It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


At the UN, the Obama administration backs limits on free speech.

page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 05:58 AM
reply to post by crimvelvet

Islam is a much more useful tool for enslaving than Christianity is at this time. They lost control of Christianity when the USA cut the ties between church and state. Before that either the English Aristocracy or Rome were in control ...

That is a good point that I haven't seen made before. Indeed Islam does seem to have a powerful hold on its believers and control over their lives. This would suit the PTB well as a means of control over the peons.

Unfortunately, in such stressful times as we are in, there are a lot of people who would flock to a group offering what seems to be a more stable life-style; even if it is "less free". As we all know, there is a huge chunk of society that would rather leave the decision making and responsibilities up to someone else.

posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 08:57 AM

Originally posted by wayno
Traditional Islam itself is the greatest example of intolerance towards other religions. Mind you that should not be an obstacle to peace. Christianity has largely moved beyond a similar prejudice in recent years. One would hope that there is a chance at least for Islam to do the same eventually.

It's entirely possible that one day they might. As long as there are people who take every word in the Koran literally I'm not holding out much hope for it though. Most Christians realize that not every word in the Bible should be taken literally, stoning for pretty much anything and women being subservient for example, which I believe is why they're seen as more tolerant.

posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 09:09 AM
reply to post by Jenna

Right, I was just trying to be optimistic. It is not encouraging when the religion has some sort of edict I believe that makes questioning anything in the Qu'ran a sin. I mean, that alone should give people cause to stop and think.

But then again, thinking is not what religion is about -- blind obedience mostly.

posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 09:47 AM
reply to post by Jenna

I would argue the whole idea that followers of Islam take their religious texts more literally than Christains is faulted.

Their are plenty of Christains who commit terrorists acts in the US in the name of their religion, some would even contend that our last POTUS was a christain fundementalist and it influenced military policy...there is a strong case to be made that Blackwater is run by Christain fundementalists and they view their role as modern day crusaders...absolved of sin as long as they are killing Muslims.

Also...stoning women ...Islamic fundementalist law etc...I feel these things are not religious issues to be addressed, but rather Socio-economic. In muslim nations that are stable both politically and economically the vast majority of those Muslims are liberal in their interpretation of the Koran...or at least much more so than remote villages where it is similiar to let's say a Village of Christains 200 hundred years ago....where "witches" were often "unmarried" women and easy targets...often burned alive or stoned to death because of suspected promiscuity etc...She's a witch!!!

It is not what religious text you follow or what religion, but rather wether or not you have advanced to join the rest of the civilized world that is the determinate. Just my opinion.

[edit on 7-10-2009 by maybereal11]

posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 10:20 AM
reply to post by maybereal11

Every religion has it's extremists, Christianity included. I haven't put much thought into Bush's fundamentalism so I can't really comment on it, not that I necessarily disagree with you. Just haven't really thought about it.

Too an extent the stonings and such are religious issues as well as sociological issues. When your holy book tells you to stone people for not believing in your God or to beat people for gambling and drinking it is part of your religious doctrine and thus a religious issue. How much you follow that doctrine depends on what you are taught from a young age.

There are Christian extremists right here in the States that are not in remote areas yet still follow the rules about women being subservient, believe that there is a holy war going on, etc. So living in a remote area isn't really a very good excuse in my opinion. It may increase the odds that religious people in that area are extreme in their beliefs, but it's not the only factor to take into account. That, I believe, is where the sociological factors come into play.

posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 10:42 AM
reply to post by calcoastseeker

Cool! I guess this guy on the right is going to jail then!

Pastor Jeremiah Wright


[edit on 7/10/09 by InfaRedMan]

posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 11:07 AM
reply to post by calcoastseeker

Can you imagine the increased work load for the ATS mods?

With the Feds trolling forums, the U.S. submitting to U.N. governance, members here will be posting at their own risk pretty soon.

If forums even survive.


posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 11:25 AM
reply to post by Jenna

Agreed. I would soften my statement to say that I think that how exposed a given village is to a plurality of social mores is a factor in how "extreme" they are...not the only factor, but a factor. On the spectrum your are much more likely to find stonings, and other extreme Islamic law interpetations being doled out, in a village setting than a major city.

And I tend to believe the same thing occured when the Christain followers were equally dispersed and economically depressed.

But there are significant exceptions and I am speaking in generalizations.

Bottom line ....I think our policy toward rooting out extremism in the world and in particular, Islam, is the equivelant of picking the leaves off a given weed and expecting it to go away.

We need to dig up the roots...or make the ground unfertile for extremism to exist...and to do this we need to find a way to bring these populations up to par with the rest of the world...not quash their culture, but expose them to a diversity of ideas (education) and make room for them to contribute and prosper economically....and by economically I don't mean poppy fields or oil...poppy fields puts them at odds with most governments and oil just enriches the very few elite dictators.

It's a much more difficult challenge than military action or the silly idea of exporting American Democracy, but most people know it is the answer.

I'd start with education. Tie aid to afghanistan to the establishment of educational programs and institutions, also farming practices and equipment,...all of which would be cheaper than the current military investment. Get the world involved in the aid program...terrorism is everyones problem and is the act of hopeless, despairing, people who have turned to extremism to give their life purpose, albeit twisted and often fatal.

I am rambling....We need to create ground where terroism has difficulty taking root. Yes kill the weeds where we see them, but most importantly find the roots and address that issue ...that will make the difference.

posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 11:34 AM
So, would signing this treaty mean that Islamic nations would have to get rid of their laws that discriminate against Christianity and other religions?

Certainly the laws that prevent the teaching of Christianity in Islamic nations defames or negatively stereotypes religion.

edit to add

Oh yeah, what about the constant attacks against Jews? Wouldn't these Islamic nations have to stop with all of their racial and religious attacks against Judaism?

[edit on 7-10-2009 by poet1b]

posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 11:39 AM

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
reply to post by maybereal11

I read a fascinating book called The U.N. Exposed : How the United Nations Sabotages America's Security and Fails the World

Pretty good explanation how America is getting screwed by foreigners, and not the illegals sneaking over the borders, our "Allies" in the U.N.S.C.

I am conflicted about the UN. I like the premise, but in practice it can be a circus and corrupt at times. I was against going into Iraq the second time, but not because of the UN not being on board, strangely I agreed with Bush on the concept that the USA shouldn't yield to the UN on such matters....I just thought it was a very bad idea for many reasons.

Pres Obama opened his speech to the UN in a semi-confrontational tone, essentially accussing them of being a do-nothing entity.

"Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems alone," Obama said.

"Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

The UN has been taken less and less seriously in recent years. It is a place for world leaders to air grievances, but beyond that they don't impress me much these days.

posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 09:44 PM
I would say that if Obama were to sign this, and start coming down on the U.S. press, while ignoring the massive abuses by Islamic press, then he is pretty much guaranteed a one term presidency.

Funny, how this is being completely ignored by mainstream media in the U.S., when they are the ones who supposedly will be losing out.

The silence of mainstream media on this one says volumes about who is pulling the strings, and what their real goals are.

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 09:37 AM
reply to post by maybereal11

I cannot see that the United Nations has ever been taken seriously but by Government's of countries who do not have missiles and or are designated Third World.

And those diesginated Third World without dictators with or without W.M.D.'s as well.

While I can admire Obama telling the U.N. to stop basically being duplicitous, he needs to heed his own advice and stop talking without any content, context, or intent.

Back it all up with hard facts, and no more cotton candy words, gumdrop smiles, and rainbow dreams.

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 10:57 AM
reply to post by poet1b

Hey Poet...please read the thread or look up "Resolution" in the context of a political assembly.

No Offense...It is just that you are repeatedly calling this a "Treaty" which it IS NOT and now you are going on about Obama using this non-existent "Treaty" to "come down on the American Press".

Please read the thread posts. I should not have to keep repeating my own and other peoples posts.

Non binding resolution...Not law, Not treaty, Not the US but a UN resolution ....a political position voted and agreed upon .....political rhetoric.

NOT A "TREATY" etc etc.

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 10:57 AM
[edit on 8-10-2009 by maybereal11]

top topics

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in