Re: An Autistic Religion (first definition of reli...

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/5/2006 3:49:58 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, ender@... writes:

Well, I had said that a lot of Catholics were offended by the movie "Dogma"...I went to a Christian Brothers High School and I can understand why...It hits too close to the truth too many times... Much of the dogma in religions and other closed orders is design designed by people to control other people and it works best if the controlled don't think about the "Dogmatic Truths" too much or they are likely question the system that keep the inner circle in power...Ender

I find this interesting in light of current events. Christians were offended over Dogma, the Crucifix in a jar of urine, the Virgin covered with cow dung and lately the TV show on ABC. They limited themselves to a few small protests in front the art gallery and written protests to the TV channel.

Compare this to the recent Muslim reaction to a few cartoons about Mohammed. Riots are going on around the world, embassies are being burned, aid agencies attacked and civilians threatened. All of this is being encouraged by national and religious leaders.

I've read many articles, including some by Muslims, expressing great disappointment with the Muslim street. Some of these articles mentioned a meeting where several humorous pictures targeting Christians and Jews and their religion were shown and everyone laughed, including the Muslims in attendance. Yet when one of the Mohammed cartoons was put up, the Muslims because very angry.

The Danes say they published the cartoons to demonstrate their right of free speech and others have reprinted it in the same way. Some commentators have said that doing so was an abuse of the right of free speech just as yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre would be, and that there was malicious intent behind it. I find it very interesting that they consider the Mohammed cartoons malicious, incendiary and an abuse of free speech, yet they applauded the Crucifix in Urine and other anti-Christian things as art. Clearly a double standard here. Why is a cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban any less offensive and maliciously intended than a Crucifix in urine or a painting of the Virgin coated in cow feces?

The only reason I can see is that Christians won't riot, burn cities and kill people, but the Muslims will. The creators of the cartoons are in hiding, fearing that they will end up like Van Gogh, the man killed a few years ago for writing a play about Muslim treatment of women and European nations are closing embassies in the Middle east because several have been attacked and burned.

Here is a link to the cartoons in question.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=12146

Some news stories on this.

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20060205-011426-7563r.htm

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060205/D8FJ59B02.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2024306,00.html

Unfortunately I can't link to some of the photos showing protestors telling Europe to "learn from 9/11" and for "Freedom to go to Hell" and other things.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/5/2006 3:49:58 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, ender@... writes:

Well, I had said that a lot of Catholics were offended by the movie "Dogma"...I went to a Christian Brothers High School and I can understand why...It hits too close to the truth too many times... Much of the dogma in religions and other closed orders is design designed by people to control other people and it works best if the controlled don't think about the "Dogmatic Truths" too much or they are likely question the system that keep the inner circle in power...Ender

I find this interesting in light of current events. Christians were offended over Dogma, the Crucifix in a jar of urine, the Virgin covered with cow dung and lately the TV show on ABC. They limited themselves to a few small protests in front the art gallery and written protests to the TV channel.

Compare this to the recent Muslim reaction to a few cartoons about Mohammed. Riots are going on around the world, embassies are being burned, aid agencies attacked and civilians threatened. All of this is being encouraged by national and religious leaders.

I've read many articles, including some by Muslims, expressing great disappointment with the Muslim street. Some of these articles mentioned a meeting where several humorous pictures targeting Christians and Jews and their religion were shown and everyone laughed, including the Muslims in attendance. Yet when one of the Mohammed cartoons was put up, the Muslims because very angry.

The Danes say they published the cartoons to demonstrate their right of free speech and others have reprinted it in the same way. Some commentators have said that doing so was an abuse of the right of free speech just as yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre would be, and that there was malicious intent behind it. I find it very interesting that they consider the Mohammed cartoons malicious, incendiary and an abuse of free speech, yet they applauded the Crucifix in Urine and other anti-Christian things as art. Clearly a double standard here. Why is a cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban any less offensive and maliciously intended than a Crucifix in urine or a painting of the Virgin coated in cow feces?

The only reason I can see is that Christians won't riot, burn cities and kill people, but the Muslims will. The creators of the cartoons are in hiding, fearing that they will end up like Van Gogh, the man killed a few years ago for writing a play about Muslim treatment of women and European nations are closing embassies in the Middle east because several have been attacked and burned.

Here is a link to the cartoons in question.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=12146

Some news stories on this.

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20060205-011426-7563r.htm

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060205/D8FJ59B02.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2024306,00.html

Unfortunately I can't link to some of the photos showing protestors telling Europe to "learn from 9/11" and for "Freedom to go to Hell" and other things.

[Guest guest]

,

You forgot to mention the anti-Israeli cartoons in many Arab

newspapers (some of these newspapers being controlled directly by

Arab governments).

These newspapers depict Israelis as Jews (keep in mind there are many

religions in Israel) with bent noses, and as lawyers and money

counters.

The depictions are a throwback to Nazi propaganda. It is pure

hypocrisy that Arab governments freely allow and ecourage such anti-

Jewish sentiment in their own newpapers but trash other countries for

allowing anti-Islamic depictions in theirs.

Tom

Administrator

In a message dated 2/5/2006 3:49:58 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

ender@... writes:

Well, I had said that a lot of Catholics were offended by the

movie " Dogma " ...

I went to a Christian Brothers High School and I can understand why...

It hits too close to the truth too many times... Much of the dogma

in religions and other closed orders is design designed by people to

control other people and it works best if the controlled don't think

about the " Dogmatic Truths " too much or they are likely question the

system that keep the inner circle in power...

Ender

I find this interesting in light of current events. Christians were

offended over Dogma, the Crucifix in a jar of urine, the Virgin

covered with cow dung and lately the TV show on ABC. They limited

themselves to a few small protests in front the art gallery and

written protests to the TV channel.

Compare this to the recent Muslim reaction to a few cartoons about

Mohammed. Riots are going on around the world, embassies are being

burned, aid agencies attacked and civilians threatened. All of this

is being encouraged by national and religious leaders.

I've read many articles, including some by Muslims, expressing great

disappointment with the Muslim street. Some of these articles

mentioned a meeting where several humorous pictures targeting

Christians and Jews and their religion were shown and everyone

laughed, including the Muslims in attendance. Yet when one of the

Mohammed cartoons was put up, the Muslims because very angry.

The Danes say they published the cartoons to demonstrate their right

of free speech and others have reprinted it in the same way. Some

commentators have said that doing so was an abuse of the right of

free speech just as yelling " fire " in a crowded theatre would be, and

that there was malicious intent behind it. I find it very interesting

that they consider the Mohammed cartoons malicious, incendiary and an

abuse of free speech, yet they applauded the Crucifix in Urine and

other anti-Christian things as art. Clearly a double standard here.

Why is a cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban any less

offensive and maliciously intended than a Crucifix in urine or a

painting of the Virgin coated in cow feces?

The only reason I can see is that Christians won't riot, burn cities

and kill people, but the Muslims will. The creators of the cartoons

are in hiding, fearing that they will end up like Van Gogh, the man

killed a few years ago for writing a play about Muslim treatment of

women and European nations are closing embassies in the Middle east

because several have been attacked and burned.

Here is a link to the cartoons in question.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=12146

Some news stories on this.

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20060205-011426-7563r.htm

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060205/D8FJ59B02.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2024306,00.html

Unfortunately I can't link to some of the photos showing protestors

telling Europe to " learn from 9/11 " and for " Freedom to go to Hell "

and other things.

[Guest guest]

,

You forgot to mention the anti-Israeli cartoons in many Arab

newspapers (some of these newspapers being controlled directly by

Arab governments).

These newspapers depict Israelis as Jews (keep in mind there are many

religions in Israel) with bent noses, and as lawyers and money

counters.

The depictions are a throwback to Nazi propaganda. It is pure

hypocrisy that Arab governments freely allow and ecourage such anti-

Jewish sentiment in their own newpapers but trash other countries for

allowing anti-Islamic depictions in theirs.

Tom

Administrator

In a message dated 2/5/2006 3:49:58 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

ender@... writes:

Well, I had said that a lot of Catholics were offended by the

movie " Dogma " ...

I went to a Christian Brothers High School and I can understand why...

It hits too close to the truth too many times... Much of the dogma

in religions and other closed orders is design designed by people to

control other people and it works best if the controlled don't think

about the " Dogmatic Truths " too much or they are likely question the

system that keep the inner circle in power...

Ender

I find this interesting in light of current events. Christians were

offended over Dogma, the Crucifix in a jar of urine, the Virgin

covered with cow dung and lately the TV show on ABC. They limited

themselves to a few small protests in front the art gallery and

written protests to the TV channel.

Compare this to the recent Muslim reaction to a few cartoons about

Mohammed. Riots are going on around the world, embassies are being

burned, aid agencies attacked and civilians threatened. All of this

is being encouraged by national and religious leaders.

I've read many articles, including some by Muslims, expressing great

disappointment with the Muslim street. Some of these articles

mentioned a meeting where several humorous pictures targeting

Christians and Jews and their religion were shown and everyone

laughed, including the Muslims in attendance. Yet when one of the

Mohammed cartoons was put up, the Muslims because very angry.

The Danes say they published the cartoons to demonstrate their right

of free speech and others have reprinted it in the same way. Some

commentators have said that doing so was an abuse of the right of

free speech just as yelling " fire " in a crowded theatre would be, and

that there was malicious intent behind it. I find it very interesting

that they consider the Mohammed cartoons malicious, incendiary and an

abuse of free speech, yet they applauded the Crucifix in Urine and

other anti-Christian things as art. Clearly a double standard here.

Why is a cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban any less

offensive and maliciously intended than a Crucifix in urine or a

painting of the Virgin coated in cow feces?

The only reason I can see is that Christians won't riot, burn cities

and kill people, but the Muslims will. The creators of the cartoons

are in hiding, fearing that they will end up like Van Gogh, the man

killed a few years ago for writing a play about Muslim treatment of

women and European nations are closing embassies in the Middle east

because several have been attacked and burned.

Here is a link to the cartoons in question.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=12146

Some news stories on this.

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20060205-011426-7563r.htm

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060205/D8FJ59B02.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2024306,00.html

Unfortunately I can't link to some of the photos showing protestors

telling Europe to " learn from 9/11 " and for " Freedom to go to Hell "

and other things.

[Guest guest]

" I find this interesting in light of current events. Christians were

offended

> over Dogma, the Crucifix in a jar of urine, the Virgin covered

with cow

> dung and lately the TV show on ABC. They limited themselves to a few

small

> protests in front the art gallery and written protests to the TV

channel.

>

> Compare this to the recent Muslim reaction to a few cartoons about

Mohammed.

> Riots are going on around the world, embassies are being burned, aid

> agencies attacked and civilians threatened. All of this is being

encouraged by

> national and religious leaders. "

I'm curious to know what part their anger against western society plays

in this. Muslims get angry at anything blasphemous against Mohammed or

Allah and some feel that they need to react strongly against attacks,

in defense of them. But I wonder if they are also angry at

being 'underdogs' in a world where western society dominates and they

are afraid of it making inroads into their culture. Western society is

often irreverant (especially in their eyes) and they don't have a lot

of respect for people who are not loyal strong defenders of their own

(g)(G)od, let alone 'unbelievers' because they don't worship Allah.

I guess it's good that Europe and the U.S. are secular cultures because

if they were religious governments it might be the crusades all over

again!

It's curious to me how the west has become apathetic and blase' about

religion, while some parts of the east are the opposite. Maybe to some

extent because of the desire for peace, tolerance in the west has

become synonomous with anything goes and no one knowing what they

believe or if they do, not standing up for what they believe, while in

some Muslim countries (Not ALL!)or among some groups in some Muslim

countries, tolerance is non-existent. Why is balance always so

difficult for humans to achieve?

[Guest guest]

" I find this interesting in light of current events. Christians were

offended

> over Dogma, the Crucifix in a jar of urine, the Virgin covered

with cow

> dung and lately the TV show on ABC. They limited themselves to a few

small

> protests in front the art gallery and written protests to the TV

channel.

>

> Compare this to the recent Muslim reaction to a few cartoons about

Mohammed.

> Riots are going on around the world, embassies are being burned, aid

> agencies attacked and civilians threatened. All of this is being

encouraged by

> national and religious leaders. "

I'm curious to know what part their anger against western society plays

in this. Muslims get angry at anything blasphemous against Mohammed or

Allah and some feel that they need to react strongly against attacks,

in defense of them. But I wonder if they are also angry at

being 'underdogs' in a world where western society dominates and they

are afraid of it making inroads into their culture. Western society is

often irreverant (especially in their eyes) and they don't have a lot

of respect for people who are not loyal strong defenders of their own

(g)(G)od, let alone 'unbelievers' because they don't worship Allah.

I guess it's good that Europe and the U.S. are secular cultures because

if they were religious governments it might be the crusades all over

again!

It's curious to me how the west has become apathetic and blase' about

religion, while some parts of the east are the opposite. Maybe to some

extent because of the desire for peace, tolerance in the west has

become synonomous with anything goes and no one knowing what they

believe or if they do, not standing up for what they believe, while in

some Muslim countries (Not ALL!)or among some groups in some Muslim

countries, tolerance is non-existent. Why is balance always so

difficult for humans to achieve?

[Guest guest]

NBCVISIGOTH@... wrote: In a message dated 2/5/2006 3:49:58 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, ender@... writes: Well, I had said that a lot of Catholics were offended by the movie "Dogma"...I went to a Christian Brothers High School and I can understand why...It hits too close to the truth too many times... Much of the dogma in religions and other closed orders is design designed by people to control other people and it works best if the controlled don't think about the "Dogmatic Truths" too much or they are likely question the system that

keep the inner circle in power...Ender I find this interesting in light of current events. Christians were offended over Dogma, the Crucifix in a jar of urine, the Virgin covered with cow dung and lately the TV show on ABC. They limited themselves to a few small protests in front the art gallery and written protests to the TV channel. Compare this to the recent Muslim reaction to a few cartoons about Mohammed. Riots are going on around the world, embassies are being burned, aid agencies attacked and civilians threatened. All of this is being encouraged by national and religious leaders. I've read many articles, including some by Muslims, expressing great disappointment with the Muslim street. Some of these articles mentioned a meeting where several humorous pictures targeting Christians and Jews and their religion were shown and everyone laughed, including

the Muslims in attendance. Yet when one of the Mohammed cartoons was put up, the Muslims because very angry. The Danes say they published the cartoons to demonstrate their right of free speech and others have reprinted it in the same way. Some commentators have said that doing so was an abuse of the right of free speech just as yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre would be, and that there was malicious intent behind it. I find it very interesting that they consider the Mohammed cartoons malicious, incendiary and an abuse of free speech, yet they applauded the Crucifix in Urine and other anti-Christian things as art. Clearly a double standard here. Why is a cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban any less offensive and maliciously intended than a Crucifix in urine or a painting of the Virgin coated in cow feces? The only reason I can see is that Christians won't riot, burn cities and kill people, but the

Muslims will. The creators of the cartoons are in hiding, fearing that they will end up like Van Gogh, the man killed a few years ago for writing a play about Muslim treatment of women and European nations are closing embassies in the Middle east because several have been attacked and burned. Here is a link to the cartoons in question. http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=12146 Some news stories on this. http://www.washtimes.com/world/20060205-011426-7563r.htm http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060205/D8FJ59B02.html http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2024306,00.html Unfortunately I can't link to some of the photos showing protestors telling Europe to "learn from 9/11" and for "Freedom to go to Hell" and other things. If you love something, set it free! So it is with books. See what I mean atwww.bookcrossing.com/friend/nheckoblogcritics.orghttp://notesfromnancy.blogspot.com Heckofreelance

proofreadernancygailus@...

Brings words and photos together (easily) with PhotoMail - it's free and works with .

[Guest guest]

NBCVISIGOTH@... wrote: In a message dated 2/5/2006 3:49:58 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, ender@... writes: Well, I had said that a lot of Catholics were offended by the movie "Dogma"...I went to a Christian Brothers High School and I can understand why...It hits too close to the truth too many times... Much of the dogma in religions and other closed orders is design designed by people to control other people and it works best if the controlled don't think about the "Dogmatic Truths" too much or they are likely question the system that

keep the inner circle in power...Ender I find this interesting in light of current events. Christians were offended over Dogma, the Crucifix in a jar of urine, the Virgin covered with cow dung and lately the TV show on ABC. They limited themselves to a few small protests in front the art gallery and written protests to the TV channel. Compare this to the recent Muslim reaction to a few cartoons about Mohammed. Riots are going on around the world, embassies are being burned, aid agencies attacked and civilians threatened. All of this is being encouraged by national and religious leaders. I've read many articles, including some by Muslims, expressing great disappointment with the Muslim street. Some of these articles mentioned a meeting where several humorous pictures targeting Christians and Jews and their religion were shown and everyone laughed, including

the Muslims in attendance. Yet when one of the Mohammed cartoons was put up, the Muslims because very angry. The Danes say they published the cartoons to demonstrate their right of free speech and others have reprinted it in the same way. Some commentators have said that doing so was an abuse of the right of free speech just as yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre would be, and that there was malicious intent behind it. I find it very interesting that they consider the Mohammed cartoons malicious, incendiary and an abuse of free speech, yet they applauded the Crucifix in Urine and other anti-Christian things as art. Clearly a double standard here. Why is a cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban any less offensive and maliciously intended than a Crucifix in urine or a painting of the Virgin coated in cow feces? The only reason I can see is that Christians won't riot, burn cities and kill people, but the

Muslims will. The creators of the cartoons are in hiding, fearing that they will end up like Van Gogh, the man killed a few years ago for writing a play about Muslim treatment of women and European nations are closing embassies in the Middle east because several have been attacked and burned. Here is a link to the cartoons in question. http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=12146 Some news stories on this. http://www.washtimes.com/world/20060205-011426-7563r.htm http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060205/D8FJ59B02.html http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2024306,00.html Unfortunately I can't link to some of the photos showing protestors telling Europe to "learn from 9/11" and for "Freedom to go to Hell" and other things. If you love something, set it free! So it is with books. See what I mean atwww.bookcrossing.com/friend/nheckoblogcritics.orghttp://notesfromnancy.blogspot.com Heckofreelance

proofreadernancygailus@...

Brings words and photos together (easily) with PhotoMail - it's free and works with .

[Guest guest]

I don't recall there being a " Crucifix in a jar of urine " or

" the Virgin covered with cow dung " in the movie but I may

have missed it...

It is sad that much of the Islamic world has chosen to return to the dark

ages when it was the west's contact with the middle east is a major

factor that caused the west to awaken from its dark ages that followed

the fall of the western Roman empire... Islam came close to ruling the

world a thousand years ago... Then the Islamic world was at the forefront

of scientific, technological, and philosophical innovation (The world

still honors the Arabic mathematians by using the numerical system they

developed...) At that time Islam held sway over much of the world between

Spain, India and into the far east...

That was ended by the Crusades which were less about god/God then

they were about trade politics and xenophobia... after which the Islamic

world elected to isolate themselves in much the same way that Japan did

and China tried to... that their " old ways " were best and that

the only wisdom was in the words of the " Prophet " .

Since then the ascent of man has continued in the west for between

500 and 1000 years and may be nearing an end... mankind being human never

learns from the mistakes of the past and will as always repeat

them.

The tragic thing now is that we now have the means to plunge the Earth

into dark ages that will require not a few hundred years to past but

millions if intelligent beings ever again emerge on the planet... Maybe

they will be able to do better than we have...

Ender

At 05:29 PM 2/5/2006, you wrote:

In a message dated 2/5/2006 3:49:58

P.M. Eastern Standard Time, ender@... writes:

Well, I had said that a lot of Catholics were offended by the movie

" Dogma " ...

I went to a Christian Brothers High School and I can understand

why...

It hits too close to the truth too many times... Much of the

dogma in religions and other closed orders is design designed by people to control other people and it works best if the controlled don't think about the " Dogmatic Truths " too much or they are likely

question the system that keep the inner circle in power...

Ender

I find this interesting in light of current events. Christians were

offended over Dogma, the Crucifix in a jar of urine, the Virgin

covered with cow dung and lately the TV show on ABC. They limited

themselves to a few small protests in front the art gallery and written

protests to the TV channel.

Compare this to the recent Muslim reaction to a few cartoons about

Mohammed. Riots are going on around the world, embassies are being

burned, aid agencies attacked and civilians threatened. All of this is

being encouraged by national and religious leaders.

I've read many articles, including some by Muslims, expressing great

disappointment with the Muslim street. Some of these articles mentioned a

meeting where several humorous pictures targeting Christians and Jews and

their religion were shown and everyone laughed, including the Muslims in

attendance. Yet when one of the Mohammed cartoons was put up, the Muslims

because very angry.

The Danes say they published the cartoons to demonstrate their right of

free speech and others have reprinted it in the same way. Some

commentators have said that doing so was an abuse of the right of free

speech just as yelling " fire " in a crowded theatre would be,

and that there was malicious intent behind it. I find it very interesting

that they consider the Mohammed cartoons malicious, incendiary and an

abuse of free speech, yet they applauded the Crucifix in Urine and other

anti-Christian things as art. Clearly a double standard here. Why is a

cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban any less offensive and

maliciously intended than a Crucifix in urine or a painting of the Virgin

coated in cow feces?

The only reason I can see is that Christians won't riot, burn cities and

kill people, but the Muslims will. The creators of the cartoons are in

hiding, fearing that they will end up like Van Gogh, the man killed a few

years ago for writing a play about Muslim treatment of women and European

nations are closing embassies in the Middle east because several have

been attacked and burned.

Here is a link to the cartoons in question.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=12146

Some news stories on this.

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20060205-011426-7563r.htm

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060205/D8FJ59B02.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2024306,00.html

Unfortunately I can't link to some of the photos showing protestors

telling Europe to " learn from 9/11 " and for " Freedom to go

to Hell " and other things.

FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship,

support and acceptance. Everyone is valued.

Don't forget, there are links to other FAM sites on the Links page in the

folder marked " Other FAM Sites. "

[Guest guest]

I don't recall there being a " Crucifix in a jar of urine " or

" the Virgin covered with cow dung " in the movie but I may

have missed it...

It is sad that much of the Islamic world has chosen to return to the dark

ages when it was the west's contact with the middle east is a major

factor that caused the west to awaken from its dark ages that followed

the fall of the western Roman empire... Islam came close to ruling the

world a thousand years ago... Then the Islamic world was at the forefront

of scientific, technological, and philosophical innovation (The world

still honors the Arabic mathematians by using the numerical system they

developed...) At that time Islam held sway over much of the world between

Spain, India and into the far east...

That was ended by the Crusades which were less about god/God then

they were about trade politics and xenophobia... after which the Islamic

world elected to isolate themselves in much the same way that Japan did

and China tried to... that their " old ways " were best and that

the only wisdom was in the words of the " Prophet " .

Since then the ascent of man has continued in the west for between

500 and 1000 years and may be nearing an end... mankind being human never

learns from the mistakes of the past and will as always repeat

them.

The tragic thing now is that we now have the means to plunge the Earth

into dark ages that will require not a few hundred years to past but

millions if intelligent beings ever again emerge on the planet... Maybe

they will be able to do better than we have...

Ender

At 05:29 PM 2/5/2006, you wrote:

In a message dated 2/5/2006 3:49:58

P.M. Eastern Standard Time, ender@... writes:

Well, I had said that a lot of Catholics were offended by the movie

" Dogma " ...

I went to a Christian Brothers High School and I can understand

why...

It hits too close to the truth too many times... Much of the

dogma in religions and other closed orders is design designed by people to control other people and it works best if the controlled don't think about the " Dogmatic Truths " too much or they are likely

question the system that keep the inner circle in power...

Ender

I find this interesting in light of current events. Christians were

offended over Dogma, the Crucifix in a jar of urine, the Virgin

covered with cow dung and lately the TV show on ABC. They limited

themselves to a few small protests in front the art gallery and written

protests to the TV channel.

Compare this to the recent Muslim reaction to a few cartoons about

Mohammed. Riots are going on around the world, embassies are being

burned, aid agencies attacked and civilians threatened. All of this is

being encouraged by national and religious leaders.

I've read many articles, including some by Muslims, expressing great

disappointment with the Muslim street. Some of these articles mentioned a

meeting where several humorous pictures targeting Christians and Jews and

their religion were shown and everyone laughed, including the Muslims in

attendance. Yet when one of the Mohammed cartoons was put up, the Muslims

because very angry.

The Danes say they published the cartoons to demonstrate their right of

free speech and others have reprinted it in the same way. Some

commentators have said that doing so was an abuse of the right of free

speech just as yelling " fire " in a crowded theatre would be,

and that there was malicious intent behind it. I find it very interesting

that they consider the Mohammed cartoons malicious, incendiary and an

abuse of free speech, yet they applauded the Crucifix in Urine and other

anti-Christian things as art. Clearly a double standard here. Why is a

cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban any less offensive and

maliciously intended than a Crucifix in urine or a painting of the Virgin

coated in cow feces?

The only reason I can see is that Christians won't riot, burn cities and

kill people, but the Muslims will. The creators of the cartoons are in

hiding, fearing that they will end up like Van Gogh, the man killed a few

years ago for writing a play about Muslim treatment of women and European

nations are closing embassies in the Middle east because several have

been attacked and burned.

Here is a link to the cartoons in question.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=12146

Some news stories on this.

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20060205-011426-7563r.htm

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060205/D8FJ59B02.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2024306,00.html

Unfortunately I can't link to some of the photos showing protestors

telling Europe to " learn from 9/11 " and for " Freedom to go

to Hell " and other things.

FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship,

support and acceptance. Everyone is valued.

Don't forget, there are links to other FAM sites on the Links page in the

folder marked " Other FAM Sites. "

[Guest guest]

That's so true, Ender, what you say about the Crusades. The guy who

Count Dracula was partially based on--Vlad the Impaler, was employed by

the Pope at the time to keep the Turks back. (I couldn't pull up your

reply in my reply.) I wonder how the world would have turned out if the

Turks had been able to continue westward. I like those books where they

imagine a different future--like if Hitler had won, or the south had

won the Civil War. Maybe they have won regarding this.