Dogmatic or dictatorial views and practices are not restricted to Muslims, nor are all Muslim people that way. I don't believe there is any useful correlation between the two things at all. It just probably happens that the Muslims you get exposed to (either through the media, or directly) would be the dogmatic ones. I regularly get Christians (of various flavours) knocking on my door wanting to convert me, but not once in my life has a Muslim tried to do so.

That also is very true! Though it is not restricted to just Christians - it could be a political party (Republican/Democrat), or in the UK Labour/Conservative/Liberal Democrat/Independant), or any person or 'egregore of persons holding a dogmatic or Totalitarian view!

Were any of those Christians at your door wearing a bomb vest?

Well, my home is Denmark, and i think i can say that this is happening here. The people who made the mohamed cartoons are living under ground at the moment for the same reason that she is scared.

But i don't get it, why let someone dictate what you can and can not write. It's idiocy!!

That's a very big misunderstanding, the norse pagan is not anywhere near racism, antisemi or anything like it. But for some reason, it has been adopted by several groups of nazis and scum like that. But it's not a part of the pagan.

No misunderstanding on my part. I never indicate norsed paganism is racist. I only said that the nazis adopted it. Its the liberals here who are trying to use association with nazis as a way to discredit a belief system.

Ok, i misunderstood you then

No and neither do I recall any reports, ever, anywhere, of suicide bombers of any persuasion going door-to-door to random targets.

They did however, no doubt all have the aim of indoctrinating me to the point where my personal liberty would be lost in their brainwashing. I think I need to stop giving them the courtesy is give everyone else (except phone salespeople who I have finally started being abrupt with after years of them testing my courtesy levels). They are, after all, just another form of sales people - even more intrusive than the phone type.

You're funny. I'll take a million bible thumpers showing up at my door, along with the requisite telling them to fuck off, before one suicide bomber showing up at the buss stop, pizza parlor, wedding, office building, or anywhere else I happen to be. But go ahead and keep thinking its worse to have someone show up at your door to beg you to go to church with them.

You have no reason to feel guilty about being abrupt with them. There's also no law in Australia that I'm aware of which says you have to answer your door in the first place. Tell them to fuck off. You can do that. They'll usually go away, and if they don't, get the garden hose out.

You can't tell a suicide bomber to fuck off. Well, you can, but he'll blow you up anyway.

If having manners and treating everybody with a minimal level of respect means I'm funny, then sure, I guess I am. There is a major difference between assertive, and aggressive to me. Being assertive towards strangers is socially acceptable, being aggressive is not acceptable to me.

But all the talk about suicide bombers is just ludicrous. As I said, I have not head of any cases of suicide bombers doorknocking looking for a victim. Even in Israel, perhaps the most likely place where that might happen, I have not heard of it occurring. Not have I head of any case of a suicide bombing occurring in retribution for somebody refusing to convert to Islam.

I don't think the two issues are comparable. Comparing religious extremism and mere religious advertising just isn't appropriate, IMHO.

Seeing it has you wrapped around the axle so tightly, I'll just formally concede that no, I'm not aware of suicide bombers going door to door. Afterall, even if they did, they'd only make it to one house unless their bomb malfunctioned.

Now will you admit that Christians blowing up bus stops, office buildings, air planes, pizza parlors, weddings, etc is not a significant problem in the world?

Maybe you could even admit that Muslims who do just that are a significant problem?

There, you can no longer pretend to be dense. My point that there is no proportion between the problems caused by today's Muslims and those caused by today's Christians stands.

And your last point about retribution for not converting to Islam is silly in light of the four examples I presented for you in the other thread, not to mention things like the gunpoint conversions by the four journalists. You can't exist in an information vacuum and think you'll be taken seriously here.

Hmmm , let me see. 10's of thousands dead in Iraq at the hands of so called Christians. Is that the disproportion that you are eluding to?

1. The tens of thousands have died there at the hands mainly of Muslim terrorists fighting to disrupt peace and progress.

2. I'm guessing you're trying to say the U.S. killed everyone - our forces there can hardly be called Christian. Not even so-called Christian. Our forces are made of secular people, atheists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, and undoubtadly many other religious sects are represented.

3. I never "elude" to anything. I make my points openly, assertively, and supported by facts and reason. You won't see me "elude" to anything.

Welcome to the forums.

Very true, but unfortunately they are led in their actions by a Christian extremist of the worst kind.

I assume you mean Bush? For someone so worried about allusions, you aren't very direct.

Define extremist and tell me how the term applies to Bush.

I'll show you how its done.

Extremist - one with views far from the usual norm - far from center.

Senator Obama's mentor, spritual advisor, inspiration, and pastor - Jeremiah Wright is someone I'd call an extremist.

He believes the government injected people with the HIV virus. That is a belief far from the center - very far from the norm.

Now, tell me how you define "extremist" and how you apply the term to Bush. If you're tempted to talk about Obama or Wright, please use another thread - I only brought up the above for the purpose of providing an example.

The problem with the term extremist and your definition of it depends on your definition of the usual norm. My view is that the Bush view of Christianity is anything but the norm. The core of Christianity is about love and tolerance as it is in most religions. How that then gels with the murder and mayhem that has taken place in the Bush years is beyond my definition of the norm.

So, essentially, you are saying anyone who disagrees with your particular view is extremist, and the norm is limited to how you define it?

As are you, so that leaves us with an unanswered question. What is normal? Your view and mine are obviously different hence our definitiions of extremism will also be different. Perhaps we are at a cross roads here.

Wrong yets again - on all counts.

1. I'm not saying anyone is extremist for disagreeing with me. You did.

2. You are the one who has been making assertions, I've just asked you to support them.

3. Its not "my" definition, its the dictionary definition.

4. If your view and definition of extremism is different than mine, why don't you share it as I already asked a few posts ago? So far its just been platitudes based on bias.

5. We aren't at a cross roads, its more like a dead end. Until you can make a statement you're willing and able to support, what could otherwise be a constructive dialogue isn't going to go anywhere.