Apostates of Islam

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


while you can in general exagerate, you can't totally make up events that ahve no truth in them

JM

Sadly you can.

The Angel of Mons:

" During the Great War thousands came to believe that a miracle had happened during the British Army’s first desperate clash with the advancing Germans at Mons in Belgium. In some versions a vision of St George and phantom bowmen halted the Kaiser’s troops, while others claimed angels had thrown a protective curtain around the British, saving them from disaster. The battle of Mons took place on 23 August 1914 and within weeks the ‘angels of Mons’ had entered the realms of legend. By the end of the war it became unpatriotic, even treasonable, to doubt the claims were based on fact.

Gothic horror writer Arthur Machen maintained until his dying day that the Angel of Mons was fiction. Machen believed that his short story, 'The Bowmen' , was the true source of the legend [see panel], pre-dating all other claims that were made from the spring of 1915 onwards. From that time the legend took on a life of its own and even today, versions of the story continue to circulate in folklore and the mass media. "

http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/170_angelofmons.shtml

I could also mention Orson Welles's broadcast of the radio version of H. G. Wells's 'War of the Worlds' which had Americans panicking over non-existent Martian invaders.


There are numerous other 20th Century hoaxes, mass delusions and cases of mass hysteria and Jan Brunvand has edited several volumes of collections of urban myths and legends.


Still, you can always just resort to your petulant name-calling and ignore anything you don't like.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Don't blame me, I didn't start the hijack.

That still doesn't explain your asinine Saudi Arabia comment, either.

I beg to differ. On page 5 you're the one turning this into a debate on whether Jesus existed.

My remark serves to remind you that you'd rather live in a country politically dominated by Christian fundies than by Islamic fundies.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
My remark serves to remind you that you'd rather live in a country politically dominated by Christian fundies than by Islamic fundies.

Your country isn't nearly as dominated by Christian fundies as Saudi Arabia by Muslim fundies. In particular, you have a history of Church/State separation, and a large acceptance of secular values, which place you among the rest of the west.

If your country had been Christian fundy all along (which is not the case even today), you wouldn't have abortion protected in your constitution, you wouldn't have the Church/State separation, and you'll have a more intrusive government, considering that the law laid by GOD!!!! is very thorough.

I don't know of any country that has been genuinely Christian fundamentalist, in the meaning of literal obedience to the Bible btw. Even the catholic church in its darkest hours wasn't exactly fundie. But if you want to imagine an actual Christian fundy country, just take a look at the Leviticus and Deuteronomy. It's not any nicer than what is done in Saudi

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Spiffor



I don't know of any country that has been genuinely Christian fundamentalist, in the meaning of literal obedience to the Bible btw. Even the catholic church in its darkest hours wasn't exactly fundie. But if you want to imagine an actual Christian fundy country, just take a look at the Leviticus and Deuteronomy. It's not any nicer than what is done in Saudi

The English Conmmonwealth and Calvin's Geneva and Reformation Scotland spring to mind- although there are exceptions in all those cases, and Geneva didn't constitute a country, although you could call it a theocratic state (or statelet) .

[Spiffor]

Did these countries stone their evildoers to death at the gate of the city?

[JohnT]

"Apostates of Islam"

Band name!

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Did these countries stone their evildoers to death at the gate of the city?

Making allowances for the changing civilizations they certainly did the equivalent- a literal interpretation of the Bible really took off from the latter part of the 17th Century onwards, so you're actually indulging in a wee bit of an anachronism in transposing modern day Christian fundamentalist thought to the past Christian interpretations of the Bible.

Given the differences between modern day fundamentalism and the Calvinism and Presbyterianism and Puritanism of the times, I'd say that religious reformers and politicians in those states tried their best to institute the Reign of Christ on earth, and build the City of God.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Making allowances for the changing civilizations they certainly did the equivalent- a literal interpretation of the Bible really took off from the latter part of the 17th Century onwards, so you're actually indulging in a wee bit of an anachronism in transposing modern day Christian fundamentalist thought to the past Christian interpretations of the Bible.

Well this thread (and Doc's post) is about how Muslim dogma is worse than other dogmas. AFAIK, Some muslim countries continue to stone their adulterous women to death, and they continue to cut one hand to a caught thief, just like the Book says. Any country that adapts its execution means (for example, a country which hangs adulterous women instead of stoning them to death) doesn't apply the dogma literally.
As such, even though such countries must be harshly criticized, they aren't relevant to this thread IMHO.

Given the differences between modern day fundamentalism and the Calvinism and Presbyterianism and Puritanism of the times, I'd say that religious reformers and politicians in those states tried their best to institute the Reign of Christ on earth, and build the City of God.

I trust you on that. But the question is: are they comparable to Saudi Arabia? Remember, even if a religious government begins hanging adulterous women, you'll always find worse reactionaries that will tell of GOD!!!!'s wish to see them stoned to death at the gates of the city.
In their opinion, the so-called "religious" government are liberals in disguise, and a mockery to the one truth

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I trust you on that. But the question is: are they comparable to Saudi Arabia? Remember, even if a religious government begins hanging adulterous women, you'll always find worse reactionaries that will tell of GOD!!!!'s wish to see them stoned to death at the gates of the city.
In their opinion, the so-called "religious" government are liberals in disguise, and a mockery to the one truth

I have a very interesting book (with pictures as well as text) illustrating just how bad the Roman Catholic Inquisition was to women. However the anti-female/anti-sex rage was not confined to them, and there was witch burning and hanging and ducking and immersion in Protestant England and Scotland too.

Adultery was punished, but off the top of my head I can't remember the exact punishment- but I suspect in extreme cases mutilation was involved- slicing off the nose, boring a hole in the tongue and cutting the cheeks were popular punishments.

Fetsivals were banned in the English Commonwealth, popular pastimes halted, maypole dancing banned (possibly a good thing...) theatres closed for immorality, and prostitution outlawed.

The Royalist female camp followers were on occasions brutally treated by the Parliamentarian forces- rape and mutilation and death.


I'd say the sharia and the Wahhabists would have found like minds in Calvin's Geneva and Cromwell's England.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Well this thread (and Doc's post) is about how Muslim dogma is worse than other dogmas. AFAIK, Some muslim countries continue to stone their adulterous women to death, and they continue to cut one hand to a caught thief, just like the Book says.

Not just women but both men and women. HERE is a film of all the male citizens in town having a nice get together were the main event is boy and men of all ages get to bury the unlucky couple up to their knees (so they can't get away) then they are stoned to death by the happy crowd. Usually there is a feast afterwords so everyone can celibrate god's will being done. That is Islam carried out according to the Koran.

I don't see how anyone can view that as anything but violent and savage.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by molly bloom
I have a very interesting book (with pictures as well as text) illustrating just how bad the Roman Catholic Inquisition was to women. However the anti-female/anti-sex rage was not confined to them, and there was witch burning and hanging and ducking and immersion in Protestant England and Scotland too.

Here's the million dollar difference. Those guys were a bunch of ********* but they weren't practicing Christianity as explained in the Bible. The muslims stoning people to death and having a party afterwards are.

[Ramo]

Pop quiz: where in the Qur'an does it justify stoning adulterers?

And no, the Hadiths are not the same thing as the Qur'an.

[Ramo]

Oerdin, this is getting pretty damn pathetic...

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ramo
Oerdin, this is getting pretty damn pathetic...

Yes, yes you are.

[Ramo]

Sorry molly, but I think you've just been dethroned for "wittiest Apolytoner."