GTech as always you have used a specious strawman argument to support your beliefs. Whatever Incorrectly summarized with strawman arguments based on false assumptions that you insist on restating in these forums on a daily basis. Given the way the Bible has been interpreted for at least the past 1,000 years as given the example of the extermination of American Indians in the late 1800's. For your specious statement here to have any validity we would need to ban the use of the Bible when taking an oath of office. The Bible has consistently been interpreted to instruct followers kill non-believers throughout the centuries and even in modern times. Catholic Popes during the dark ages were notorious for this. No I enjoy a good healthy debate and difference of opinion, but you berate others at will in these forums and refuse to acknowledge when others have provided you with very sound evidence to refute your stubbornly held beliefs that you insist on forcing onto others all the time. I may not always post to this forum, but I do lurk and see how you treat others and misrepresent those things you don't like. Another specious comment that proves my point. What the hell does this have to do with anything other than to try and bully another person who does not agree with you. This is just a standard specious comment when you can't argue the truth. You should first ask this question of yourself. The anti-Islamic comments I see coming out of this forum are some of the most willfully ignorant things I have ever seen posted. I also notice that frequently it isn't those who should be offended the most by the anti-Islamic comments that are standing up to the hate filled diatribes on this forum, but other Christians who are offended to see their religion so badly represented by the intolerance of this forum. Islam is not a perfect religion, but neither is Christianity. History has shown in fact that they are two sides of the same coin and that both have more than their fair share violence committed in their name. The truth be told, there may have been a lot fewer wars in the past thousand years if it weren't for these two religions. Of course humans would have just found something else to justify their desire to kill others who were not like themselves. The fact remains, the sacred document one takes an oath on is less important than what is in the individual's heart. The Bible is traditionally used to instill the fear of a higher power to convince one to do the right thing. If the Quran does the same thing for a Muslim Congressman than by all means he should take his oath on a Quran not a Bible, as the Bible would be meaningless to him.
KLB, I am very disappointed in most Christians, or members of any religion who believe that harming others in this life is a good way to spread the Religion and save them in the next… but I tend to hold members of my religion to a higher standard of Tolerance than I do members of other religions. Generally, the best way to convert others is to offer them help, and hope, and show them what an ideal Christian is supposed to be… not condemn or berate them for not being that ideal. Some native people that DID convert came back to their people to be shunned, looked upon as joining those that oppressed their people, and bereft of any kind of cultural identity. There’s also the passing of laws that forbid the speaking of native languages, or practicing native religions, and re-naming children to give them “Christian names†even if the names of those people belonged to pagans represented in the bible. No a proud time in my nation’s history. However, one of the atrocities you mentioned may not have been a product of callousness towards the Native Americans so much as a lack of understanding of germs. If I recall, during that period of time, the average American did not understand how disease spread, so the missionaries may have honestly intended to give comfort to the people they were sending the blankets to, rather than intentionally spreading disease. Personally, I do not see Christianity as a bloody and intolerant religion. I see Christian philosophies that are tacked onto sub-groups of Christianity (particularly those relating to those not of the faith, or of sexual activity) as being intolerant and/or bloody, and just wanted to make that distinction. And GTech, I am sorry, but I have yet to see any bigotry in KLB, perhaps some dislike for the history of my Religion, but he has yet to rail at me or condemn me simply for being a Christian, or condemn the current incarnation of my religion, only acts it is associated with in the past that I, as a member of that religion, also see disfavor in.
I fully agree with you on this. It is better to lead by example than to beat one's beliefs into non-believers. The Quakers are a very good example of what you have just said. It was a very sad time in our history. We should acknowledge it for what it was, learn from it and do everything in our power to stop such atrocities when they happen to others (e.g. Darfor). It was a combination of intentions. Many good hearted people were ignorant of the issue and many of the powers to be that knew better turned a blind eye because the end results served their purposes ("oh too bad those blankets are going to kill people, oh well"). Exactly and the same is true for almost all religions. This is the point I am trying to make. The problem isn't with Islam, the problem is with the way some fanatical factions want to interpret Islam in a twisted way to suit their agenda, just like happened during the Crusades and during the American Indian wars or many of the wars across Europe throughout the dark ages. Thank you, it is by the way a religion we both share. It is why I am so hard on it. I think we need to recognize what has been done in the name of our religion and then try to move forward and set an example of tolerance (something I do not see in this forum). They say love conquers all and if we show tolerance and stop attacking (physically or metaphorically) others because of their beliefs they will eventually begin to moderate. If given a chance, the moderates in Islam will take control of their religion just as the moderates are trying to take control of our religion. But the moderates can not gain the upper hand if we keep helping the extremists by reinforcing the centuries old battles of us vs them.
Glad to know I've made at least one positive acquaintance on the forum. ^_^ Please pardon if my Cynicism is showing through here, but in reference to the blankets... I tend not to attribute sinister motives to officials when a mistake, lack of time to do their job right, or simple incompetence can explain what happened. I don't suppose you have a link to any kind of evidence that officials knew what was going on? If so, I would be inclined to change my view on that incident.
There are no strawmen, only you and your "wacko" attempts at moral equivalence for justification. Incorrect, they are correctly summarized. To suggest otherwise is an admission of guilt on your belief system. Incorrect. The Bible does not instruct Christians to kill non-believers, nor does it tell Christians not to befriend Jews. Your attempt for moral equivalence by going back hundreds of years fails this argument in every respect, though you march forward hoping somehow, it will. Impressive. You jump off on a tirade here with ill-formed illogical statements of your own bigory (if you don't agree with my point, you are a wacko) and to cover up the truth of what the book (quran) contains (even though you know it's true), you invoke things that have no bearing what-so-ever. Then attempt to portray yourself as a victim of "GTech attacking others." What a wuss! It has everything to do with your comments. That you have to ask, is a reminder that you don't have a clue. If you were to offer some truth, one might argue it. You've offered nothing. Actually, you should ask yourself this question first. Does the quran, as I stated, contain these verses which instruct it's followers to kill non-believers and not to befriend Christians and Jews? Here is the source I provided: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1276336&postcount=59 Yes or no? Were my comments accurate about what it contains? Since you have no choice but to answer Yes, since an answer of No would indicate you are wilfully lying, let's assume you actually have some integrity and answer yes. With that assumption, were my comments correct? Yes. Did I source them? Yes. And what did you do? You attempted to obfuscate the truth behind my comments using moral equivalence. Being wilfully deceitful in order to cover the truth. I never compared islam to Christianity. I've left all the moral equivalence and comparisons up to you and you've provided plenty. My comment was very clear, that the book of affirmation contained scriptures which instructed it's followers to kill the very people in which he is swearing to represent. That is factual. Your attempt has been to obfuscate that truth through deceit. This is a matter of opinion. Remember, it was you who basically proclaimed that anyone who saw it differently than you, was a wacko. Why? Because you are afraid of the truth. You've sold your integrity to whitewash the truth by drawing upon moral equivalence to justify what you already know is true. You see, when you did that, you didn't try to discredit the truth by calling it a lie, you tried to cover up by equalizing it with "cards" you thought you could throw at the issue. Shame on you.
I'll make it easy on you, KLB: My comment that started your deceitful tirade: The source: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1276336&postcount=59 Do they match? Yes, or no?
According to dictionary.refference.com : Strawman: n 1: a person used as a cover for some questionable activity [syn: front man, front, figurehead, nominal head, straw man] 2: a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted [syn: straw man] 3: an effigy in the shape of a man to frighten birds away from seeds [syn: scarecrow, straw man, bird-scarer, scarer] I believe that KBL was referring to the second line. When one summarizes another’s point of view, a common mistake to make is to summarize it in a way that makes it look weak, in order to make one’s own argument against it easier, rather than to summarize the intent that the person putting forth their original point of view actually meant to convey. Some people do this on purpose, in order to give themselves a boost in the argument in front of those that don’t know about or understand this tactic. Now, I’m not saying you did this, or that you did this on purpose if you did, but obviously KLB feels that his point of view was summarized poorly. KBL, This may be because GTech does not fully understand your point of view, rather than him purposefully making your position seem weaker with a straw man argument.
A lot of my knowledge of what happened during the American Indian wars goes back to my studies in different schools when I was young, reading books and going to museums. Every now and then something about that part of our history will show up on a TV program on PBS or the History Channel. I don't actively search out online references to this. The blanket issue is pretty well documented so you should be able to find countless resources on the topic. Many of the blankets actually came from hospitals that were treating small pox patients so the not knowing better claim is thin at best. Basically the hospitals would get a supply of new blankets and then box up their old blankets many of which had been used by small pox victims and those old blankets would be sent to Indian reservations then the Indians would start getting sick and die in large numbers from small pox because they had no immunity to it. This went on for decades so while in the beginning one might claim ignorance, it wouldn't take that much for a learned doctor or policy maker to figure out what was going on. The fact is that this type of germ warfare has been going on for centuries (e.g. catapulting plague victims over castle walls during mid evil times). Heck according to some History Channel programs I've seen there is evidence of this type of germ warfare going on back in Greek and Roman city state times.
And rotting cow catapult ammo as well. I figured it was probably an issue that you had read multiple places, but didn't have the refferences to on hand, but one can always hope. ^_^ Sorry if I was to demanding on your resources.
His argument is weak, because it's based on deception. The strawmen are "Crusades" and "Indians." Those are his shields to attempt to draw upon those events to portray the belief that there is some moral equivalence. In other words, he is well aware of the fact that the book in question does contain the very verses I described. But he believes no one should take issue with them because Indians (my ancestors) got a raw deal. Such eloquent comparisons http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1868656&postcount=46
Your point is pointless and irrelevant you constantly take passages out of context that are translations to begin with and then promote them as fact. You are perpetrating a fraud on the Islamic religion. Any good religious scholar can pull up countless comparable examples out of the Bible. Pulling a few passages out of any book out of context (especially from an interpretation) and trying to say it represents the whole religion is narrow minded and disingenuous. I am not a religious scholar, but lord knows religious scholars can point out countless comparable examples to what you cherry picked from the Quran in the Bible. Heck lots horrendous of stuff people did in the Bible would get you thrown in jail today. We don't want Christianity to be judged by a few passages in the Bible and we should not judge Islam based on a few passages in the Quran. Remember what the Bible says about judging others.
It is obvious that you do not know or don't care to know what a straw man argument is. Your twisting of what people say to create a weak argument you can argue against is exactly what a straw man is. Don't make any more comments about what is and what is not a straw man argument until you go Google the phrase and learn what it really means because it is painfully obvious you don't.
GTech I’m sorry, but you don’t seem to understand the definition of the strawman debate falicy. According to the definition, the ‘straw man’ is an argument that someone says their opponent is putting forth, even though it is a poor, or simplified summary of their opponent’s position. They then proceed to attack this “Straw man†which is easily defeated. If KLB were to say that you think that all Muslims are evil and that no religion had ever done anything else wrong, and that was why you thought swearing on the Quran was wrong, and then proceeded to give examples of Muslims who had lived good lives, and showed that other religions besides Islam DID do wrong, that would be an example of a ‘strawman’ tactic (shortened from calling it “Attacking the straw manâ€). Instead, if I understand KLB, he has chosen to confront one general part of your argument, that you believe Islam is a religion of hate and attack, and argues that if this is the basis for not being able to swear on the Quran, then swearing on the bible should also be forbidden. Here he is not addressing the specific issues that you think should be addressed, but is trying to draw a comparison in order to confront the general thrust of your argument, rather than attacking the evidence on which you base your argument. This is not misdirection, so much as it is arguing against a different part of your argument than you rather he would. Now, I personally am not qualified to debate on Islam, having never read the Quran. As such, I would not address any quotes from the Quran myself, not being a scholar on Islam, instead I would either state my lack of knowledge in this area, or debate you based on other points. Simply because I would avoid an area I am not knowledgeable about in the debate, does not mean I would be trying to mislead you or others with any other arguments I may make.
Now it's pointless, because...well, it was the point that led you into your childish tirade. So to bypass the "No" answer, you chose to reject it by saying it's taken out of context and that the translation might be wrong. So, the University of Southern California, where the source comes, lists three popular translations, all of which basically say the same thing. But, KLB is far smarter than they are and he knows what the real translation is. Shouldn't you rush over to inform USC that you are smarter than they are and that you'd like to correct them. Oops, there's that sneaky little strawman, but in essence, is this exactly what you are saying? Actually, I halfway expected this from you. You've debated with no integrity what-so-ever. You've proven (at least to me) that in fact, you have been deceitful and that you have in fact, gone out of your way to cover up the truth. I previously pointed this out, to a degree. That atheists and Christian bashers do this all the time. But, with the Old Testament. They can't use the New Testament. Keep up with what I write, you're falling behind. How does one smyte off another's head "out of context?" Be true to yourself. Don't sell out your integrity over this. I'm not judging anyone. Being aware of what the quran says is not politically incorrect. Being aware is being informed. What you are doing is deceitful and attempting to mask the truth under the guise of "indians and crusades." That is shameful. There is nothing wrong with being aware of the truth. You've taken issue with what I posted, because it's the truth. And now you're stooping so low to cotinue the masquerade, that you are using denial as a last resort. Does that not bother you, as a man? Are you so afraid of the truth, that you will resort to this level of behavior on a public forum?
I'll bite, let's examine it. This is a strawman unto itself. This is a strawman as well. To suggest I've said "that you believe Islam is a religion of hate and attack" is a strawman. What you are failing to see, are the indians and crusades. By interjecting them as a form of moral equivalence, though they had no relation to the actual fact I made, he's introduced them as strawmen. Here, he makes an effort to say that taking issue with affirmation on a quran, which I pointed out has hateful verses that do in fact call for the death of non-believers, is equivalent to being for the crusades or for the masaquer of indians. Of course, these are strawmen. The Crusades, while necessary, are unpopular today and no on wants to be associated with an argument that could be made out that it has comparison to the crusades. Likewise, the slaughter of some of my ancestors, which is a weak argument in itself, is interjected because it's easy to "beat down." Making comparison that being aware of hateful verses is anagolous to how Indians were slaughtered. It's a stawman. It's easy to beat down. Neither have any bearing. The truth is, the quran does contain those scriptures and many around the world (today, not just a thousand years ago) are using these same scriptures to kill others. Not sure what your point is, but "ok."
The whole quote? No. I gave the definition of the straw man tactic as I understand it from dictionaries and from my debate classes. That part is not a straw man by any stretch. However I DID give an example of a strawman falicy specifically to illistrate my point. If you were reffering to that example, yes, I did give an example of a strawman falicy. I did not suggest that you said we believe Islam to be a religion of hate and attack at all. I suggested that you believe Islam to be a religion of hate and attack, one of violence. I may be mistaken in this, and if so, I am sorry. However because I did not argue AGAINST Islam being a religion of hate and violence, there is no instance of a straw man argument here. There are several specific, named types of fallacious debate arguments. One of them is "Slippery slope." another is "Straw man". Not everything that is false is a strawman fallacy. Not every mistake, or poor tactic in debate is either. If you want to say that something is false, just say so. If you do not understand what a strawman tactic is, then arguing that something someone says is a strawman tactic is a poor tactic in it's self, and reflects poorly upon you in the same way that adding "istic" to the end of words when it does not belong there can reflect poorly on someone. To clarify, if I bring up an argument, for my side, it cannot be a straw man. However, if I summarize your position in a way that makes it look weak, my summary of your position is the strawman, and the attacks I make upon that summary are a part of the 'straw man tactic'. In the straw man tactic, I do not attack or defeat your actual position, just a mockery of it. Because of this fact, the references that KLB brought up in reference to Indians and the crusades cannot, by nature be "straw men". (The below quote has had parts removed in order to make it more obvious what parts of it I am reffering too, if you have not already, please read the person's post in full in order to get the whole context) No, he does not make that equivalency at all. He is pointing out that many religions have members of that religion that have done harmful things. Your summary of his position creats the 'strawman' of your argument, as your summary creates a position that KLB has not said he holds. Your attack on that summary, which is not what KLB was saying, completes a strawman tactic/strawman argument because it is an attack on an obviously false, and easy to defeat idea. Now, he is not addressing the exact same point that you are. You are (If I understand correctly) saying that Islam is a religion that is used to justify murder. KLB has not contested, or affirmed this. He let it be. He instead argued a related theme, that Christianity is also used to Justify murder. Just because he is exploring a related concept, rather than the concept you brought up, does not make his exploration of this concept, or any supporting evidence, a fallacy of any kind. My point is that ignoring PART of your argument to adress a different part does not constitute my being misleading, nor does it constitute KLB being misleading if he does this. If you argue that A leads to B, and that B leads to C... and I say "Actually, B doesn't lead to C, and here's why." just because I haven't debated you on wheither A leads to B or not, doesn't mean that I am misleading anyone. I am just picking part of your argument to discuss. Nothing more. The same is true if you say "The Quran is a book that promotes killing." and "Any book that promotes killing should not be used to swear in a us congressman.", and KLB discusses the claim that "Any book that promotes killing should not be used to swear in a us congressman.", and leaves the claim that "The Quran is a book that promotes killing." alone, that does not mean he is being misleading.
The whole quote? Surely I didn't give you too much credit for being able to pick it out? After all, you claim to have wrote it for illustration? It's a red herring with the purpose to sidetrack the issue. Are you re-reading this after typing it? Do you honestly believe that I said that you said "we believe Islam to be a religion of hate and attack at all?" It's like me saying "I did not say that you said that Bounty paper towels are superior to the leading store brand." If you are shaking your head on that one, re-read and think about how I'm shaking my head. I accept your apology. I personally don't care. It's not part of the issue at hand and is nothing more than a red herring. Call them what you want to. Red herrings, moral equivalence. Many times there is either a, or b. Though in one instance, I was a little surprised he resorted to "c. denial." Again, I really don't care. He's confirmed that denial is his best option. To confirm "yes" would be an admission of wrong, to confirm "no" would be an admission of lying. Since he seems to place value on either of these, his only remaining option was denial. Re-read my posts. Again, you are doing here, what you are trying to explain to me, which I'm well aware of. Putting words in my mouth, summarizing. If I want to say "Islam is a religion that is used to justify murder." I will say it. I have no problem with it. However, I have not said such in my commentary. My point was simple enough that even you can get it...the book of affirmation has verses that call for the killing of the very people he is taking oath to protect and serve. No matter how many shades of gray one can come up with, it's a simple fact. It was from post one, it still is now. Denial is misleading. If you are through creating hypotheticals and everyone is finished sniffing each other's straw butts, see my summary above.
GTech: At this point you have begun to insult me, and as such, I will not continue this discussion with you past this point in time. This post is simply to let you know not to expect any further ones from me to you in this thread after this point in time, and is simply meant as a courtesy.
This is another example of where I, an Independant Fundamental Baptist, and my Conservative Christian brethren part ways. Conservatives are in an uproar about this: to me it only makes sense as others here have said to have him swear on whatever he holds sacred. Forcing him to swear an oath on a book he does not believe in does not appeal to anyone, least of all my Father in Heaven. It is an exercise in futility.