I know that certain people around here aren't going to like this analogy, but here goes anyway.....

As I read Sheik Abu Saqer's words ("the only Christian-Muslim dialogue that is acceptable..."), it reminded me of what goes on here in most of the comment threads: We on the Right will have a dialogue with those on the Left only when we have been converted to their way of thinking.

Of course, having said that now, it will be thrown right back in my face.... Any predictions as to how long it will take before that happens? And who will be doing the throwing?

Oh, and P.S.:

To the poster who throws it back in my face (see above), please tell me: whose words trouble you more--the Pope's (from last week) or Saqer's?

The Gaza imam said the only Christian-Muslim dialogue that is acceptable is one in which "all religions agree to convert to Islam

Ballot Box choice:

A...Anyone taking this stance seriously enough to take up arms against free countries will be met with overwhelming force and I as an American citizen support that action.

B...I think we should learn to understand why they hate us and negotiate with these people. And we should be careful not to make them mad. It may create more of them.

Naw, Doug. The leftists on this blog also use specious reasoning, cherrypicking, distortions, feigned outrage, condescension, feigned piety, and a lot of other rhetorical and actionable methods to create their 'dialog'. Then, after denigrating conservative posters, complain that there's no dialogue. I'd say that's a pretty good analogy Doug.

I've been called a sheep oh, I don't know how many times now, for simply agreeing with Bush's policies. A real human sheep is the man who would blow himself and a bunch of innocent people to bits on the orders of a minor religious authority in exchange for a supposed life in paradise. The person who changes their political mind because they're called a sheep is just an idiot. Radical islamists are the real sheep.

My problem with Lee, Hugh, muirego, mantis et al is that I don't think they want a dialogue. I've tried being civil, and if I recall, have agreed a few times with lee and hugh, but they denigrate themselves by resorting to personal attack, and the other devices I've cited above. I understand it takes cojones to come on a conservative blog and speak your mind when you know the overwhelming majority of readers disagree. But if you stood firm, stayed civil, and were sensible, you'd see people stick up for you when others attack you, and really listen to what you have to say. Sadly, this is not how these posters act. Thankfully most people are even-minded and reasonable. Most of my friends disagree with me politically, but we're still friends.

And I am admittedly guilty of calling these posters names and being generally a dickhead to them, but they disappoint me, and that's my only excuse.

C'mon jumpinjoe....

You know that's not a real choice.

Our friends on the Left will choose (A); it's just that they define "overwhelming force" a little bit differently--their force is the giant vaccuum that would result from our immediate and complete withdrawal from Iraq.

Tony:

Well said.

I've often wondered why folks on the Left would frequent a site like this one. Most of the time, you're right--there's no honest dialogue on their part. Comments often seem to be inserted solely to rile others.

I guess they're called trolls for good reason.

Pope Benedict XVI's meeting this week with a delegation of Muslim leaders and his calls for interfaith dialogue

Sheik Abu Saqer also said, "Two words for you: Dialogue my donkey."

That not a nice way to "dialogue"

Oh, and on topic : )

This Saqer fellow is not furthering dialogues. I think the decentralized nature of Islam is what needs to be addressed. That this one hate-spewer who represents a tiny fraction of a religious people can without refute spew any hate he feels is what I think the problem is. A million normal, everyday imams could fatwa away against this guy, and he won't have to stop his inflammatory rhetoric, or even address an alternative point of view. The Muslims around Saqer won't have the opportunity to hear someone within their religion say that "maybe trying to kill everyone not like us is a bad idea", and accept his hate-speech as gospel. There is something wrong with the organizational structure of Islam, in my opinion.

Tony said:

There is something wrong with the organizational structure of Islam, in my opinion.

I think you're right.

But others would go further and say that the problem is endemic to the religion itself (see jihadwatch.org, for example).

Our friends on the Left will choose (A)

Ah, the real conundrum for Democrats is they must walk the tight rope to appease the moonbat left and not alienate the non-THC brained soaked Democrat voters.

The real RNC advantage is NOT having to talk out both sides of their mouths.

"...a "puppet" for "that Crusader George Bush.""

Wow. George Bush even has the Pope on his payroll!

Doug: Dude. You speak in riddles. I look at your first comment:

"We on the Right will have a dialogue with those on the Left only when we have been converted to their way of thinking."

That's screwy. Should it read, "We on the right will have a dialogue with those on the Left only when they have been converted to our way of thinking." ? Or is it the other way around?

I am corn-fused. I would know better if I knew who these certain people were.

Signed,
Perplexed in Florida
(But hey, we can't even mark a butterfly ballot here)

Well it is the whole religion in that there's some sort of organizational problem. I think that the hatred goes largely unrefuted is the problem with Islam as a whole. I also know that we as humans and also as a nation are concerned with the hatred itself, not the religion as a whole. I think our frustration comes from mainly watching people from outside the religion address the religion's internal problems for it. But I know that we (the U.S./maybe the west in general) didn't seek this crap out. I think the hatred came to us by it not being addressed from within the Islamic world in the first place.

Tony,

Have you been a whiner all of your life, or did you just start recently -- when your party fell behind in the polls?

A dialogue with Republican'ts is pointless. They will look you in the eyes and lie. Instead of answering questions, they will ask three more. Instead of debating, they will claim anyone who disagrees with them is an Islamofascist sympathizer, or in Lurching Observer's words - a slanderer.

"And I am admittedly guilty of calling these posters names and being generally a dickhead to them, but they disappoint me, and that's my only excuse."

Remind me to care someday if some self-admitted "dickhead" is disappointed by my words or actions. Republican'ts have destroyed thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraquis lives, and spent billions upon billions of dollars in a wasted war on terror effort - all because they wet their pants when the WTC. Poor, frightened Republican'ts...

I have no sympathy for whiners. Good day.

Oyster:

Sorry for the confusion. All I meant to say was that there isn't any real dialogue from the Left. And there won't be (not from their perspective, it seems)--not until we're converted to their way of thinking.

Does that clear it up? Or just make it worse?

No, Doug. Perfect. Thanx.

Lee when you're ready to contribute to the discussion, please, let us know.

Thanks for not disappointing us, Lee (although it did take you about 45 minutes to make an appearance on this thread).

Let's get back on topic here, Lee--how about answering the question: whose words trouble you more--the Pope's (from last week) or Saqer's?

Oops. I forgot. You never directly answer anyone's questions here because a dialogue is "pointless."

I think I've come up with a new oxymoron: " Islamic understanding".

@ Tony
But I know that we (the U.S./maybe the west in general) didn't seek this crap out. I think the hatred came to us by it not being addressed from within the Islamic world in the first place.

Britain, through a U.N. resolution, and with the full and long-standing support of the U.S., created Israel. All muslims hate Israel and want them overtaken. So, indeed, we did seek this crap out ... but it started well before Saddam threatened our President's daddy. Fast forward: I support Israel because I believe there's enough sand for all of us and democracy in Iraq is our only chance to avoid the burgeoning jihad. Cheers.

Whoops, Doug, kinda didn't get your thought right the first time.

Well, I understand that Christianity has fractured and changed over time, with people like Luther and Calvin. Islam is still pretty young as religions go.

Maybe there is something flawed fundamentally with Islam as a whole in this time and place. I think it's a fair question to ask, considering that radical Islamic hatred has spread so far, but I would defer to more knowledgeable folks to find out.

Peter said:

I think I've come up with a new oxymoron: "Islamic understanding".

Good one.

I was re-reading the original story, and another phrase caught my eye: "Islamic outreach movement." I think we all know what that means, don't we? I think it means that either (a) we'll all be carrying Qurans, or (b) the jihadists will be carrying our heads.

I assume the idiots in the democratic party have been shopping today to get the female's in the family several Burka's. Tonight they should set their female family members down and teach them to submit to rape from age 5 up because it will be expected of them in the religion chosen for them by the democrats. Athiest need not apply, your heads will be placed in a pile for all to see. ROFL

Two good things happened today.
1. The Senate passed the stick it to the terrorists bill. Go see how many democrats figured out which side of the river the aligators were on. Several decided to stay on the safe side to protect their families from the terrorists. The other's just care for their warped sense of freedom and stuck their heads up the a** of a camel, or was that Drunken Ted? Same difference. LMAO

2. Students at the University of N.H. have decided the lying idiot 9-11 professor should be removed for campus and action is underway. That should tell everyone the good class of the students and the pi** poor class of the leadership of the university. Send the idiotic proffesor on down the road to a job he's qualified for. Just teach him to say 'want fries with that'. And send the jokes they call the leadership of the university to KFC, they may learn to put a basket in hot oil and they may not. Have to give them a chance. ROFL

Red,

I know this isn't a classical source, but even the 'creation of Isreal' argument can be parsed to the extreme (check out this link http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/imperial-history.html ). I would say after looking at that animated map based on history, that Egypt then would have command over that land...

Tony said:

Maybe there is something flawed fundamentally with Islam as a whole in this time and place. I think it's a fair question to ask, considering that radical Islamic hatred has spread so far, but I would defer to more knowledgeable folks to find out.

As I mentioned earlier, check out jihadwatch.org if you're interested in learning more. They're definitely more knowledgeable than most of us.

(didn't finish the thought) ...but I think to say that it's really Egypt's land 'cause they conquered it first is silly, just like I think the Islamists' arguments for attacking us are silly.

Doug,

I think I've seen the site before. I'm basically in the position where I know a problem exists, but I can't say just what it is. Sadly, neither can a lot of people. I just know that I'm glad our society largely has to deal with trolls on blogs instead of hardcore religionism.

all because they wet their pants when the WTC. Poor, frightened Republican'ts...

My brother and cousin in Iraq, and my buddy in Afghanistan would want to smack you for saying that...but, they wouldn't. They recognize that they're fighting for you f***s to say exactly that. Now, my buddy from Brooklyn, he'd just kick your ass. Then again, there's something masochistic about you lefties. You like getting your asses kicked. You want all Americans to get their asses kicked.

Not this time, bitch. Not this time.

Lee,

Instead of answering questions, they will ask three more.

I typically find that having a post start with a blockquoted news article, followed by a usually off-topic rant about republicans isn't conducive to debate.

Myself, I ask direct questions. To the point. And yet you rarely answer them. Because you hate questions? (rhetorical, calm down) no, because I believe you cannot answer a straight direct question without throwing in your partisan touretts.

If you could answer a simple question you might get a debate every once and a while.

Lee unwittingly illustrated the point we were making about not being able to "dialogue" with the Left, and the Islamobitches.

The Gaza guy sounds like Lee, doesn't he?

Wow, Lee. You would love living in Gaza. Please send pictures.

The left is only interested in propaganda (i.e. distortions and lies). This is another "shocking" example from the NYT

http://www.slate.com/id/2150386/
Here's the second paragraph from Raymond Hernandez' Wednesday NYT story on Hillary:

In unusually blunt terms, Senator Clinton questioned the current administration's response to an intelligence briefing President Bush received about a month before the 9/11 attacks. It mentioned that Al Qaeda was intent on striking the United States using hijacked planes. [emph. added]

Doesn't that sound as if the presidential briefing had warned Bush that Al Qaeda would use planes as weapons? It does to me. But here's the briefing itself, which mentions "hijackings' but only in the traditonal context--i.e. taking over a plane "to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar' Abd-al-Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists." An old controversy, I know--but that's why it's so astonishing to find this casual, loaded distortion in the lede of an important story. Hernandez--or whatever anonymous Times editor decided to goose up his second graf--had to have known that the sentence was deceptive, no? Or if they didn't know they didn't care. ... We're a month away from an election! They're manning the battle stations at the NYT. ... 1:38 P.M.

I'd say we have a standoff. Is Bush Catholic?

Another orgasm for Lee 07:47

Is Bush Catholic?

No. But, the pope is.

Let me debunk your leftwing wacko conspiracy about religion. Cause Obviously your off into some Joe Farrah, Gary North, Falwellian, Robertson spell;
The people who come forward as leaders of the people to solve the social and economic problems in the society are the same people who created those problems in the first place!
+++++++++++++++++
Seems to me that I remember a new religion that Rockefeller was trying to form, a subset of the dieties, Temenos, you listed..UN Earth Charter, I think.

The Ark, Charter, and Temenos Books were placed on display at the UN summit site and then put to work building the new global ethic. Day after day, UN acolytes carried the sacred objects from school to school, where tens of thousands of children already had been prepped with Earth Charter propaganda. Public ceremonies with mayors and celebrities augmented the school events.

The summit�s opening day featured a four-hour symposium entitled, "Educating for Sustainable Living with the Earth Charter." Steven Rockefeller, a religion professor and scion of the fabulously wealthy banking family that donated the land for the UN headquarters in New York, was preeminent among the presenters. Professor Rockefeller is also chairman of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Earth Charter International Drafting Committee. According to Rockefeller, the way to go about "building peace on earth" is through the "inclusive, integrated and spiritual approach" of the Earth Charter.

The wingnuts think the leftists are in on some kind of conspiracy, I am not, nor do I think, any here really know much or anything about 'Temenos Books' or are part of some vast left wing 'conspiracy'..=)

http://www.mettaearth.org/articles.php4
or here
www.orionsociety.org/pages/oa/02-3oa/ArkOfHope.html

As people may or may not know Orion is not some Alien race,lol, PI COT ORION is what Jesus spoke of.
In the first mention of the heavenly bodies, the purpose of the Creator is clearly stated. Genesis 1:14-19 reveals the fact that they were created, not only "to divide the day from the night, and to give light upon the earth"; but, they were set "for SIGNS, and for SEASONS, and for days and years".
PISCES. Egyptian name in the Zodiac or Denerah = Pi-cot Orion or Pisces Hori = the fishes (that is to say, swarms or multitudes) of Him Who cometh. Hebrew Dagim, the fishes (Genesis 48:16). Syriac name, Nuno

There you go,no space aliens and no left wing conspiracy, LMAO!!!

Comment by Dick

Oh and for the THC soaked brains the Christians wouldn't may not have survived if it weren't for that near perfect food, pot [hemp] seed gruel.

When are you guys gonna wake up and see the left doesn't hate Christians, the Centrist media does. duhh!!

How do you like me now that I know more about your religion than you do. You guys do need to lay off that fomenting war crap though and start working towards peace instead of stupidly repeating the past, cause brother when the end of Earth does come your puny tanks and planes, wars, whatever nukes, you aint gonna stop it, and I dang sure WOULDN'T be praying for anyones demise or death.

wizfizzzzzlers wake up, DAYUM!! Teevee is what divides you into wacky little conspiracy buffs and inane ranting books about 'Godless' liberals..which isn't true [90% of America believes in God]

WTFU!