Chilly

Part of my point is that the extremists are generally in control, which gives the appearance of there being a "disproportionate number of extremists". Sure, control will tend to breed more extremists, but saying that there is a "disproportionate number of extremists" is trying to interpret too much. In order to determine whether there actually is a disproportionate amount you can't compare the Islam of today with Christianity of today. You'd have to compare the numbers of extremists claiming to be Muslims with the numbers of extremists that existed in a similar situation. The only parallel that I could think of there with Christianity would perhaps be during the time of the crusades. To my knowledge no one has made that comparison. I don't know. I don't think anyone knows, which is what a big part of the problem is. If you look at how it happened with Christianity, it was in large part due to the expansion to the New World. Conflicting branches of Christianity escaped to America because it allowed for them a way to start over without being oppressed. In order to resolve these differences, the separation of church and state was necessary to make sure not one single religion took control. Looking at the middle east, one of the problems is that, from my understanding, most people are not opposed to having Islam as the official religion and have it play an active role in government. This gives the religion power and sets the stage for the abuse of that power as a means to religious goals. It involves changing the whole culture to separate government leaders from religious leaders. But how the hell do you change something thats so ingrained into everyday life, especially when you are not part of that culture? It worked for America because America gave the opportunity to start a brand new culture and way of doing things. This spread to the areas where the culture, which was rejected by the Americans, originated from. How can you get a group of people in the middle east to change their culture, especially if its being forced upon by people who are viewed as outsiders? Beats the hell out of me. I think that they will have to reject it themselves, and that our efforts will be moot until they do so.

Meatwad make the money see, Meatwad get the honeys G

I don't want him to ever expose himself.

I am thankful for quotes that work out of context. Without them the amount of humor in the world would be significantly less.

The news isn't about making enough money to do a public service anymore. Its about making as much money as you can.

We should make you change it to a good ol Texas girl.

I stand corrected. I hadn't actually seen anyone argue for a million troops before.

I think AD's point is a valid one. The first question that needs to be answered is that exactly what reform made it where Christianity no longer did the things that they did. Was it a reform of the system or the religion? Ultimately, I would have to say that it is the system. Inherent in any religion known to man kind is a need to convert people to that religion. For example, during the civil war, one of the arguments in the South was that slavery was a good thing. Sure, slaves might not have that good of a life on Earth, but if they hadn't been slaves, they would surely be going to hell. Slavery is good for the soul. The need to have people convert to your religion is overwhelming, and lots of people feel that it is their life's work to do so. If we continued to have a system in which power was not checked, it would be the case that when one person makes this their life's work and their legacy, they would stop at nothing to make sure that it gets done. Use of oppression for non-believers would be rampant. I'm sure that most Christians would say the tactics involved would be the wrong way to go about it. However, at that point it doesn't matter. A person believes in their version of Christianity and their calling, and the ends justify the means. In this case, since they have a wide variety of options available to them, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" is an appropriate phrase. Christianity would, in this case, be viewed as violent oppressors, even if the majority of Christians in the country did not agree with the means. The country couldn't do anything about it, and the leaders, who are viewed as the representatives, continue to go against the mainstream and distort the religion. Separation of church and state as well as checks of power in American Democracy helped to make sure that this wasn't the case with Christianity or any religion in this country anymore. It was a direct parallel to the middle east though. The extremists have control of the governments over there and pander to their own kind. The peaceful Muslims can't do jack squat about it either. The rest of the world sees this extreme example and labels Islam as a violent religion, whether or not that is actually currently true. History aside, religion evolves over the years, and religion today isn't the same as it was in time past. To judge a religion as violent solely on extremist reactions and/or history is to not look at the whole picture. Its telling that RkFast would use a quote from al-Qaeda's strategy in referencing the Muslim religion. This is taking an extremist group and labeling them as representatives of the whole religion, when they aren't. Any religion will attempt to convert many people as they can. Since religion isn't the same for each individual, some people will always have radical ideas about what should be accomplished. When more "extremist" pre-dispositions are combined with absolute power, they are easily corruptable given the opportunities to oppress as a punishment for a lack of conversion. People then use the leaders with power as representatives of the religion as a whole, thus giving a distorted picture of what actually happens.

She died? I didn't know that. The fruitcake lady was awesome.

This post owes my department a new monitor,

I think one of the points that AD was trying to make, or at least how I interpreted it, is that this struggle has already been played out in Christianity and they don't have the power to do such things anymore. Islam, on the other hand, maintains enough power in the Middle East to do so.

Just because you didn't understand my point does not mean that my post lacked one. You are pulling random numbers out of your ass, (the effects of 20,000 troops vs 1 million), and claiming that it is a solution for Iraq.

Wait.... WHAT??

I had been ignoring that other thread since it reached a decent amount of pages for the most part. I think I'll continue to do so.

Wow. A very high score on an IQ test means that they are "disproportionately lucky"? How the hell does that work? I guess people with High IQs aren't really that smart, they just have more luck than anyone else.

lol, Math has nothing to do with my post.

Why else would they have a hat trick in soccer?

When you say that it is directed at changing the media coverage, what do you mean by that anyhow. Changing it so that we hear about the losses less, like pulling troops out? I don't think anyone talks about the institutions that build up a Democracy (economy, military strength to defend themselves, free from outside interference, the process, etc).

Yeah, but he's trying to use a book which is not focused on explaining math to explain his math. I mean, wtf.

Why are you trying to use a beginners Math book which is not based upon explaining Math, but rather explaining how to use it as it pertains to social research?

Its because you started talking about the difference in troop levels without knowing the difference between 20k and 1 million troops.

At least Christianity doesn't have a history of violence or forced conversions. Oh wait.

Did you just stop reading Tom's post halfway through?

How can you even talk about this garbage after it was portrayed as a "Miller Lite" thing.

Won't be long before the NFL plays the conflict of interest card to ban this.