizona, or some of Texas? What? No takers? Why not?

In fact- what if the UN had mandated we give them a few hundred SQ miles of Texas- not that much really, how would we all feel about it? REALLY great, I'm sure. Warm feelings all around? No? And if they did settle there, would everyone in the US still be saying they had a permanent right to that land? Oh, and in the process they kicked off any farmer or former land owner so they could build their new country. Still feeling good about it?

OK- so assuming since it's NOT in our backyard we couldn't care less about how anyone nearby feels, why are we so willing to side with them on each an every issue? In fact, what's in it for us to keep trying to get all the parties to have a group hug? Their are plenty of other conflicted areas around, but the more we get meddle it just bites us in the ass. I doubt having all the Arab world against us is the best way to insure cheap oil, especially since it's not cheap anymore.

If you really believe Israel wants to get on with it's neighbors then why is it that every time they get any closer some new settlement gets started, some new line is drawn or some new condition is pulled out? Yeah, and I'm not saying the Palestinians are any better, but at some point Israel, which is bigger, better educated, and has direct and indirect support form most of the western world, needs to be the "better" party and show it really wants to move ahead. And if we want to be it's supporter, shouldn't we get at least a little more respect from it's leadership?

The strife in the middle east is not about an Arab nation or nations objecting to Israel. It's about Islam objecting to Judaism. Christians and other religions are in the same category. We're just not as close. If Muslims get rid of the Jews another non Islamic group is next.

Quote:
I totally agree with Lamont and JoeE here. Supressing the Islamic threat is worth almost anything. But I'll bite my own ass if they don't work from the inside of western countries too, trying to overtake the world by any means. Most Arab cultures were and are - excuse me for my prejudism - robber cultures, and will stay so forever.

I support Geert Wilders.

"If Muslims get rid of the Jews another non Islamic group is next. "

Really? You actually think that?

A) Israel isn't going to disappear anyway. Most of "wipe them from the map BS is just rabble-rousing for the masses by media savvy dictators. This is about the continuous stalemate in the region and how it gets us nowhere.

B) Exactly how would a disorganized, third-world minority "get rid of" the vast majority of the planet? This isn't James Bond here, where a mad scientist is going to take over the world. One big hit on our soil does not come close to total destruction or us disappearing. The Soviets were a hundred times more organized and equally motivated, with nukes too, and didn't get very far with the world domination thing. We're talking terrorism: disruptive, scary, evil, but not a mortal threat to Western civilization (or Asian, or anybody for that matter).

And for the record, the "Islamic world" is not one big entity. If anything it is usually fighting within itself, and is not at all unified in it's desire to get rid of all non-Muslims. And how is that so different than any religious hardliner? What do you think evangelical Christians want anyway? They'd be happy to force their brand of religion on everyone on the planet if given half a chance.

So far I'm not hearing a compelling argument for the rubber stamp support we send over to Israel, and how that translates into us being safer.

Quote:
"If Muslims get rid of the Jews another non Islamic group is next. "

Really? You actually think that?

A) Israel isn't going to disappear anyway. Most of "wipe them from the map BS is just rabble-rousing for the masses by media savvy dictators. This is about the continuous stalemate in the region and how it gets us nowhere.

B) Exactly how would a disorganized, third-world minority "get rid of" the vast majority of the planet? This isn't James Bond here, where a mad scientist is going to take over the world. One big hit on our soil does not come close to total destruction or us disappearing. The Soviets were a hundred times more organized and equally motivated, with nukes too, and didn't get very far with the world domination thing. We're talking terrorism: disruptive, scary, evil, but not a mortal threat to Western civilization (or Asian, or anybody for that matter).

And for the record, the "Islamic world" is not one big entity. If anything it is usually fighting within itself, and is not at all unified in it's desire to get rid of all non-Muslims. And how is that so different than any religious hardliner? What do you think evangelical Christians want anyway? They'd be happy to force their brand of religion on everyone on the planet if given half a chance.

So far I'm not hearing a compelling argument for the rubber stamp support we send over to Israel, and how that translates into us being safer.

Yes, I'm quite certain.

The Soviet Union and various dictators don't have "God" on their side.

The aim of Islam is a completely Islamic world. Islam leaves no room for any competitor.

Religious freedom is a not part of Islam.

Certainly Muslims fight each other. When you fight your "cousin" over minor religious points of the same belief what do you think non-believers (infidels) represent to those same fanatics?

Thanks, JoeE, you saved me some time and energy. Having just read Dbowker's responses to my earlier post and to yours, I was about to launch into a lengthy reply. I don't need to now. For the most part, your post above says it for me. What makes things worse is that apparently Dbowker and Obama operate from the same playbook and Obama's actions have potentially horrendous consequences.

Blah, blah, blah...Yeah, I know my history, but apparently you guys know the "real" truth, so I'll just let you work it all out. I haven't heard any actual discussion from anyone here- just well-trod, unquestioned talking points, and how "we all feel so afraid of the big bad Muslims!" Give me a break. That's all? It's all just about quivering in our suburban castles?

I feel almost embarrassed for YOU Lamont. I thought you actually thought for yourself every now and then. Maybe next time.

Quote:
Projection.

Lamont, what have I told you about watching too much Dr. Phil?

You might know your history, but you know "Jack Shit" about Islam. Increase your knowledge in that area and then respond. While you're at it ask why the Saudi Arabian government actively supports the Wahabi sect. You might also want to find out why the "Grand Mufti" allied Muslims with Hitler to help eradicate the Jews.

Muslims don't respond to logic. You don't seem to understand that. They are like a cancer. If you wait too long it's too late.

In my community the Islamic influence is pervasive. I've spoken with the local "Mullah's". That's where my information comes from.

Hello, I would like to put my 2 cents into this discussion.
Mostly to make sure no false information is spread regarding Islam.
I am a Muslim, a practicing one and I believe I have a good understanding of my Religion. I would like to clarify some point presents in this thread, and as Lamont Sanford suggested hope to increase your knowledge about Islam.

First I would like to argue against JoeE's statement that "Muslims don't respond to logic".

Proof 1.
1)Socrates is a Man.
2)This statement is logical.
3)I as a Muslim accept this statement.

1 and 2 and 3 therefore, Muslims can understand logic.

Proof 2:
If P then Q.
P therefore Q.
(Modus ponens)

Statement 1:
If today is Tuesday, I will buy Music.
Today is Tuesday, Therefore I will buy Music.

Statement 2:
If I am a practicing Muslim, I will pray towards Mecca.
I am a practicing Muslim, therefore I pray towards Mecca.

I have just shown a Muslim, I can understand and use logic.

Sorry for the dual post, I had to move between computers.

I would now like to point out; It is not the goal of Islam to dominate the world and eradicate other religions (whether or not it be Juadism).

Force in Islam is only allowed if a nation or people oppress Muslims are do not allow the free practice of Islam.
Islam was initially spread not through the crusades or war, but rather through example, Muslims would live and practice freely in all over the world, and eventually the entire population of that particular nation decided to follow Islam. I use the term Nation because, during the early days of Islam there were no countries just empires.

The Muslim army only went to war when Islam was not allowed to be practiced freely.

As for the argument that Jewish people and Muslims cannot coexist I would like to point out the Gold age of Islam.
When the Islamic empire flourished and was an example of excellence for the world. This period is also significant for another group of people.
Golden Age of Jewish Culture in Spain

Jewish Culture in Spain was at its highest when Islam ruled because unlike under the previous rule, Jewish People were allowed to practice their religion openly, under Islamic rule.

This was the time of Maimonides one of the most important Jewish scholars in history.

His work and books are still referenced today, in Torah studies.

Moving on to a more recent point.

Buddha did a decent job of explaining the dwindling Palestinian state and the growing Israeli one.

The Six day war was a response to this shrinking Palestinian state. If you look at the images provided by Buddha there is large difference between 1947 and 1967 in the size of what was supposed to be Palestine. There really seem to no major UN directives instructing land to be transferred over to Israel at such alarming rates.

I admit Israel won the war, and the land was reallocated. But now there is a difference between the UN allocation of 1967 and now 2010 no major war has been fought yet the borders of Palestine are almost eliminated.

Now Israel wants to take complete control over Jerusalem which has historically been and independent city, a City-State if you will, and all peoples where allowed free entry into it. Recently Israel is decided to build housing in Jerusalem. Which is a far cry from what was initially planned in 1948.

Muslims allowed the Jewish people into the land then known as Palestine. Which shows no indication of the complete elimination people have suggested above. We understand that keeping the Jewish People out of Palestine/Israel, would be like keeping a Muslim out of Mecca, or Christians out of the Vatican.

I just hoped we could all live there harmoniously, with out having the need to "out-do" the other.

I think if you go back and watch "Chinatown" it will give additional insight into Israeli land strategy.

It's also about the water.

Google "Israel aquifers" and you'll be amazed where the water is. Then, you can start to look up who gets the water and who doesn't.

Sometimes, it all seems like a slow motion version of "Guns, Germs, and Steel."

edit: awwww I had a flow... 0.o aquifers that's a new one.
Chinatown rocks!!!, the answers to life can be found in 1970 Hollywood Cinema.

I hope you found my posts helpful and they cleared up any misconceptions. I encourage anybody who has any questions to please ask them. I also hope if you disagree you will present your arguments.

Now as a side note, I hope I presented my points as clearly as I could with a neutral tone, so to encourage civil debate. I could have let my bias get the better of me and argue in a vulgar and offensive manner trying to raise tempers, using profane language and making assumptions about Judaism with out concrete evidence.
I could have talked about the Geneva Conventions, the over use of force, white phosphorus bombs, and post pictures of dismembered children.

I could have made personal remarks.

But I chose to keep this discussion civil and hope it continues in the same way.

This is an important topic which is widely misunderstood. I hope that those of us who are more knowledgeable can inform those with less knowledge and inclination.

I highly recommend those who are interested post questions, which can be answered by both sides of the debate.

I also recommend doing your own research, and from various sources, left, right, conservative, liberal, Muslim, Jewish and Wikipedia which is a great neutral tool.

If you haven't figured it out yet I love to debate, and hope people rise to the challenge of civil debate, and through informed discussion we can educate.

Please explain why in Islamic countries the practice of any other religion is discouraged, restricted or banned.

Sorry my knowledge of 1970s cinema is not as good as I made it out to be, so I have no response to your "Lawrence of Arabia" comment, I am sure someone will be able to counter your argument. If not, a trip to Blockbuster and a free weekend and I may have a reply for you :P

On a more serious note I as a Muslim do not want to kill the creators of South Park, I find the show funny, although they do go a little to far sometimes.

As for the case about the cartoons, I agree this is a sensitive subject, a majority Muslims have a stronger/deeper connection with the Prophet Muhammad than say Christian's do with Jesus. This could be due to the fact that Islam is relatively newer religion roughly 1400 years compared to the 2000 for Christianity and 2500+ for Judaism. So the memory of our patriarch is still fresh in the minds of the Muslim nation.

I for one found the South Park episode mildly uncomfortable but not offensive, South Park makes fun of other religious leaders and religions much more than they do of Islam.

One thing I would like to make clear is that I did find the Danish cartoons offensive. Those cartoons depicted The Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist and were derogatory, different from the South Park episode which leans more towards being satirical.

Now I am gonna define and concentrate on one aspect of your arguments. Muslims.... Muslims....

Lamont Sanford and JoeE, both of you always use Muslims and Islam in such broad and general terms, and you continuously group all Muslims into one category.

There are Approx. 6.6 billion people in the world.
of that 1.8 billion of them are Muslim, that's roughly 25% of the worlds population.

You simply cannot group all of them together and apply biases to this large amount of people.

Nor can you associate what a minority of that population does to the rest of the population. Ex. Suicide Bombers/Terrorist consist of a small percentage of the Muslim population. They may seem like a large group because Muslims in general are a large group.

Ex. 1% of Muslims are radical. (This number is out of the blue and used only for demonstrative purposes)

1% of 1.8 billion = 18 Million radical Muslims

Compared to

1% of 15 Million (ballpark Jewish population) = 150000.00 Radical Jews.

thats

18,000,000 vs
150,000

Big difference, you simply cannot just say Muslims are this, Muslims believe in that and so on. There are many sects of Islam and the vast cultures in which Islam is practiced all lend their own thoughts and ideas to the religion. Some may be good, and some not so good.

I am gonna use this to shift into JoeE's statement regarding Islamic countries not allowing other religions to be practiced in with in there borders.

If any country behaves in such a manner they are behaving against the teachings of Islam.

The only place where other religions are prohibited would be Saudi Arabia, specifically Mecca and Medina which are considered Holy Cities. Even this is a new introduction in Islam as during The Prophets time, other religions were free to practice in both Mecca and Medina.

During the Muslim rule of Spain, there was a Church/Mosque which was used for Muslim prayer on Friday, and Mass on Sunday.

To this day in Pakistan Christianity is freely and openly practiced. Same with Indonesia and Malaysia, U.A.E.

You can list a number of countries where other religions are persecuted but then again, that's an issue for those countries not Islam.

You can do some research and find countless examples of Muslims denouncing Terrorism, 9/11 and so on. But one must have the inclination and open mind to search out this information.

I read the National Post (extremtly conservative News paper in Canada)
Globe and Mail (Center)
and the Toronto Star (left/liberal)
along with various blogs, News channels, and Magazines that range from, Pro-Islamic to Pro-Isreali and so on.

I do so because I understand that no one side of a story is complete, and one News outlet cannot supply a truly neutral approach.

I accepts faults in the Islamic World (Iranian Prisoner Abuse, Women's rights in Saudi Arabia)

But I also know that there are faults in other cultures/nations/cultures.

(Over use of force in the IDF and unlawful expansion of Israeli boundaries, Islam-o-phobia in Europe, to Canada's majority leaders muddying the line between Dictator/Prime Minister)

I just hope for fair and civil discourse.

Today's Lesson: Just because a Muslim does it, does not mean it is condoned by Islam or a representation of Islamic values.

Thank You.

Quote:

As for the case about the cartoons, I agree this is a sensitive subject, a majority Muslims have a stronger/deeper connection with the Prophet Muhammad than say Christian's do with Jesus. This could be due to the fact that Islam is relatively newer religion roughly 1400 years compared to the 2000 for Christianity and 2500+ for Judaism. So the memory of our patriarch is still fresh in the minds of the Muslim nation.

Good one.

How do we know they have this more, deeper, stronger, harder relationship?

By expressions of anger and demanding Jihad and Fatwa?

You should not confuse hysteria with closer spiritual relationships. Elin does not have a proven closer or deeper relationship with Tiger because she bashed his car, while another man's wife would not.

Outward vehemence often masks a poorer connection, not a stronger/deeper one.

_____

As to depicting the Prophet:

Why do Muslims get so up in arms if someone creates a likeness of the Prophet, but then go around in Prophet 'costumes' trying to look just like Him?

Is that not disrespectful, as well?

If a man grows the same beard, wears the same clothes, etc...as the Prophet, why isn't it an outrage that someone would be so arrogant as to think he should try to look like an image of the Prophet?

I never got that part.

Interestingly, Christians in the 60's were upset that people grew long hair like Jesus wore, so maybe it's a common cultural outrage.

Those are some good points Buddha.

As for the showing a deeper connection though anger and calls for Jihad.

I guess I needed to make my point a little clearer.

I am gonna start off by saying that a majority of Muslims were not offended by the fact that the Prophet was drawn, but the manner in which he was drawn (as a terrorist/pedophile), with Grenades in his turban and so on.

This was a foreign artist in a country that allows freedom of expression, no Muslim or no Human can say what he can or cannot do.

Those that burned pictures and had mass protests on the streets are a small population of the overall Muslim population.

All that is required is a small town in a small country given false information on a slow day and you will have mass protest and burning of pictures and calls for Jihad and Fatwas being handed out left and right.

You have to remind your self of the size of the Muslim population and that the resulting crazy is just statistics.

The media can choose to display this over and over and make it seem like this type of reaction is how all Muslims secretly feel inside.

My reaction to a the cartoons was not outrage or a need to be violent. It was a letter, not condemning the fact that the artist drew the Prophet but in the manner in which he did. It was derogatory and offensive. If someone drew the Prophet in a more charming sense, it would think it was cool, and pass on the fact that the prophet was drawn (likeness depicted), because he was drawn by a non-Muslim, someone who probably did not know it was against Islamic teachings to do so, and even if he did know it was against Islam to do so, we can't judge him.

The reason it is forbidden to draw the Prophet is to make sure there is no Idolatry. The fundamentals of Islam teach of one God, with no associates, no son, no holy spirit. Just one entity, and when Muslims pray it is directly to their God, with no intercessors. Pre-Islamic Arabia was a largely Idol worshiping society. The rule was set in place to make sure the Arabs/Converts did not fall back into there previous habits after the Prophet passed away.

During the 16th century when Islam was flourishing many Persian Sufi's (a Zen/Kabalist like sect of Islam) made paintings of the Prophet, no one was offended. God's Oneness had permeated society and culture in such a way that these painting would never be worshiped. No on cared that the prophets likeness was depicted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Siyer-i_Nebi_151b.jpg

I for one think this is awesome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:La.Vie.de.Mahomet.jpg

As for the fact Muslims emulated the Prophet and try to dress up as him. Muslims are taught the Prophet was a perfect human being and we should try to emulate him in as many ways as possible.

People who are violent and display outrage and call for Jihad emulated the Prophet only when its convenient for them such as dressing like the Prophet, and growing a beard these things are easy.

But when it comes to the harder aspects of the Prophet character such as a tremendous amount of patience, Humility to self deprecating levels, these people chose not to follow.

I do agree with you that people who show violence and anger share a weaker connection. Because a person who truly believed in what the Prophet taught would not act in such ways.

Side Note:
I wanna argue that Elin's outrage is a sign of her strong relationship with Tiger.

Now we do not know all the facts, but continuing with this example.

If Elin had been cheating on Tiger as well, and did not "Love" him, do you think she would have been as outraged at his infidelity considering her own?

The fact that Elin was so outraged by Tigers actions shows that she had strong feeling for him, and his action hurt her a lot.

Now I am not saying that this is exactly how it went down, for all we know Elin could be worse then Tiger and took the golf club to the car just for show. But an argument can be made for strong/deep feeling causing outrage.

Thanks for your reply Buddha, I hoped I helped clarify any misconceptions you had, and please keep the questions coming.

I am enjoying your posts, thank you for such great personal insights.

In Christianity, there is a Commandment about what you mention:

"

Quote:
Please explain why in Islamic countries the practice of any other religion is discouraged, restricted or banned.

It appears that all religions have been used for this political purpose at one time or another.

Christianity has some scary precedent in this area.

Consider also that the Bible is full of such things. Let's take Deuteronomy as an example (Deuteronomy is described as the sixth book of laws):

"But in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes. Completely destroy them--the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites--as the Lord your God has commanded you." T

Then it is commanded that believers wipe out missionary non-believers:

Deuteronomy 13:7-11

"If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying, 'Let us go and serve other gods,' unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God..."

Wonderful discussion so far.

As a former Catholic I'm sure you knew the Church's response to accusations of idolatry. The statues and holy cards, etc. that depicted Mary and the saints were not idols imbued with any intrinsic sanctity. They were merely artistic representations of the Catholic All Stars. Collecting holy cards and plenary indulgences helped bridge the gap between sexual latency and girls. Which, I think, was about a 2 month period.

I've always loved the folk imagery of the Catholic church. I went to a Baptist church once. It was just like a funeral parlor, except for the Jacuzzi behind the pulpit. Our Catholic church was always a place of good cheer and celebration. The child abuse/molestation pandemic needs addressing in a serious way, however. What a shameful and destructive legacy these "priests" and their protectors have wrought.

When I was a Cathloic, I used to be impressed by the degree to which "spirits" were used as a sort of 'holy concierge.'

If an item were lost, we even had an alcove with St. Jude in it where we'd say a prayer directly to St. Jude.

The pediatric version was something like, "Dear St. Jude, something is lost and can't be found. Please lend your help to bring it around." Or something to that effect. It reminded me of trying to summon Dr. Bombay on Bewitched.

The full version was:

"Oh glorious apostle St. Jude, faithful servant and friend of Jesus, the name of the traitor who delivered thy beloved Master into the hands of His enemies has caused thee to be forgotten by many, but the Church honors and invokes thee universally as the patron of hopeless cases--of things despaired of. Pray for me who am so miserable; make use, I implore thee, of that particular privilege accorded thee of bringing visible and speedy help where help is almost despaired of. Come to my assistance in this great need, that I may receive the consolations and succor of heaven in all my necessities, tribulations and sufferings, particularly (mention your request), and that I may bless God with thee and all the elect throughout eternity. I promise thee, O blessed St. Jude, to be ever mindful of this great favor, and I will never cease to honor thee as my special and powerful patron, and to do all in my power to encourage devotion to thee. Amen "

Obvious use of someone who may have something more important to do than act as your butler to undertake menial tasks at your behest! I especially like the promise of future tribute in the 'adult' prayer.

In retrospect, I have no problem with the glorious bloody imagery of Jesus on the cross, the Sacred Bleeding heart outside His chest, or any and all of the garishly painted statues (that were NOT idols, dammit.)

I actually find the primitive and voodoo like nature of that aspect of the church to be charmingly primal.

Odd, of course, but evoking certain brainstem signals that I still find comforting, even without the faith.

Quote:

I actually find the primitive and voodoo like nature of that aspect of the church to be charmingly primal.

Odd, of course, but evoking certain brainstem signals that I still find comforting, even without the faith.

Absolutely! Science changes their bedrock foundations of belief like Larry King changes wives. But Catholics have a direct transmission line to the wisdom of the ancients. As a child, was there anything more frightening and profoundly mysterious than eternity and the Eucharist?

I find "transubstantiation" to be a sublime topic.

If only the Holy Ghost was not renamed the Holy Spirit.

Ghosts are vastly more mysterious.

Thank you for stepping in Jabberwock. I didn't have the time or energy to bring up all your logical and, to me, obvious points here, but they needed to be said. Also glad a few other reasoned voices have stepped in. I was wondering where everybody was!

And as has been pointed out, the truth is, ALL religions, when taken to extremes are incredibly intolerant. Like or not, right now, some of the loudest voices (and violent acts) happen to be coming from the hard-line elements in the Muslim world. But it's plain stupid when those elements, probably 1% of the total, gets labeled as the whole.

But maybe for some people, that's the point. It's easier that way. And it's a great excuse for all kinds of other non-thinking behaviors. It's also obvious from this discussion it's a way of forming a buffer around anything we don't want to question.

Can't question US/Israeli policy? The "Muslims" will get us next!

Try and reduce nuclear arsenals? The "Muslims" will come get us!

Give me a break. Just insert "commies" and we're getting real close to 1955.

There are no Christian churches in Saudi Arabia. A fundamental right that the western world gives everyone is denied in Saudi Arabia. There is no freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia. The excuse that the two holiest Islamic cities are there is frankly bogus. The Vatican is located in Italy. There are Mosques in Italy. There are even Mosques in Israel.

In Afghanistan you can be sentenced to death for converting from Islam to any other religion.

The second class almost slave status accorded women in Islam is completely repugnant.

As far as "Tiger" and his infidelities are concerned; I don't care one bit about his personal life. The key word being "personal"