Religious Fanatics and those who oppose them running our country PLEASE POST HERE

[shrmn8rpoptart]

as a secular humanist who admires the basic jesus message, i really don't care what Paul has to say.

just curious what is the basic "Jesus message"?

 

[speedracer]

just curious what is the basic "Jesus message"?

Okay, I'm putting words in Irvine's mouth here, but I suspect he/she means "love thy neighbor as thyself" or something similar.

I would say the basic Jesus message is "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father except through me."

 

[nbcrusader]

just curious what is the basic "Jesus message"?

The Bible and the Bible alone. End of story.

 

[shrmn8rpoptart]

listen, i have an idea! why don't we just go ahead and get rid of laws all together? the basic point of a law is to prevent people from acting on their basic instinct/desires/impulses. the overall message of these posts has been that everyone should be able to act on these natural desires, because hey, if they weren't meant to be acted on, why would they occur? so at this point i have to say that we might as well set no limits on human actions, abolish all rule of law, and just go with the "if it feels good, do it" mentality.

 

[shrmn8rpoptart]

The Bible and the Bible alone. End of story.

agreed nb and speed.

 

[The_Sweetest_Thing]

listen, i have an idea! why don't we just go ahead and get rid of laws all together? the basic point of a law is to prevent people from acting on their basic instinct/desires/impulses. the overall message of these posts has been that everyone should be able to act on these natural desires, because hey, if they weren't meant to be acted on, why would they occur? so at this point i have to say that we might as well set no limits on human actions, abolish all rule of law, and just go with the "if it feels good, do it" mentality.

oh come on.

you really think we're talking about about placing murder and homosexual marriages on the same platform here? Yeah, rules and laws were created to stop people from acting on their impulses, but moreover to PROTECT SOCIETY. Thus, having laws that would inhibit hurting others make sense. Banning marriages between same sex couples, however, does not. Who is it hurting?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Please, the state exists to protect its citizens rights and protect them from harm.

Actions that do not harm anybody and do not vioate other peoples rights should not be restricted by government.

Drugs, sex, marriage whatever - it should not be the states duty to be the morality police on the matter - now argments about economic breaks within Gay Marriages, that is a matter for the states to argue.

 

[elevation2u]

i guess you can call me a christian but yet i am still very opposed to bush and what he stands for, i cant say i was a big kerry fanatic either... i voted with the mindset "anyone but bush"
dont blame me

 

[starsgoblue]

wake up and smell the burning flesh
of those believers would call heretics

Hey....quit butchering my sentences and twisting my words. I did not say what you implied by deleting the first and last third of that sentence and what's more, if you knew what you were talking about you would know that the book of Leviticus is in the OT and not the NT.

You've done this repeatedly with my previous posts-taking a splice of a sentence and passing it off as my entire thought....stop it.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

I comb other websites and forums once in a while but this quote from another site, captures a point that I was trying to make. It is a variation of what a Republican pollster said. LOL it may even apply to some the of the posters attacking religious people in this forum. I did not write this and it actually is referring to another forum with Kerry supporters attacking Bush/ evangelical/ republican...

The funny thing is you people on the left are sitting around bitching about your loss, calling conservatives and those of faith every name in the book. Look at these threads today according to you guys every one of those 58 million voters who went for Bush did so because they are stupid brain washed uneducated racist fools who don’t have the “vision” or “understanding” that you on the left do. You idiots can not even understand that it is EXACTLY that attitude that is driving people away from the democratic party. Now slowly but surely the minority vote is slipping away from you as well, while it is true that they still vote overwhelmingly democratic, Bush has received around 9% of their vote in 2000 and it looks like he may have received around 12 to 14% this time around. I have some bad news for you with out them YOU CANNOT WIN. Why the switch? My guess is that as minorities begin to advance economically and educate themselves they begin to move away from the urban areas and to more rural or sub-urban locations. Once there they begin to focus more on family values, religion, and keeping their children from the “progressive” morals of the urban areas they have fled.

They begin to see that the democrats have done little more then pay them lip service and use them for years and they resent it.

Face it guys you may think you are the brightest, and most progressive folks around, but at the end of the day God and those traditional family values you laugh at will bring more voters to the table then Springsteen and Moore.

I don't agree with the insults (LOL) or believe all the points about black voters though (Bush did increase his voter support among blacks slightly) but the writer has very interesting perspective and IMO there are grains of truth.

 

[indra]

Please, the state exists to protect its citizens rights and protect them from harm.

Actions that do not harm anybody and do not vioate other peoples rights should not be restricted by government.

Drugs, sex, marriage whatever - it should not be the states duty to be the morality police on the matter - now argments about economic breaks within Gay Marriages, that is a matter for the states to argue.

Yep. Agree, except that I think you should have written "the economic breaks within ANY marriages" instead of making it just GAY ones (to be the things the states deal with).

 

[A_Wanderer]

Well I was trying to integrate the arguments, so that if the state has something to say about gay marriage it will be on the specifics and not the morality of it, I would say that there should be less economic breaks for marriage and child rearing.

 

[bcrt2000]

Extreme religious fanatacism is impaling homosexuals with red hot pokers - not banning gay marriage.

It is Stoning women to death for adultery instead of allowing them to do as they wish.

It is attempting to exterminate other people because of their religous beliefs.

If is having your government authority become divine thus justifiying any and all of its actions.

There are enough moderate republicans to keep the system working - it is not a monolithic group of theocrats.

I would like to add to that...

it is starting a war against a crippled, war torn, nonthreating country and killing thousands of innocent civilians as collateral damage and saying it was necessary and even the unecessary killing of tens of thousands members of that country's army and justifying it with arrogance

----

the other thing i think i need to say is that if a country has a rule against adultry as a law, i think it is fine as long as they treat men AND women fairly in that respect. i think its a misconception that in muslim countries only women are stoned for this crime.. islamically you cannot do this unless the action is seen by 2 legitimate/credible witnesses or more with their own eyes.. which means BOTH the man and the women would be punished.. so any other way should definately not be attributed to islam... there are many countries that claim to follow islamic law, but in the eye of the majority of the "middle muslims" (probably 85%+ of the 1.5 billion muslims in the world) believe that there is no country like this, and north american muslims believe that north america is the best place to practice their religion

the other thing is the nature of the culture, in terms of stoning.. i think in north america it doesn't make sense to do this because there are too many pressures which would lead to adultry, meanwhile in middle eastern countries, the culture and the role of men and women in society is seen very differently (and differently doesn't always mean wrongly)

 

[A_Wanderer]

Yes you are absolutely right, take for instance a most recent case in Iran where a young girl (16) and a young man were charged with having pre-marital sex, the girl was hung and the young man got a few lashings, fair and equal treatement my arse, couple that with honour killings, FGM and a whole variety of barbaric practices that are excused through interperatation of religon and you have a problem within many of these societies, multiculturalism is no excuse for human rights abuses ( http://www.activistchat.com/ and http://www.middleastwomen.org/ ).

And going to war is in itself would be warmongering and not a representation of theocracy, unless of course it was a war against the unbelievers.

 

[bcrt2000]

I agree with you but there is a big difference between not allowing gay marriage and opressing women, gays can live their lives openly (an exceptional thing in this world), I think that it is a false moral equivalence.

which societies in the world today opress women? i'm just wondering

the other thing is that i think forcing teenage girls to wear skimpy clothes in your society is almost as opressing as women who are forced to cover their faces, opressing maybe in a more hidden way (and forcing muslim girls in France not to wear their hijabs in school is a much more direct way of opression), but definately can be viewed that way if you look at it from a certain point... i think one thing that i find funny is that people who want "liberty" can just be as closed minded as people who want to adhere to a certain set of rules... like Bono said... "what you thought was freedom was just greed"

 

[bcrt2000]

You want a theocracy, take a trip back to 1999 and visit Afghanistan, go over to Iran or Saudi Arabia today - I think that you will spot a few "minor" differences in the way that the government works.

I agree that maybe Afghanistan was overkill, I'm not sure about the situation in Iran exactly except that all the Iranians I know (who left Iran) are hardcore leftwingers... I don't think I can finger an issue interms of opression in Saudi Arabia though.. have you ever walked down the streets of Saudi Arabia? have you ever talked to the women there? If you think people feel opressed because they wear the hijab, well I can tell you that they don't feel opressed... I think its wrong to speculate about things you don't know

 

[bcrt2000]

AMEN to that !! I voted for Bush, because he did not go against my dearly held values as a Christian and for that reason alone.
I find it ammusing that certain segments of society are all for free speech and personal freedom(logging protests in the redwoods, burning the flag, gay marriage, etc.).......except when it comes to a President speaking about his faith.

And for the person who asked WWJD about war, gay marriage, etc.........if you study the Bible, you will find your answers.

do you think Jesus would take sides in the Israel-Palestine conflict? thats where the major grevience of terrorists lies, "islamic" terrorism really has nothing to do with the theological differences of Islam and other religions/cultures, but really just that single conflict. i think if the american government dropped their arrogance of "not falling to the demands of terrorists" and actually started a dialogue to get to the root of the problem and pull out the root from the ground the whole world would be much better served

 

[A_Wanderer]

If one were to be objective here, opression of women would be practices like keeping them locked up inside the home and having institutionalised abuse sanctioned by religious authorities, it would be slicing off the clitoris in a ritualisic manner (now this isn't an Islamic problem, it is more of a ritual tribal issue), it would be murdering a wife or daughter in the name of family honour. The hijab is an issue of degree, it can become an opressive but rules of modesty adhered to by choice as a form of religious expression - I have absolutely no problem with that. Forcing all women to adhere to extreme religious law under penalty death, that is despotism and it cannot be excused in the name of multicuturalism and tollerance. I am intollerant of intollerance.

There is no such thing as a good death penalty, I cannot fathom how anybody can accept cruelty against innocent people by stoning them to death for something that by all logic should not be punished in the name of cultural tollerance. As a faith Islam should be open to new ideas and expression, to respect human life and liberty, by reinforcing such deeds it will only perpetuate and strengthen the abberation of religion that one finds in wahhabism or deoband schools of Islamic thought.

I do not see teenage girls brutally forced into wearing skimpy outfits for the pleasure of male opressors here, I see individuals expressing themselves the way they want if they want to without being forced to do anything. There is a significant difference between some of the more brutal mysoginist practices in many cultures and the freedom that women can enjoy in first world countries, one should not downplay that and pretend that freedom is an illusion.

I believe in individual liberty, but I am consistent - there must be no power either divine or mortal that seeks to rob individuals of their freedom and fundamental human rights and I would never give a free pass for Sharia to do so.

 

[A_Wanderer]

May I inquire what you believe the root cause of terrorism in the world to be?

I think that Poverty, Inequality, Imperialism, Zionism, Economic Exploitation, Christian Expansionism; they are all very fancy and high arguments, full of loopholes and empty rhetoric on behalf of the perpetrators of the violence but they do not get to the core of the problem, a problem within the Islamic world - a problem about the direction that Islam is heading, forwards or backwards that is the question, there are those of a purely religious mindset that would like to bring the world back a dozen centuries and thankfully there are others who do not - a civil war within Islam for the hearts and minds of the majority. The "root causes" of terrorism ultimiately become wealthy Saudie Wahhabists using their own considerable funds to fight their ideological war, they find inspiration for this in radical Islam. There is a long history of support and counter-support during the Cold War for these groups and the history of Jihad goes back 14 centuries. I am of the opinion that this is hatred of a religious nature that may only be defeated by wresting control of Islam to the moderate and liberal voices and reducing the influence of those "holy men" that preach violence. Islam itself is not the problem, don't go getting the idea that we should eliminate a religion; but radical Islam, which is more of a violent political movement is a significant problem and it could bring the world to its knees if it is not adressed properly.

The coming Invasion of Andalusia, the driving of the Jews into the sea, the victory against the Atheist Infidel (USSR) and the final apocalyptic battle between the faithful and the infidels/apostates.

This is the not the language of peace they are words of war, a war that has been fought since the crusades, I reiterate that we should be paying a lot more attention to our enemies and the enemies of all good and decent folk be they Muslim, Christian, Jew, Hindu or Atheist.

 

[bcrt2000]

jesus said absolutley NOTHING about homosexuality.

he did say, however, that we should love everybody.

the bible also condones slavery, says you shouldn't eat shellfish, have sex with a woman if she is menstruating ... basically, the bible says a lot of things. i'm baffled by people who put stock in literal interpretations of a text written 2,000 years ago by at least four different guys that has been translated however many times over the centuries into English.

if it works for you great. but don't use it to limit my freedoms.

i'm a Muslim, but i've done a ton of studying on comparitive religions, and one thing that I do believe is the message of the Bible (which in its original form is a perfectly valid message in the eyes of Muslims) has been muddled over the years, plus the fact that the Gospels in the New Testament have some credibility problems in terms of their sources, but if you want to start talking about Jesus, you have to remember he was a Jew, and he used to go to the synagogues, and have dialogues with the Jewish scholars, and I think if you look at the spirit of his message and the way he lived his life, what his main goal was, was to get rid of the rigidity and hipocrisy which he felt was inhibited in the Jewish people at the time... and not in the sense of forgetting the Jewish laws, but more in the sense of going back to the basics, remembering your spirituality, and that whats more important than following certain rituals is to have true faith in your heart and true love for the people around you, which is really the forgotten half of most religions.. so I don't think you can say he went against the laws of the Jews but he was just trying to bring back the missing half of the faith

 

[bcrt2000]

^Damn straight, practice your religion the way you want but dont force the rest of the people too, its unwarranted interferece - you need less government in your life.

I agree in this point, I think there was a point in society where gay-mariages should have been banned, but we've passed that point, and it should be allowed

 

[bcrt2000]

Re: Re: Religious Fanatics and those who oppose them running our country PLEASE POST

a) Is there a problem voting for a candidate that believes alot of the same stuff you believe? Religion playing a role on the war on terrorism? Iraq? IMO these fanatics attacked us;....paybacks are hell!

b) Most of Bush's supporters are in the South. They were everywhere except the Northeast, West Coast, and parts of the UP. Hicks? They? You sure do generalize about people

c) Correct me if I am wrong. But Seperation of Church and State gets taken way out of context. I believe its intent was to say the Government can't tell you how to worship. Stop worrying about the extreme right. Our country has always balanced out....that is why it is so great. We are a melting pot!

d) I am not going to touch the God or Jesus one....gay marriage does not really concern me....death penalty I can see both sides of the argument....God or Jesus starting a war? Don't think they would but I bet they would go into a country and free opressed people.

Anyway next time you are in the South stop on by and we can drink some moonshine, pick a banjo, shovel some cow shit, slop the pigs, and waive a confederate flag around.........oh the sarcasm

a) okay so wait... first off, Iraq didn't attack anyone except other Muslims (with american weapons).. the other thing is that the Iraqi civilians are not an arm of the government, even if they did attack the U.S., the civilians shouldn't be grouped in the same category

 

[bcrt2000]

I don't want Shia law.

I want secular laws.


I have a lot of personal beliefs that you would not want imposed on you as laws.

Iranian law is NOT Shia law.. i'm not Shia, but I'll stick up for them because thats a gross misconception

 

[bcrt2000]

what the world needs now is love sweet love, it's the only thing that there's just too little of............
and it starts at home.

YES!! this is why I love U2, I'm a religious Muslim, yet pre-9/11 there I didn't have this "love sweet love" part of me, nor did I understand it, but now post-9/11 I do understand it, with the help of the examples of people like Bono, and i'm also seeing a lot of difference in the Muslim community here in Toronto and this type of attitude is starting to spread

 

[A_Wanderer]

If one may inquire, how is the Iranian legal system not based on an Islamic doctrine; that revolution in '79 wasn't just changing the flag it was a genuine Islamic Revolution and to this day the Mullahs are holding the power where it matters.

http://www.activistchat.com/

 

[bcrt2000]

Tell me again why you don't think incestuous relationships or threesomes should be sanctioned by the state? Who decides that these relationships are "unnatural"? Dismissing this prospect as "absurd" is insufficient.

I bet there are such people who want to get married and feel as if they are being discriminated against. (Apologies for ending the previous sentence with a preposition.)

this is a good point that I have always thought about. where do we draw the line? even most "liberal" people have a line that they'd draw

 

[bcrt2000]

Yes you are absolutely right, take for instance a most recent case in Iran where a young girl (16) and a young man were charged with having pre-marital sex, the girl was hung and the young man got a few lashings, fair and equal treatement my arse, couple that with honour killings, FGM and a whole variety of barbaric practices that are excused through interperatation of religon and you have a problem within many of these societies, multiculturalism is no excuse for human rights abuses ( http://www.activistchat.com/ and http://www.middleastwomen.org/ ).

And going to war is in itself would be warmongering and not a representation of theocracy, unless of course it was a war against the unbelievers.

well I can tell you that hanging isn't even in Islamic law when it comes to fornication, and that definately was NOT an Islamic ruling.. even if a woman gets pregnant, as long as a man cannot be charged to this deed, she should not be punished by law... honor killings is a by-product of culture.. its where we have that *missing love* factor... i am opposed to FGM as well, i believe in Egypt this pracise is common, right? well in anycase again, its something which most muslim scholars oppose, and something which was never mentioned in Islamic law.. and yes there may be other bad examples, but again, these have to be attributed to the ignorance of the governments who use these laws, and not religion.. i'm pretty sure if you study history there are secular govenments which have opressed women too (which is actually partially the reason why the hijab came into play.. in pre-islamic Arabia women were treated like objects, and not seen as equal and the hijab was supposed to be a symbol to elevate the status of women)...

 

[bcrt2000]

If one were to be objective here, opression of women would be practices like keeping them locked up inside the home and having institutionalised abuse sanctioned by religious authorities, it would be slicing off the clitoris in a ritualisic manner (now this isn't an Islamic problem, it is more of a ritual tribal issue), it would be murdering a wife or daughter in the name of family honour. The hijab is an issue of degree, it can become an opressive but rules of modesty adhered to by choice as a form of religious expression - I have absolutely no problem with that. Forcing all women to adhere to extreme religious law under penalty death, that is despotism and it cannot be excused in the name of multicuturalism and tollerance. I am intollerant of intollerance.

There is no such thing as a good death penalty, I cannot fathom how anybody can accept cruelty against innocent people by stoning them to death for something that by all logic should not be punished in the name of cultural tollerance. As a faith Islam should be open to new ideas and expression, to respect human life and liberty, by reinforcing such deeds it will only perpetuate and strengthen the abberation of religion that one finds in wahhabism or deoband schools of Islamic thought.

I do not see teenage girls brutally forced into wearing skimpy outfits for the pleasure of male opressors here, I see individuals expressing themselves the way they want if they want to without being forced to do anything. There is a significant difference between some of the more brutal mysoginist practices in many cultures and the freedom that women can enjoy in first world countries, one should not downplay that and pretend that freedom is an illusion.

I believe in individual liberty, but I am consistent - there must be no power either divine or mortal that seeks to rob individuals of their freedom and fundamental human rights and I would never give a free pass for Sharia to do so.

again, keeping women locked inside of a home has nothing to do with islam, islam does promote that men and women "compliment" each other with different roles but it definately does not forbid women to abstain from having children, go out, get a job, have a social life, etc.. and I think muslim women are starting to realize that in the western communities and starting to do this to set an example for other women in the west to see

my example of skimpy clothing i think was just to show that in any society you can see how they do something in a bad way.. yes its not extreme, but its definately something thats in line with the pressures that moderate eastern cultures put on women

I think its safe to say we will never see Sharia law in the west .. but at the same time, you have to realize that if a culture already lives their lives strictly to shariah, then I don't see a problem in enforcing shariah, because when you live in a certain place you really give yourself up to a contract to government which says you will not be punished as long as you abide by these laws set down which give us the community that we want... on the other hand.. hardcore extremists taking over a country which doesn't abide to shariah and forcing it is wrong because you cannot impose shariah on people who do not want to live that way... and also this brings another point of the elasticity of shariah... one of the messages in the hadith and examples of the companions of the prophet was to make sure punishments were in context with the time.. for example there was a famine so the leader of the Muslims decided that it would be best to abolish the punishment for stealing (cutting off the hand) until things stablize to a certain point

 

[A_Wanderer]

Whoah lets go easy on the paraphrasing in the quotes, there was context to the FGM bt, which makes the point that it is not an Islamic problem, more of a N-African tribal problem.

If one were to be objective here, opression of women would be practices like keeping them locked up inside the home and having institutionalised abuse sanctioned by religious authorities, it would be slicing off the clitoris in a ritualisic manner (now this isn't an Islamic problem, it is more of a ritual tribal issue)

It is a product of society, and if one were to paint the Islamic world as a homogeneous society you would be reaching from the Balkans through to Java - that would be one very broad brush encompassing 1,2 billion people living in a whole lot of different circumstances with a whole lot of different history. Anyhow vastly different societies all the way through and vastly different conditioning which shapes those societies. One cannot blame a religious text for the shit that goes on in the world, but we can sure as hell point the finger at those that use religion to consolidate their own personal power and as a weapon against innocents.

As I have said before most human beings are decent folk regardless of their religion - but given the (im)proper conditioning and opportunities one can express their own hatreds through their faith.

 

[bcrt2000]

May I inquire what you believe the root cause of terrorism in the world to be?

years of war in regions like Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Bosnia, Palestine has radicalized certain people in the muslim world, but again, these radicalized people do not attack because they do not like the way the west lives, they attack because they feel their rights being infringed on... even OSAMA himself said just in the tape that was released a few days ago that "we will not put your security at risk as long as you do not put our (the muslim world's) security at risk"

I think that Poverty, Inequality, Imperialism, Zionism, Economic Exploitation, Christian Expansionism; they are all very fancy and high arguments, full of loopholes and empty rhetoric on behalf of the perpetrators of the violence but they do not get to the core of the problem, a problem within the Islamic world - a problem about the direction that Islam is heading, forwards or backwards that is the question, there are those of a purely religious mindset that would like to bring the world back a dozen centuries and thankfully there are others who do not - a civil war within Islam for the hearts and minds of the majority. The "root causes" of terrorism ultimiately become wealthy Saudie Wahhabists using their own considerable funds to fight their ideological war, they find inspiration for this in radical Islam.

I think the people who are of the purely religious mindset are the majority, and that being said, a purely religious mindset isn't forgetting the parts about "loving thy neighbour", "not imposing religion on other people", etc... I really don't see this problem you are talking about... maybe if you look at the hardcore muslim governments (who most muslims do not like) maybe thats where you're getting the distorted picture, but there are muslims all over the world, look at the examples of Pakistan, India, Indonesia... yes all of these countries have terrorism issues, but the majority of the people are against it... and thats where the problem lies in your argument.. the western media really gives the impression that the people support these fringe groups, but they don't.. the thing about Saudi Wahabis fighting their ideological war... do you think they are fighting it purely because they think everyone should adhere to shariah? if so then they surely aren't muslim because its clearly stated in the quran that you cannot impose your beliefs on others.

There is a long history of support and counter-support during the Cold War for these groups and the history of Jihad goes back 14 centuries. I am of the opinion that this is hatred of a religious nature that may only be defeated by wresting control of Islam to the moderate and liberal voices and reducing the influence of those "holy men" that preach violence. Islam itself is not the problem, don't go getting the idea that we should eliminate a religion; but radical Islam, which is more of a violent political movement is a significant problem and it could bring the world to its knees if it is not adressed properly.

was Alexander the Great the epitome of religious hatred? there are many conquerers during the history of the world who definately were not necessarily doing things for religious purposes... the other thing about Jihad.. first of all yes there is a history of war from the early times of Islam, but universally all Muslims agree there were justified wars, and unjustified wars.. islam is personal, you are judged on the actions of yourself and not the actions of a society, so you need to remember that, these leaders did not represent islam.. the other thing is the issue of the meaning of "Jihad"... its probably the most widely misinterepreted word in the world.. when the Muslims won their largest victory against the tribes of Mecca and other regions (i believe this was the Battle of Badr? i'm not sure, my islamic history needs to be brushed up a bit) during the Prophets life, there were a group of companions boasting of the victory and Muhammad came to them and said "we have won the small Jihad, but now we have to fight the big Jihad".. and one of the companions asked "how is that so? we just fought and won the biggest war in our time!", and Muhammad said "The big Jihad is the struggle between one's self and their desires"... there are extremists who unfortunately use Jihad exclusively to mean "holy war" and unfortunately the western media has really picked up on this word and use it in that context at will... and you're right about the extremists, if anything they are a radical political movement, but they have nothing to do with islam.. if muslims were strong and actually had a centralized base like the Jews do in Israel, i'm pretty sure we would flush extremists down the toilet because we don't like them because they are giving us a bad name and making our lives harder

The coming Invasion of Andalusia, the driving of the Jews into the sea, the victory against the Atheist Infidel (USSR) and the final apocalyptic battle between the faithful and the infidels/apostates.

This is the not the language of peace they are words of war, a war that has been fought since the crusades, I reiterate that we should be paying a lot more attention to our enemies and the enemies of all good and decent folk be they Muslim, Christian, Jew, Hindu or Atheist.

these are not the words of me or any of the other moderate muslims in the world either (and when i say moderate, i dont mean leaving out or changing certain practices of islam, but being a balanced muslim, balancing living in this world and living for the next world)