<p>You must have conveniently forgotten all about the atrocities Christians and Jews have committed in the past “in the name of God”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uhh, marriage at that time (for Muslims, Jews, Christians and others) was about political/financial alliances btwn families and had little to do with “love”.</p>
<p>Unless you have evidence that Muhammad married the girl before she became of age (during that time - it was around 12-15 yrs) and consummated the marriage - I think the accusation of Muhammad being a pedophile is a rather groundless and careless one at that.</p>
What a scholarly response. Try not to think too hard for your next one.</p>
<p>
The key to your comment is “in the past”. Muslims of today have not advanced much over the past hundreds (possibly thousands) of years. If it wasn’t so scary, it would be funny how Muslims use the Crusaiders of the 1500s to justify their actions today. Other religions have advanced greatly as have their culters and civilizations.</p>
<p>what about those who kill abortion providers ‘in the name of God’; or what about Fred Phelps and his goonies who use the name of God to condone hatred and applaud violence against those they hate, as well as propogate that 9/11 was God’s punishment to America for its support of gay rights. These are horrific examples of violence that so-called “Christians” have engaged in because they believe it’s what God wants.</p>
<p>So there are some Christians who pray to a God that believes flying planes into the Twin Towers was a good thing. Extremists? Yes, of course, but that’s the problem. Every religion has its extremists, and that religion is often generalized by the actions of a minority because they make so much noise. </p>
<p>So are you saying that Fred Phelps also prays to a different god because his actions fall into the realm of hatred and violence as those who have committed crimes in the name of Allah?</p>
It is a matter of degree and proportion. The acts of a few Christians does not tell you much about Christianity. The acts and opinions of thousands and thousands of Muslims and the acts and opinions of many Muslim leaders tells you all you need to know about Islam. If nineteen Christians had hijacked jets and flown them into Mecca, millions of Christians and thousands of Christian leaders would have expressed outrage and done everything possible to dissassociate themselves with such a criminal act. Many Muslims still wear Bin Laden t-shirts and thank their god for killling non-muslims. The level of hate and intolerance among Muslims is unmatched by any other religion.</p>
<p>While I definitely believe that anyone who straps a bomb to themself to harm others; or fly planes into building, is definitely not praying to the same god that I am. Or if they are, they don’t understand who that god truly is.</p>
<p>But it wasn’t just small radical christian groups that did the same thing. There were things such as the “Spanish Inquisition”. That was a mainstream belief that forced conversion on jews and muslims or you pretty much died. </p>
<p>So, I don’t think it’s a matter of praying to the same or a different god. I think it’s a matter of people not understand who that god is or the different interpretations that people have when they read the same thing. If people believe that “God” is a being of love and ultimately wants peace, then they will live a similar life where they try and emulate that philosophy of love. If they concentrate more on acts of vengence or the times where god wasn’t a “Happy Camper”, then they will believe more in the need for punishment and discipline. This is no different than how some people view parents. Just because your father punishes you on occasion doesn’t mean that punishment and vengence is all that you should think he is about; or that you should be living by. Unfortunately, many children grow up concentrating on the punishment and discipline their father bestowed on them. They overlook the loving side. This isn’t the father’s fault for punishing. It’s the child’s fault for being narrow minded and not looking and the “Whole” person. Religion is no different. People get narrow minded and don’t look at the “Whole” god as an entity. Instead, they concentrate on specific acts and justify their actions upon those acts of god.</p>
<p>I had never ever heard of the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, so I googled it. Article 11 says the following:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is absolutely amazing. I had no idea that we had ever formally articulated that we are not a Christian nation. I absolutely believe that we are not – based on the Constitution alone – but this really nails it.</p>
<p>“It was even earlier than that. The era of the Christian crusades was A.D. 1095–1291. More like Richard Lionheart rather than Henry VIII.”</p>
<p>Not to nit-pick your words. Actually I am The crusades continued on through the 1500s in the form of the Baltic Crusades. The Livonian Brothers of the Sword and the Teutonic Knights attempted to convert the pagans of Livonia and eastern Europe, but were crushed after a stalemate of a few hundred years(1410,Grunewald). You should of specifically mentioned the crusades related to the Reconquista and the Holy Land.</p>
<p>Added on to that there wer also some Swedish crusades against Novograd(Orthodox) but they were a lot less well known.</p>
<p>Razorsharp, just to clarify what I meant by ‘helping hand’: Thomas benefited from racial preference and affirmative action programs, but is opposed to them today. He attended Holy Cross in an era of minority recruitment and was accepted at Yale Law a few years later under similar program. Seems to me he is the perfect reason why we should offer preferential treatment to the disadvantaged. I find it very ironic that he is so strongly opposed to these programs. Creates havoc for the institutions that want more diverse student bodies.
NOTE: my apologies to the OP for the side-bar!</p>
Whether or not you realize it, you just said that blacks are disadvantaged because of their race. I don’t think race determines disadvantage. All you have to do is look at Asians who come to American and are truly disadvantaged because they have limited English speaking abilities and no assets yet their children end up in ivy league schools. Giving a helping hand to blacks does more harm than good. It undermines their success because they are perceived as “tokens.” It creates resentment among other races who do not have that benefit. All your good intentions do not make up for the harm caused by preference based on race. Your cure is worse than the disease. </p>
<p>Justice Thomas is truly brilliant. I have read many of his opinions. I am not sure of your proof that he benefited from racial preference. He may have very well earned it all by himself.</p>
How do you know he wouldn’t have been accepted regardless of his race? Are you saying he wouldn’t have been accepted at those colleges had he not been black?</p>
<p>It is largely undisputed that Justice Thomas’ race was both known, and viewed as an asset when he was being considered for admission to Yale Law School. Even he doesn’t deny that. Clarence Thomas was an exemplary student, with what many of his Professors called a “brilliant mind”. He graduated from Holy Cross at the top of his class, and was eminently qualified for admission to Yale Law. It was seen as ground-breakingly egalitarian to admit talented black students into the nation’s institutions of higher learning because, in light of America’s long history of social injustice toward such, blacks had routinely been denied admission to its white bastions of high learning. </p>
<p>I saw an interesting interview on 60 Minutes with Justice Thomas, and I must say, he is an interesting and complicated man, with a lot of personal demons. Apparently, he experienced abject shock and anger upon realizing that he was often intellectually discounted at both Holy Cross and Yale, and felt that it was Affirmative Action quotas, not racism, that had resulted in white students and professors assuming he had not earned his place in the school. </p>
<p>What he seems to have forgotten was that there was NEVER a time in American history when it was believed that blacks had the intellectual capability of whites. That belief persists even today, as demonstrated by the popularity of such books as “The Bell Curve”. One can trace this belief all the way back to America’s beginnings, when it was widely believed that blacks were a sub-species of human, somewhere between ape and man, and therefore, not only intellectually inferior, but morally acceptable as chattel. During this time it was axiomatically assumed that blacks could not be taught to read and write. Thereby were the poems and writings of Phyllis Wheatley roundly and commonly discounted as not possibly having emanated from a negro mind. But when there did indeed appear to be a few of them who possessed the unusual ability to be academically schooled, laws quickly sprang up which made it illegal to teach a negro to read and write (an educated negro being quite rightly seen as dangerous to the institution of slavery). What Justice Thomas forgets is that the type of discrimination he experienced was not one that began with the advent of Affirmative Action, but is one steeped in the very history of America. Anytime blacks were admitted to elite schools (no matter how paltry their number), their intellectual abilities were called into question, by virtue of very ingrained assumptions about black intelligence. It did not matter if they were brilliant scholars, or only as smart as their average white peer. In other words, the belief did not start with AA—nor will the abolishment of AA end it.</p>
<p>Razorsharp and UCdad, I am saying it is very unlikely that a student with his background would have been admitted to either of those schools had he not been black. I believe the Justice himself has said as much. That fact is, I believe, commonly discussed in the media and accepted.</p>
<p>He was disadvantaged in many ways as a young man. He was abandoned by his mother and raised by a very stern grandfather. He lived in a largely uneducated community, among very good, hard-working people, many of whom spoke Gullah. Public schools for blacks in the South were terribly disadvantaged in those years. He benefited from involvemelnt in the Church, received parochial school scholarships and was able to let others see his brilliance. He was so grateful to the Church that he followed his grandfather’s direction and made plans for the priesthood, but became disillusioned early on. Life was very difficult for him and he was able to succeed beyond his dreams in a very difficult era and environment! </p>
<p>It’s my understanding that President Bush specifically sought a highly-qualified black judge when he was selected Thomas for nomination to the Supreme Court after the rejection of Bork, et al. I would argue that the president did the right thing by seeking a highly-qualified black man to fill the vacant seat.</p>
<p>My ‘issue’ is that there are many others like him out there today who are not getting a chance–a helping hand, if you will–to shine. Life is hard for them and they should be given a helping hand by those of us who haven’t come from generations of poverty and disadvantage. I look forward to the day when race isn’t something that needs to be considered for highly-selective college admissions, but that day isn’t here–It’s not even in the forseeable future. </p>
<p>I’m intrigued by Thomas’ thinking on this topic and find it ironic that he sees things so differently today. He began his adult life as a very liberal Democrat. Ironic that he is so conservative today.</p>
<p>I’m not interested in converting anyone to my way of thinking, just trying to express my thoughts as I believe others on this forum have the right to do!</p>
<p>“Giving a helping hand to blacks does more harm than good. It undermines their success because they are perceived as “tokens.””</p>
<p>Do you think that being GHWB’s “token” on the Supreme Court has undermined Justice Thomas’ success? Given the way you speak of him, I think not. How about General Powell and Condoleeza Rice? Are their accomplishments diminished by the fact that their very high profile appointments were largely politically motivated? Is GWB’s Presidency diminished by nepotism?</p>
Like I said, I think he may have ended up in the same or a similar place in his career regardless of his race. Thomas represents the American dream – he rose from nothing to reach a level of which few Americans could dream. Rice and Powell earned every bit of their success. They are remarkable people.</p>
<p>“Thomas represents the American dream – he rose from nothing to reach a level of which few Americans could dream. Rice and Powell earned every bit of their success. They are remarkable people.”</p>
<p>Absolutely true. But it is also true that they ALL benefited from the earliest Affirmative Action Programs. Every One. They took full advantage of those opportunities to excel, demonstrated their innate intellectual abilities, worked their arses off and continued to take advantage of every opportunity that came their way. As I said, Clarence Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court by a President who saw the political value in appointing a conservative AfAm to the High Court. Thomas was viewed as a perfect match because, not only was he brilliant, but because he was also black. All of Clinton’s black cabinet appointees were chosen for the same reasons—as were Dubya’s. The same is true of virtually ALL female appointees in recent history.</p>
<p>But at which point in time that a black, female, hispanic, etc. is chosen for an important political position will we stop thinking that but for these attributes they wouldn’t have been chosen? We already know that many of these people have proven themselves to be well-qualified so could it be that it’s already happened - that some of them might have been chosen regardless of one or more of these attributes?</p>
The crusades continued on through the 1500s in the form of the Baltic Crusades. The Livonian Brothers of the Sword and the Teutonic Knights attempted to convert the pagans of Livonia and eastern Europe, but were crushed after a stalemate of a few hundred years(1410,Grunewald). You should of specifically mentioned the crusades related to the Reconquista and the Holy Land.</p>