It is not unusual in a place as big as Trawna to see and hear people only loosely connected to reality howling oaths and incantations in public. If he had been a real terrorist, "Allahu Ackbar" would have been immediately followed by an explosion or gunfire.

Ah, yes. The fear that breeds when the three sets (jews, muslims, and christians) of Abraham's children continue their eternal battle over who actually got it right.

They're never going to stop fighting - all three of them have been at each other's throats since, well, forever.

Thank God for Abraham, eh? Guess we are just going to have to learn to live with Abraham's children - all three groups of them. Want to fix it? Go to the root.

But I digress - this man may just simply be insane. And religious. That doesn't happen often, does it?

Yep JDM. But Wendy is still a doof for hanging around for 15 minutes and taking his picture. Stay away from the bears

Allah Akbar is not necessarily followed by gunfire...as seen in this lovely subway ride:

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=6378918

ahhhhhhh no worries. He was likely just fasting and his blood sugar level was a bit off.

He'll be right after a few good stiff drinks.

As a daily TTC subway rider, let me remind all that the 3rd rail carries more than enough voltage to nip this sort of thing mid-Akbar.

The West's secret weapon against 6th century ranting, misogynist cretins: cud-chewing bureaucrats. The fellow in question probably failed to obtain a "Permit to Commit Terrorism", having given up in disgust when his number was skipped.

Boy I'm glad they weren't around on our grade eight trip to Toronto years ago when a bum jumped out of the shadows, and our teacher beat him with his briefcase, and the cops where there instantly and loaded up the bum - that was that.

What can I say the progressives where just at the spoiling stage of their life back then.

maybe someone should shove the akbar up his a**.

JMD; I don't know why you'd assume that Allahu Akbar would be immediately followed by detonation. Why wouldn't a Islamofascist nutjob, with a bomb strapped around him and his finger firmly on the button, take the time to harangue the infidels with his reason for sending them to meet their makers?

Personal safety in public places requires vigilance - I would have been very disturbed if this incident had occurred within my personal comfort zone. Whether this man was mentally ill, a jihadist or driven by alcholol/drugs, this is no joking matter. If the woman felt threatened she was threatened. That's primordial - you know this instinctively (at the very basic level of your genes) if there is a possibility of grave danger.

Psych oh, not all of Abraham's children took up a call to arms to one day enforce a world wide caliphate, in which you or your children will serve as slaves.

Only one did.

Care to guess who?

"Psych oh, not all of Abraham's children took up a call to arms to one day enforce a world wide caliphate, in which you or your children will serve as slaves."

Islam obviously.

But that doesn't explain the early Jewish violence towards Christians or the more recent Christian violence against the Jews (current alliance of convenience against Islam notwithstanding).

I m telling you man - this is how it will always be in the world of Abraham's children. The Jews were violent against Christians before Islam came along. And Christians more than returned the favor.

The violence will continue. Always. One religion has become more dangerous than the others. Finish it off. You're doing me a favor, really. I expect the other two will be at loggerheads the moment the third threat disappears. Such is the world of Abraham's children.

The real story isn't the guy, really. He is most likely mentally ill, very very much less likely a dry run op guy.

The *real* story is that the TTC has no strategy for dealing with a situation like this, according to the article.

That is what people should get a bit nervous about.

Putting "6th Century" in front of "Mohammedan" is redundant. You lose 2 points for bad grammar.

"you dirty racist!"

The beauty we white folks have is that we are racist no matter what we do or say, see Kate's earlier post. So have at it.. or don't. It doesn't matter. Calling me a racist is no worse than calling me male, or berating me for the color of my eyes. I can't change it. What a waste of breath.

Good point Erik...so this was possibly a test..
Oh no...there I go sounding paranoid, eh?

balby is throwing in his usual Christian=Islam snipes on Wendy's blog, because Wendy is ,of course racist and paranoid, because balby sez so.
Yet balby and his ilk would be so proud of Scott Reid of Liberal beer and popcorn fame, ranting on a TSN hockey talk show that expressions of joy by NHL hockey players 'should-not-be-allowed.'
Ban hockey hotdogs hoots, but don't be afraid of someonse screaming Allahu Akbar on the subway...?
Liberalism is a mental disorder

and here I thought their hollered allen at the bar, and it was a call to drink:-)))))

and my skin is rather light in tone, thusly I are racist:-)))))

It may not be racist, but it certainly is bigoted. Anyone who's ever walked by the Eatons center has probably seen the cracked-out Christian fundie who stands on the corner and screams about Jesus, yet I've never heard anyone accuse him of terrorism.

In fact, a couple years back, I was standing beside that Christian fundie, making fun of him by yelling "ALLAHU ACKBAR!", "PRAISE ALLAH!", and "THE PATH TO SALVATION IS THROUGH MOHAMMED!" at the top of my lungs. And, for some reason, nobody seemed to mistake me for a terrorist, either. Might have had something to do with the blonde crew-cut hair and blue eyes.

A dry run perhaps to see what would happen on the big day? That's what they did in England, oh well security seem to show up after the event the city is safe.

I got a lesson on current Rules Of Engagement...by a coupla SAS types (the real thing).
Scenario---advancing down a street with a local interpreter when a sniper kills the local....if you return fire---you have committed a war crime because you could not IDENTIFY the sniper...in a court of law....approved procedure---withdraw (run away)
Scenario---a rioter charges you and your associates with a grenade in his hand....if you shoot hime you have committed a war crime because he hadn't thrown it....murder........approved procedure---withdraw (run away)
Scenario---a rioter charges you and your associates with a grenade in his hand and throws it....if you shoot hime you have committed a war crime because after he has thrown the grenade he no longer represents a threat--the grenade does....murder.........approved procedure---withdraw (run away)
I enquired how well they implemented these Rules....they just grinned and declared they don't run away.....and the UN observer dies of his wounds.....

Oh goodie! A psycho troll spouting pseudo poetic nonsense! Love it! Sons of Abraham? Didn't they open for CSN one year?
The straw man attack upon "Christian fundies" is rich too. Yeah they're doing a lot of shooting up major cities and executing infidels on Youtube alright. Can't you even find a Crusades angle there bolly?

Posted by: sasquatch at March 26, 2009 6:25 PM

ROE's vary from situation to situation. In a hostile environment, the ROE's would usually be relaxed enough to allow you to shoot someone who is obviously preparing to throw a grenade.

The only time I've seen such restrictive ROE's was during domestic ops - for instance, when we were on standby for Y2K, one of the examples brought up was a rioter with a molotof cocktail. Obviously during domestic operations, we try to avoid killing people unless it's completely unavoidable. It's different when you're at war. I don't know what the SAS ROE's are for Afghanistan and Iraq, but I'd be very surprised if they were that restrictive.

Alex at 6:00 P.M.

Well, the passers-by obviously saw you in juxtaposition to the crazy fundie, and correctly concluded that you were mocking him. People aren't all as stupid as leftists like yourself wish them to be.

But we humans have evolved to make use of our personal experience, and experiences acquired vicariously through print media and television, to form criteria for judging new situations in which we find ourselves.

Our experience has shown us that the bearded guy on the corner, ranting about Jesus, and toting a sign proclaiming the imminent end of the world is most likely a harmless crank. So overwhelmingly likely, in fact, that such characters are staples in humorous cartoon panels.

Our experience has also shown us that a significant number of persons who jumped up in a public place and hollered out "Allahu Akbar" followed up that outburst with some sort of concrete action, such as pressing the detonator button on a bomb vest, or cutting the throat of a flight attendant with a box cutter. There is a pretty fair number of verified instances of such things happening in recent years, and a pretty impressive body count of innocent victims to go along with it.

So, for somebody armed with that cultural knowledge of proven past behaviour of some persons who scream "Allahu Akbar" in public places, a degree of apprehension is not at all out of place.

In this particular instance, as time went on, and the individual in question did not self-detonate, or otherwise attempt to assault anyone, onlookers would probably be correct in assuming that he is merely a deranged person off his medication, and not a jihadi on a mission. But he has made clear where his allegiances lie.

With a genuine jihadi, by the time you hear the "Allahu Ackbar", it's probably too late to do anything, unless you already have a bead drawn on the f*cker.

"The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings. What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete."

Wafa Sultan

I like being pseudo poetic. Its called freedom of speech. So sue me.

What straw man attack? I am not equating the three groups of Abraham's children. One is nicer than the other and so on and so forth. Unfortunatly, the simple truth is that they possess three different versions of the 'truth' and all three groups have shown a profound readiness to be violent against the other in the name of this truth.

I think nearly 2 millenia of Jewish violence against Christianity, Christian Violence agaisnt jews, and Muslim violence against both tells us one very simple lesson. They don't like each other. Does that make them equal? No.

But even though one may be superior to the other in its attitude towards the others, the outcome is always going to be the same. More hostility. More violence. Such is life.

Thank God for Abraham. Where would we be without him?

Posted by: gordinkneehill at March 26, 2009 6:42 PM

I saw this bit:

"Well, the passers-by obviously saw you in juxtaposition to the crazy fundie, and correctly concluded that you were mocking him."

And I thought ... yeah, that's a good point. This guy's pretty smart.

Then I saw this part:

"People aren't all as stupid as leftists like yourself wish them to be."

And thought ... heh ... this guy's an idiot.

"Throw MoMo from the train"!

The bottom line is that the man is more than likely mentally ill.

Vincent Li shouldn't have been allowed into the country and neither should this tool.

Once again Immigration Canada puts the public at risk.

Believe me, this is the tip of the tip of the iceberg.

Sue you? I prefer to mock. It's called freedom of screech. Islam is a religion like communism is an economic system incidentally.

Thanks Harry for the words from Wafa Sultan.
And for the sake of those here who would be quick to call her paranoid racist, she was born and raised in the ME, experienced Islamic extremist first hand.

Alex
"In fact, a couple years back, I was standing beside that Christian fundie, making fun of him by yelling "ALLAHU ACKBAR!", "PRAISE ALLAH!", and "THE PATH TO SALVATION IS THROUGH MOHAMMED!" at the top of my lungs"

You write that as if you're proud of it. Somewhere there's a therapists couch missing a body.

Posted by: Alex>>

“In fact, a couple years back, I was standing beside that Christian fundie, making fun of him”.

Class act dude!

“nobody seemed to mistake me for a terrorist, either. Might have had something to do with the blonde crew-cut hair and blue eyes.”

Those damned “RACISTS”!

“And thought ... heh ... this guy's an idiot”. Ref: gordinkneehill at March 26, 2009 6:42 PM

Wow another brilliant opinion that matters (From someone who gets their kicks standing on street corners heckling nutty street people).

Of course it’s all about the attention, enjoy your moment it’ll be summer soon, warm enough you can get out of the basement and find some bums downtown to beat up because they get some food from the local “Christian” charity.

I got a lesson on current Rules Of Engagement...by a coupla SAS types (the real thing).
Scenario---advancing down a street with a local interpreter when a sniper kills the local....if you return fire---you have committed a war crime because you could not IDENTIFY the sniper...in a court of law....approved procedure---withdraw (run away)
Scenario---a rioter charges you and your associates with a grenade in his hand....if you shoot hime you have committed a war crime because he hadn't thrown it....murder........approved procedure---withdraw (run away)
Scenario---a rioter charges you and your associates with a grenade in his hand and throws it....if you shoot hime you have committed a war crime because after he has thrown the grenade he no longer represents a threat--the grenade does....murder.........approved procedure---withdraw (run away)
I enquired how well they implemented these Rules....they just grinned and declared they don't run away.....and the UN observer usually dies of his wounds.....

Good to see Girl On The Right Right On The Scene. :-)

The media here in Toronto reports every emergency incident that takes place on the subway (save for suicides of course), particularly when it involves the emergency strip being pressed. Never heard anything about this story until reading it here. No surprise, really. He wasn't an evangelical Christian.

I love how in the wake of these things the trolls emerge from their lairs to equate islamists with Christians.

One lunatic on GOTR's site didn't see any difference between some christian nut shouting "Jesus Saves!" and an islamowhacko yelling "Allah Akhbar!". Perhaps the surviving relatives of Daniel Pearl, or those who died on 9/11 could offer some useful perspective on that.

"But Timothy McVeigh was a Christian, and so was Hitler"! Nice straw men, those. I could be mistaken, but I don't believe either of them killed innocents for the public Glory of God.

Question for the islamo-apologists: let's say you're correct, and Christian terrorism is rampant throughout the world. Can you please advise where I might read similar stats on Christian terrorism as are found here?

Thanks a bunch.

mhb23re

Wafa Sultan - that woman totally rocks.

For those who haven't seen the video of her on memri TV - here it is - a classic and well worth watching

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1296126090432829344

Get a bowl of popcorn and enjoy!!!

Here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_Resistance_Army

And while we're on the subject of Christians, Muslims, and subways, here's a fun little video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lguPY03i42U

Some wonderful Christian love and understanding for you there!

It's beside the point anyway. Most rapes are committed by men. Does that mean every woman should assume that all men are potential rapists? Most murders are committed by people with guns. Should we assume that anyone who owns a gun is a murderer? How can you possibly try and justify your bigoted attitude by using statistics? Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is?

Here's what your LRA's wiki page says, Alex:
"The group adheres to a syncretistic[4] blend of Christianity, Mysticism,[5] Islam,[6] Ugandan traditional religion,[7] and witchcraft,[8] and claims to be establishing a theocratic state based on the Ten Commandments and Acholi tradition."

Boy, that really sounds like mainstream Christianity as espoused in the West. And that's the best you can do? Pretty pathetic.

And the point of using statistics linking Muslim terrorists (who kill Muslims and infidels alike around the world) with Islam is that the terrorists aren't aberrations but are supported by a large percentage of Muslims unlike any of the handful of "Christian" terrorists people like you pretend are just as much a danger in the world.

(BTW, I think McVeigh was a Nietzschean Nihilist, not a practicing Christian.)

"Boy, that really sounds like mainstream Christianity as espoused in the West"

And Osama's brand of Islam sounds nothing like mainstream Islam. What's your point?

You don't get to put every single sect of Muslims under one label, while differentiating amongst Christians based on denomination. Or, rather, you can do it, if you like - you'll just end up looking like a complete hypocrite.

"And the point of using statistics ... is that the terrorists aren't aberrations but are supported by a large percentage of Muslims"

Which you've failed to do. The statistics you're quoting are completely unrelated to the point you're trying to make.

"unlike any of the handful of "Christian" terrorists people like you pretend are just as much a danger in the world."

I'm pretty sure the IRA and the LRA number more than "a handful". Never mind the thousands of atrocities committed by Christians throughout history.

See, the main difference between me and you here is that I'm able to differentiate between religious acts, and secular acts carried out by a believer. For instance, I wouldn't blame the extermination of the Indians on Christianity, even though it was done by Christians, but I would blame the Salem Witch Trials on Christianity, since there is a clear connection. Whereas YOU on the other hand, seem to deny that any negative act could be carried out because of Christianity, while simultaneously claiming that any negative act committed by a Muslim must be because of Islam. That's asinine, to put it mildly. Your mental process seems to go something like this:

Christian woman killed her child because "God told her to"? Can't blame that on Christianity! Jeebus says killing is bad!

Muslim man caught shoplifting? Burn the heretic! His moon-god religion is clearly responsible! Mohammed told his followers to steal!

The end result is that you sound like a complete hypocrite and a zealot to anyone who hasn't been brainwashed with your particular brand of insanity. Try to open your mind a little, will ya? Take off the blinders. Not everything is based on religion, nubnuts!

Uhmmm MHB Hitler may have been raised a catholic. But was clearly an atheist. Many of the National Socialist Workers Party members were as well. Some were into the occult. Almost as if they were trying to start a new religion. Of course the greatest murders of all times. Hitler, Stalin, Ho Chi Min, Pol Pot, and the big daddy of them all Chairmen Mao murders of millions and millions. Were all socialist and atheist. A person of faith has to believe that he will be judge for the deaths of others. Of course one religion tells them they will get 72 virgins. An atheist believes and doesn't have to be worried about punishment beyond the grave. Probably why they can order a civilan airliner eg Korean Airlines flight 007 be shot down. They only have to answer to themselves. And as dicators that means a peaceful sleep at nite.

The IRA are Marxist, atheist, urban terrorists, Alex. You lose, again.

And funny that you have to go back 300 years to get your anti-Christian talking points. I can go back one day for Muslim acts of terror. Which is why I take Islamic terror more seriously than "Christians are as dangerous as Muslims" simplism.

"The IRA are Marxist, atheist, urban terrorists, Alex. You lose, again."

lol

I rest my case :) G'night!

"And the point of using statistics ... is that the terrorists aren't aberrations but are supported by a large percentage of Muslims"

Yes. That is why we see the Pakistani population trying to overthrow the Pakistani government because of the latters war against terrorists. Oh wait, that isn't happening.

We see the same in Muslim Malaysia. And in the largest Muslim nation - Indonesia, where the government is perpetually at war with Islamic militants. Oh wait. Again. I don't see it.

Instead we get those overplayed images of a couple of hundred Palestinians celebrating 9/11 (they somehow managed to comprehend the scale of it all many hours before we could - or did they?). And of a couple of hundred bearded men and women in scarves protesting against America in the west. Arabia supports terrorists. Its the same old bubble. Where was the support for terror of the 160 million odd muslims in India in the aftermath of the Bombay attacks? Nowhere.

mad maxxxxx,

" A person of faith has to believe that he will be judge for the deaths of others. Of course one religion tells them they will get 72 virgins."

The 'atheist' is a relatively new phenomenon. Certainly post-reformation, if not enlightenment. Till then, anyone who dared to be atheist was promptly dispatched to God, and those who killed him thought they were doing God's work. It happened in Judaism. It happened in Christianity. It happened in Islam. The Crusaders had no compulsions about killing Jews and Muslims - it was, as the Pope so succinctly put it, God's will. The Jews and Muslims were equally bloody in carrying out God's work.

Sure the inquistion only killed a couple of hundred Spaniards. But it killed a hell of a lot more Indians in Portugese Goa. In the name of a merciful God. And the man who called for it was duly named a Saint (Francis Xavier).

We will never really know how many people were killed by Christianity between 0 AD and now. Or by Judaism. Or by Islam (prior to the 20th century anyway). The good old atheists did do us one favor - they kept detailed accounts of it all. The religious folk, perhaps driven by shame, continue to try to surpress it.

"Probably why they can order a civilan airliner eg Korean Airlines flight 007 be shot down"

Right, and Reagan's America was atheist. That is why it ordered the shooting down of Iran Air 655.

Its all very charming. Kind of like walking around the Vatican and admiring the paintings. Where did the money come from? It was all charity of course. Poverty didnt exist back then. Paintings were more important. The pope carrying out charity? Blasphemy.

They re all nutters.

Andycanuck, you interrupted alex in mid-islamic apology; he wasn't quite ready to let loose with "Islam is a Religion of Peace®". A couple of years ago (when the peaceful islamic world was rioting and killing christian nuns over some lame-o cartoons) Environics did a poll and found that 12% of muslims surveyed that the foiled terrorist plot to blow up the HoC and behead Stephen Harper was justified.

There are roughly, what - 800,000 muslims in Canada. So 12% of those is 96,000, and to be fair, let's cut that in half: that leaves nearly 50,000 muslims who may indeed embrace this archaic tribal philosophy and living in this country. I guess alex should hope not to run into any of these guys when he's doing his "moon-god/Mohammed" shtick.

mhb

Can anyone imagine this happening on Texas Transit? Only in Eunuch-land you say? If he had a mind to, and a knife, he could have calmly offed everyone on the train.

andycanuck wrote: ("BTW, I think McVeigh was a Nietzschean Nihilist, not a practicing Christian.)"

Assshoooollle!

(Apologies to 'A Fish Called Wanda')

Dear Tatler

I don't think you can compare the Air Iran and Korean Airlines. The Soviets knew it was a civilan airliner, the american cruiser Captain thought it was Military aircraft and they were in danger. One was a mistake, one was simply not caring. Atiethest is not a "new" concept at all. There was no shortages of Greek and Roman philosphers who were athiehest. There has always been doubters. The crusades were an attempt to recapture land had belong to the Roman and Eastern Roman Empires for 800 years. The crusaders behaved no better or no worst then muslims. There is a concept called "historical context". For example you can't say the Chinesse Han Dynasty were evil for having slaves 1800yrs ago. Cause that was the way things were done back then. Everything has to be but into a historical context. The church has done some VERY bad things. However it also provided the corner stone to western civilization. If it was compared to its comtempories it wasthe greatest force for good and advancement of its time. Just so you know atheist have killed far more people then christians or jews. And muslims probably the most. You should read about the muslim conquest of India for example.

Well now, I liked to invite this Muslim down heya to Louisi-Yana and see if he would holler Allah Akbar in a Wal-Mart.

Whoooa Doggies, that-ed be more fun than running coon-dogs at midnite.

The Soviets fired on an aircraft that was way off its course and was in restricted airspace. Iran Air was flying in a commercial air corridor that everyone, including the US navy, knew was being used by commercial airliners. I suppose the Jewish are now atheists for shooting down that Libyan airliner that strayed into Israeli airspace, TURNED AROUND, and attempted to go back towards Egypt. The pilots were well aware that the plane was civilian, as were people on the ground. Those Israelis were atheist, right? Because they "simply did not care, either".

"There was no shortages of Greek and Roman philosphers who were athiehest"

Fiar enough. I didn't specify the time frame and you caught me on it. However, ever since monotheistic religions began to dominate the scene, atheism all but disappeared. Care to name some prominent athiests of the first millenia? Once the Catholics and Muslims were in ascendancy, being atheist routinely got you killed. Atheism, as we know it today, came about only in recent times. Prior to that, atheists were just, you know, killed as heretics and non-believers. By religious folk. Heresy was a capital crime until recently. People could die for committing it - in case you don't know what a capital crime is.

"However it also provided the corner stone to western civilization"

Thats really quite brilliant. The Catholic Church is the cornerstone of Western Civilization, because wihtout it, and the crimes it committed, Luther et al would not have risen up and started the reformation and subsequent enlightenment. If I understand you correctly, the Church is good not becuase it is inherently good, but because it provoked a reaction out of its oppression, and that reaction has been good for humanity. Ergo, having chicken pox is good, because it makes you immune from chicken pox in the future. Sound logic.

I dare suggest that the death toll at the hands of monotheism over two millenia easily matches that of atheism in the same two millenia. That religious folk don't want to acknowledge it is a separate issue. Sure, I ll grant that the Muslims kill more people than the Christians did, etc etc. But that does not make Christians saints. Jews may not be persecuted post 1945, but they were violently persecuted by Christians for the better part of two millenia prior to that.

I have read about the Muslim conquest of India. And the numbers dont lie. In spite of their methods, South Asia has more Hinuds than Muslims. I guess they really messed up, eh? I bet it will shock you to know that Shah Jahan, one of the great muslim Mughals, who built the Taj Mahal, was 3/4ths Hindu.

There are many claims and counterclaims about the death toll, but the Muslims of India were political rulers first and foremost, and they had many a strange tie with India and its Hindus. If you want to continue down that path, perhaps you will write off the death toll during British Rule of India as Christian acts of violence? The death toll between those two reigns is approximately the same. And both sets of rulers were driven by political, not religious, compulsions.

What we do know about Muslim rule, is that most of the religions survived relatively unscatehed. India is still home to many major religions - Buddhism, Hinduism Jainism Sikhism etc. Can you say the same about pre-Christian religions in Europe following the rise of the Catholic Church.

I guess the adherents of those religions cnverted because they saw the light. The same light that only small sections of India saw fit to adopt. Catholic Goa, for instance. I bet it had nothing to do with that little inquisition ordered by St Francis Xavier. You have got to give the portugese catholics credit on creativity- one of their preferred methods of punishing Hindus was by cutting off the eyelids of the parents and torturing their children in front of them. Creative. And vile. And church approved, of course.

Tatler

Okay all good points and fair. But I think your missing my main point. Humans are flawed creatures. To point out and say religion are bad is silly. Do you honestly wish me to believe. If we were all atheist. Since the start of time we would be living in some sort of paradise? Do you really go to sleep humming John Lenno's song Imagine? We have seen thru history times of great religious belief and not so much. Nations ruled by men of god and nations lead by atheist. What have we learned from looking back at both is war, torture, struggles for power are common. You have made some very good points. However I can match you point for point. But I think need we to look at "modern" history of the last say 200 yrs. Mostly because its far easier to defend the my faith in the last 2 centurys.

But in defense of my faith. If I was banished from Canada and forced to go else where the list of countrys I would think of moving to are all christian. So maybe that does say something, maybe just abit good of my faih.

Religions are not all bad. They are good as tools that create identity and solidarity (dangerously so, in the Muslim world), and they provide some degree of cultural output. For what its worth, I am agnostic, not atheist.

That said, they are outmoded. Democracy, the Republic etc owe nothing to religion. The principles upon which these were founded came through rational thought, not religious texts.

If you were banished from Canada, you would only move to Christian countries? No, you would move to developed countries that would be able to cater to your choice of lifestyle. In other words, you would move to democratic nations that are rich. That they happen to be Christian is purely coincidental. Most of the nations you would consider "Christian" do not consider themselves Christian. Go through the Constitutions of most European countries and you will find no reference to Christianity. What, then, makes them Christian?

Indeed, many of the countries have explicitly requested that Christianity not be mentioned in the EU Constitution. France, Sweden - are these Christian nations or not? Because if they are, they don't seem to want to acknowledge it.

Democracy came from the Greeks. The Republic came from Rome. Neither of these concepts draws on the religions of those times. They are works of rationality that are unrelated to religion. I have never heard John Lenno's song imagine.

Modern history of the last 200 years is about dismantling religion's grip on society. It is about Darwin and Dawkins, about the decline of the Catholic Church, about the separation of Church and state. All in all, it is about the decline of religion in the Christian World. In 1960, John F Kennedy had to state that he would not be taking guidance from the Vatican. In 2004, John Kerry did no such thing. Modern history is about economics and politics, not religion.

We have seen a crisis of faith in the last 2 centuries (in the Christian World). Countries refuse to acknowledge their religious values; atheism rates have virtually skyrocketed. They are higher than ever before. Can you imagine the Pope recieving the same level of criticism at any time in the past, as he has in the past one week following his remarks about condoms?

Your religion did not give the world democracy or republic, or the more overused terms such as freedom and liberty. These terms, concepts and ideas were adopted as a reaction to religion, not because of them. That is less attributable to the inherent goodness of religion, and more attributable to the inherent sensibility of man.

Since we are talking hypothetically about banishment from Canada, allow me to ask you one question. All things being equal, If everyone spoke English in Japan,and if there was no option of moving to a Christian country, would you consider it an option in the event of banishment from Canada?

The corner stone of democracy is that all men (sorry ladies) were created equal. This is not a greek or roman concept but a christian one.

Can I imagine a time when a Pope would be critized as much as now. Ohmmm YES. Popes have been attacked both physically and verbally. They have been driven from Rome by armies,imprisoned, murdered, and held to trail and in one case after he was dead.

You are right I would only move to developed countries. Honestly I would pick the english speaking ones first. But after that the christian ones. It does not matter if they consider themselves christian or not. They are. You may disown your parents but it doesn't matter you are still a product of their genes and upbringing. Why is it that the christian world tends to be the most advance?? Yes Japan would be rather high on my list. But then again in many ways Japan is the most westernized asian country. With I believe a rather fast growing christian population. I also believe that the catholic and christian population in China is growing by leaps and bounds.

Canada is a country built on (for better or worst) christian values. Of ocurse its not a christian country.

You seem to believe that the growth of the catholic church was rapid but it wasn't. When the Emperor Constanstine (SIC) converted to the catholic faith, maybe MAYBE 5-10% of the empire was christian. By the late 4 century it was still the minority. It grew slowly but steadly. With most of its converts coming from teachings then the sword. Eastern Europe so more of the sword and conquest variety.

Look my basic point from a christian point of view is we have what it is like to live in an athiest country, and what is its like to live in a nomial christian country, and what it is like to live in a Muslim country. I have to say the christian one seems alot better.

Right, now all humans are not created equal, only men are? I don't know if I should bother keeping this up if those are the views you hold. Oddly enough, the Taleban hold similar views.

Again you are catching me on time-frame technicalities. Once the Pope got into power, no one dared touch him. Forget criticise him. People were burned at the stake for being protestants. Sir Thomas More became St Thomas More despite the fact that he had 9 equal human beings burned at the stake.

How are they Christian if they don't consider themselves Christian?

"You may disown your parents but it doesn't matter you are still a product of their genes and upbringing."

Congratulations. By your logic, WWII Germany was Christian. It doesn't matter what Germans came to believe or how they came to behave - they were the product of thier upbringing and genes - ie they were the natural outcome of the Protestant Christian values. What kind of logic is this? Similarly, I expect you dismiss Japanese Christians on the grounds that they were born in some other religions and only recently converted to, and started calling themselves (and behaving like) Christians. Similarly I expect you have put some question marks over your own faith because somewhere down the line, you have ancestors who weren't Christian. What makes one Christian? Can rejecting Christianity seriously be considered a Christian act? I m thinking apostasy.

"Why is it that the Christian world tends to be the most advanced?"

Here we go again. It seems like you are not reading what I am writing. The Christian world is advanced because it has adopted science over religion. When religion ruled over Science (in the aptly named 'Dark Ages'), countries like India and China were far ahead. Those countries remained, perhaps unprovoked by the Christian oppression that saw Galileo apologize for telling scientific truths, have only adopted Science over religion in recent times. That oppressive Christianity provoked this kind of backlash, and adherence to the Scientific method at great cost to the religious hierarchy (and many people died at the hands of reliigous peeople for doing this), does NOT make religion, or Christianity inherently good. Protestants fought Catholics, and Scientific establishments were often persecuted. And yet, the "Christian" nations became rich on the back of science, through superior technology that, amongst other things, helped them defeat less scientific communities. How rich would England be today wihtout the wealth reappropriated from India. Just to give you an idea, in the 15th century, England accounted for 1% of the worlds GDP. The region that comprises modern India contributed 25% of the global GDP.

The change came because of the scientific method, not religion. The Indians had gold, but they were armed with inferior weapons when push came to shove. Technology, not religion, won the day. Technology is based on Science, not God's revelation.

Thank God for Christianity. It oppressed Europeans just enough to provoke a myriad of reactions that resulted in the adoption of a scientific method that is most anti-religion, and has made the Pope a global target of derision.

"With most of its converts coming from teachings then the sword."

Re-read what you have written. Christianity's rise began after the EMPEROR of one of the most powerful empires in history adopted the Catholic faith. Conversions were based on teachings. Not political expediency. Not on the threat of persecution by officials. Not by the possible marginalization these other religions would have faced when you have a Catholic King who is surrounded by Catholic advisors. No, according to you, the base calculation for most people was not the impact converting or not converting would have on their immediate life, it was about the teachings that would take care of them in the afterlife. Do you expect me to believe that being Christian carried no advantage in a kingdom ruled by Christians? Sometimes it is less about faith and teachings, and more about political expediency. Not that the Church didn't extract its price in blood - we all know what the Church did to some of its own who dared challenge it. It killed them. Do you think they spared people from other religions? They may not mention it and you may not want to acknowledge it, but human experience tells us a different story.

The world isn't full of Christian and Muslim countries. It appears that you see the world either as Muslim or non-Muslim (how Taliban-esque). The probable truth is that you would live in any secular country that is developed (Japan). This notion of being Christian is just for the sake of it.

Hmmmmmmmmm I can see this conversation would last long into the nite and end up comsuming a good bottle of scotch in the process.

All men are created equal. That was joke. Lighten up. Its the literal wording of the US consitution. But of course refers to "men" as a race and not a sex.

In our modern multicultural world, gov'ts don't consider themselves christians. However the majority of their populations do. Plus they were built apone christian values. I speak of course of Europe. The german of army of WWII were christians. The men of the Waffen SS were athiest. Now you do you think did the horrible acts we attribute to the NAZIS???

Of course the white world is advance because of their conquest of the world. Interesting tidbit only China and Thailand have escaped White conguest. I don't think you can seprate the church and science in Europe. In fact the advancement of Europe began to race forward under the watch of the POPES. In fact I believe that Galileo was in the employ of the church. As most scientis were. In fact I think Copernicus was also employed by the church. Galileo was hardly the first to voice the opinion that the earth circled the earth. His problem was that he was told not to teach an unproven theory. Until the church had made a final call on it. He refused fired off a public letter where he called the Pope an ass or pretty close to it. He wasn't found guilty of heresy. But damn close got to live out his life in comfort in his own home and to continue his work. The Renaissance flowered under the Popes. Be it math, astromony, construction and engineering. Of course the church has often stood in the way. Those of Power often perfer the status. Last note on that Galileo dead believing he was a good catholic, and recieved a catholic service performed by a Cardinal no less.

I sorry Popes have always be critized. Napoleon dragged off hmmmmm I think it was a Leo, Hitler and Himmler wanted Pope Pius dead, and the Soviets tried to kill John Paul.

No I find it amazing the catholic faith grew my faith alone for the first 300 yrs of its life. And continued to grow after based on the message. The Japanesse have been catholic or some have at least for what??? 300 yrs?

Okay I believe "modern times" started with the rise of the nation state. So either the American or French revolutions. In that time who has killed, tortured and repressed more people. The various religions or the state???

My point has always been that there is no difference between athiest and the faithful. All have done some pretty horrible things. However I still and contend the church has done alot more good then bad.

You know you could just say I'm right and so I don't have to continue to use what little brain capacity I have on this arguement :)

Your probalby one of those SOBs that has to have the last word. LOL This could take a long time.

"My point has always been that there is no difference between athiest and the faithful. "

Au contraire, your point throughout has been that the atheist are worse than the faithful. To back this up, I refer you to most of your own posts.

I guess it is late because a lot of what you have written makes very little sense.

What, for instance, does the following mean:

"The german of army of WWII were christians. The men of the Waffen SS were athiest. Now you do you think did the horrible acts we attribute to the NAZIS???"

And, of course, the obligatory factual errors:

"Interesting tidbit only China and Thailand have escaped White conguest."

Ethiopia comes to mind. And China didn't exactly escape White Conquest - ever hear of the Opium wars? Sure they had a puppet ruler and weren't an official colony, but for all intents and purposes, the Chinese emperors were treated as subordinates by western governments.

" But damn close got to live out his life in comfort in his own home and to continue his work."

He lived most of his life under house arrest. That means that he wasnt allowed to communicate with the outside world, rendering his work useless. But I am glad you see the glass as half full. "Comfort in his own home". Madoff is currently also living in the "comfort of his own home". And he is also being treated by the state as a serious criminal. That is why its called house arrest.

On a separate note, I woould like to refer you to the works of Guillaume d'Occam (William of Ockham) - one of the most religious christians who ever lived, and one of the most formidable opponents of the Pope. He was the one who set the foundations for Luther to bring the Catholic Church down. And it never recovered.

"Okay I believe "modern times" started with the rise of the nation state. So either the American or French revolutions. In that time who has killed, tortured and repressed more people. The various religions or the state???"

Very droll. Modern times mark the death of religius influence and the rise of government. It marks the rise of rule of law, and the death of divinely ordained rulers and law. Democracy replaced religious hierarchy. Its really that simple. I can guarantee that a democratic state would kill less of its own citizens than a religious state. After all, the former is answerable to its people; the latter is answerable only to God.

And gratuitous name-calling does your argument little good.

Wow you don't have much of sense of humour do ya????

Hmmmm I think you best check your history a little better. But then again you have ignored any of my points you can't defeat. Thats okay I have done the same with you.

Point of the difference between the regular german army which was manned by concripts which I assume the majority would have been christians. Generally speaking the germans fought hard and honourably. The Waffen SS made up atheist were although brave warriors the cause of 99% of the warcrimes committed by the German armed forces. Since I assure christians were not welcome in Himmlers elite.

If you beieve for one second in the last 233 yrs that religions have killed more people then the state, you are living in bizzaro world. Perhaps you can list some examples of the evil religion particularly your whipping dog the catholic church.

Get a history book!!! Ethiopa????? You kidding right? Benito Mussolini ring a bell at all. The second world war??? Come on you got to know some of this stuff.

I'm sorry not familar with William of Ockham. But I will be sure to google him check out his writings and life. But I'm glad he did such a great job of crushing the Holy Catholic Church. Cause after all there is only 1 billion of us. I believe until this year the largest religion in the world. In fact if you combine all the protestant and jewish sects there are till more Catholics. Unlike say the Lutheran church. One in my home town. Well not really had to merge with the United and Anglican churchs to keep one building going. And those darn evil catholics are looking at doing a$250,000 expansion. But I think your right the power and influence of the Popes and Church is nothing. Good lord when ever His Holyness Pope Benedict travels abroad, the USA coming to mind hardly nobody goes out to see him. When His Holyness Pope JOhn Paul II died what was there 120-140 world leaders at his funeral??? Yep those Luthers and athiest have crippled the Church fer sure!!!!!!! I recall when William "Wild Bill" Casey wrote his memiors of his time at the CIA. He said three people brought down the godless, commies in eastern europe. Prez Ronnie Reagan......hmmmmmm a christian I belive, Prime Minister Maggie Thatcher at least an anglican in theory and HIS HOLYNESS POPE JOHN PAUL II. Not bad for a broken discredited evil church huh?

"Generally speaking the germans fought hard and honourably."

I can think of many Russians who would disagree. The Germans were atrocious with the Slavs - across the line. They were on the frontlines, and they were the ones who committed the rapes and coldblooded murder of Slavic civilians who fell in their way. To top it off, the German Army can, at best, be credited with standing on the wayside watching the Waffen commit atrocious acts. The simple truth is that the German Army committed all manner of crimes, and was particularly venomous in its methods against the "Slavic" Races. There is nothing honorable about it.

"If you beieve for one second in the last 233 yrs that religions have killed more people then the state"

Are you reading what I have written? Read the following:

"Modern times mark the death of religius influence and the rise of government. It marks the rise of rule of law, and the death of divinely ordained rulers and law. Democracy replaced religious hierarchy. Its really that simple. I can guarantee that a democratic state would kill less of its own citizens than a religious state. After all, the former is answerable to its people; the latter is answerable only to God."

It appears that you do not understand the difference between the term state, and nation-state. A state is a governmental apparatus. It has existed throughout history. The nation-state, to which you refer, only came into existence in "modern times".

Now read my statement. A democratic state would have killed less of its own citizens than a religious state. I am NOT talking about 'states' in general. I am talking about democratic states and religious states. Democracy v/s religion. Get it? Rule of Law vs Rule of God (and his representatives).

Who killed more of its own people? Not democracies. Take England for example. More people died at the hands of Religious Kings than we will ever see at the hands of the modern democratic state in England. St. Thomas More, in his official capacity as one of Henry VIIIs ministers, for instance, lived at a time when religion prevailed, and he was humane enough to burn 9 humans at the stake for heresy. Can you imagine a state official allowing this to happen in this day and age in England?

Ethiopia never became a colony. Parts of Ehtiopia were occupied for 5 years. And then the Italians ran. There is a huge difference between occupation and colonization. America has occupied Iraq; it has NOT colonized it. Learn about them on your own time.

I applaud you for your blind faith in your catholic church. Sure, we pay attention to the Pope, even when he says stupid things like Condoms cause AIDS, as if in the absence of Condoms there would be less AIDS (which in turn would reveal an absolute lack of understanding of human beings). However, all I have said is that the Catholic Church has been dismantled over time and no longer has the power it once had. There was a time when the Church dictated politics in Europe. Contrast that to now, at a time when European countries refuse to acknowledge the Church.

William of Ockham dismantled the Catholic Church and saved Christianity from it. That was his intention all along. He saved its credibility by criticizing the Catholic Church for its extravagance and ridiculous luxuries and expenses at a time when most of Europe was poor. He dismantled the hierarchy that made the Catholic Church so powerful in Europe prior to that. Indeed, once he and Luther were done, the Church had precious little influence over European politics. Which is why you now have no mention of the Christian values and heritage in the European Constitution.

Ronnie Reagan was a protestant. Thatcher was an Anglican. Both are, by definition, anti-Catholic. Pope John Paul was a great man. But he ruled a very different Catholic Church than the one that prevailed in Europe in the Dark Ages. The Catholic Church as we know it today is a dog that can bark, but that has no teeth. This is a departure from the past, when the Pope could call on entire armies. And my point all along has been that we are better for it. We are better off with an impotent Pope whose power is limited to his words.

Why? Because the last time the Pope had any real hard power in his hands, he went around killing people by the droves. Now the Catholic Church has been deprived of its power, which ahve been taken by Democratic states, and, well, less people have been killed by the state.