OK Seeks Death Penalty for Beheading Suspect

Oklahoma will seek the death penalty will be filed against Oklahoma beheading suspect Alton Nolan. The grounds:

[DA Greg] Mashburn said he will allege the victim’s death was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel. He said he also will allege Nolen is a continuing threat to society, Nolen put more than one person at great risk of death and Nolen has been previously convicted of a felony involving violence against a person.

Nolan is being held without bond. He has not yet been appointed counsel and at his arraignment yesterday, asked for a Muslim attorney. The Judge said the public defender will be appointed, and he did not know if the PD's office had any Muslim attorneys.

Nolan reportedly confessed to the beheading, which happened the day he was fired from the food processing plant. Police say he was fired after a co-worker complained to Human Resources he didn't like white people. The co-worker was the second worker he attacked, who lived. Nolan had worked for the food processing plant since January, 2013.

< Wednesday Open Thread | New Khorasan "Wolf Unit" Details Emerge >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Translation: "we are going to punish you (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 02, 2014 at 02:47:57 PM EST
    for this heinous killing by killing you by lethal injection; we'll try not to botch it like we did with Clayton Lockett, but no promises."

    The death penalty still makes no sense to me.

    Do you understand (none / 0) (#7)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Oct 02, 2014 at 04:12:35 PM EST
    zero chance if recidivism?

    Do you understand ... (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 02, 2014 at 07:44:59 PM EST
    ... the 8th Amendment, human bias, wrongful execution, and irreversible error?

    Do you understand... (none / 0) (#45)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Oct 03, 2014 at 11:52:57 AM EST
    ... convicted murderers continuing to kill while serving life sentences.  The blood of those innocent victims is on the hands of the state and those that demand the practice continue.

    the blood of innocent victims (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 03, 2014 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    is also on the hands of a lot of those who enable violent psychopaths to procure firearms so easily in this country..

    If anything someone like Nolan is yet another example of the results of the absurd and societally-irresponsible make-'em-suffer mentality that only fosters more recidivism and disasterous mental health problems in ex-inmates.    


    Note (none / 0) (#59)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Oct 03, 2014 at 05:14:16 PM EST
    Note that a good guy with a gun stopped the perp before he could finish his work on a second woman. Are you one of those that feel that Good Samaritan should not have had a firearm?

    Note (none / 0) (#69)
    by Yman on Fri Oct 03, 2014 at 08:20:20 PM EST
    A gun is not the only way to stop someone, and the number of "bad guys" with guns who commit violence and kill with firearms FAAAAR outnumber the (amateur) "good guys" who use firearms to stop violence.

    And we all know (1.00 / 2) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 03, 2014 at 11:19:54 PM EST
    that if the good guys will just give up their guns then the bad guys will give up theirs.



    Buy your straw in bulk? (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Yman on Sat Oct 04, 2014 at 06:52:50 AM EST
    What we actually DO know

    When guns are plentiful, they tend to get used
    - 10 states where guns are most (and least) likely to kill people

    James is right (none / 0) (#80)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Oct 04, 2014 at 07:14:40 AM EST
    Look at all the countries where children don't shot themselves or others because of the lack of guns in the general popuplation.  

    Mordiggian (1.00 / 1) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 04, 2014 at 10:46:23 AM EST
    my moniker is "jimakappj."

    Please use it when posting something to my attention.

    And please study some geography to discover that we are in a country called the United States. And that whatever is killing people in other countries is simply that. Whatever is killing people in other countries.

    Of course the Mexican drug cartels don't seem to be following your advice.


    What's happening here (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Oct 04, 2014 at 10:52:20 AM EST
    Is that we're losing children to gun violence because we are awash in guns so that every week several children hurt or kill themselves or others because they find daddy's or grandpa's pistol that is usually loaded as well.

    Glad to straighten you out on that, J-man.



    Well, M-man (none / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 04, 2014 at 01:38:13 PM EST
    Since you just want to bait and you offer no proof it is time to ignore you.

    Here's what the Brady campaign (none / 0) (#100)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Oct 04, 2014 at 01:49:06 PM EST
    Has to sayabout the subject:

    Gun Violence Takes a Massive Toll on American Children
    More than one in five U.S. teenagers (ages 14 to 17) report having witnessed a shooting.6
    An average of eight children and teens under the age of 20 are killed by guns every day.7
    American children die by guns 11 times as often as children in other high-income countries.8
    Youth (ages 0 to 19) in the most rural U.S. counties are as likely to die from a gunshot as those living in the most urban counties. Rural children die of more gun suicides and unintentional shooting deaths. Urban children die more often of gun homicides.9

    Here are the references, in case you thought they were pulling these figures from somewhere other than the facts:

    6Source: Children's Exposure to Violence: A Comprehensive National Study, p. 6, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, October 2009.

    7The Brady Campaign averaged the most recent three years of data from death certificates (2008-2010) and estimates of emergency room admissions (2009-2011) available via CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control's Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System, http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html. Data retrieved 12/28/12.

    8Richardson, Erin G., and David Hemenway, "Homicide, Suicide, and Unintentional Firearm Fatality: Comparing the United States With Other High-Income Countries, 2003," Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection, and Critical Care, published online ahead of print, June 2010, p. 1

    9Nance, Michael L., et al, "Variation in Pediatric and Adolescent Firearm Mortality Rates in Rural and Urban U.S. Counties,"Pediatrics 125(6) June 2010: 1112-1118

    Amendment Vlll (none / 0) (#106)
    by fishcamp on Sun Oct 05, 2014 at 11:33:03 AM EST
    Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

    Florida law does allow a citizen (none / 0) (#107)
    by fishcamp on Sun Oct 05, 2014 at 12:00:36 PM EST
    to transport a weapon in a private vehicle, even if that citizen does not have a concealed weapon license.  Note the following two key provisions in the law.  Section 790.25(5), which deals specifically with possession in a private conveyance  states that "it is lawful and is not a violation of s. 790.01 for a person 18 years or older of age to possess a concealed firearm or other weapon for self-defense or other lawful purpose within the interior of a private conveyance without a license, if the firearm or other weapon is securely encased or is otherwise not readily accessible for immediate use.  Nothing herein contained prohibits the carrying of a legal firearm other than a handgun anywhere in a private conveyance when such firearm is being carried for a lawful use.  Nothing herein contained shall be construed to authorize the carrying of a concealed firearm or other weapon on the person.  This subsection shall be liberally construed in favor of the lawful use, ownership, and possession of firearms and other weapons, including lawful self defense as provided in s. 776.012.  Section 790.001(17) defines the term "securely encased" to mean "in a glove compartment, whether locked or unlocked;  in a zippered gun case;  or in a closed box or container which requires a lid or cover to be opened for access".  So while you cannot carry the weapon on your person, you can at least have it nearby in your vehicle while traveling.  I might also add do not carry hollow point bullets.

    Of course, but where does that start, and (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 03, 2014 at 08:23:02 AM EST
    where should it end?  Do we want to execute those who commit less violent crimes?  Do we not care that the thief or the rapist or the people who use guns and knives to murder will get out of prison and do it again?

    If you believe it's okay for the state to execute the beheader, why not just execute anyone convicted of any crime?  I mean, if it's deterrence you're after, wouldn't that send a big ol' we-won't-tolerate-crime message?

    If that's too extreme for you, then explain to me what's wrong with sending the beheader to prison for the rest of his life?  Too expensive to feed and house a murderer?  Life too easy inside?  I mean, why isn't that punishment good enough?  Is it that locking someone up doesn't have enough of a revenge factor?  Is it not eye-for-an-eye enough?

    When you put the state in the business of killing people, the message is not that killing is wrong and needs to be punished, but that killing is fine as long as the government is doing it.  


    No matter how heinous a crime (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Slado on Fri Oct 03, 2014 at 09:31:47 AM EST
    the death penalty is never the answer.

    I find it ironic and sad that we would as western society try to combat the barbarism that is radical Islam by executing criminals.

    Doesn't make us much better then them.

    Better to force this person to spend the rest of their days in a cell dealing with the realities of their ideology then make them a martyr to the cause.


    The debate about (none / 0) (#47)
    by NYShooter on Fri Oct 03, 2014 at 01:22:05 PM EST
    which punishment is greater, death, or, life without parole, is never ending.

    However, I look at it in a broader light. Look at how America's reputation in the world as a "guiding light of freedom, and, democracy," has been tarnished since the string of misguided adventures, from Viet Nam to Bush's Debacle in Iraq, were embarked upon. There is no stronger influence in affecting other people's behavior than "leading by example."

    We all know the intellectual arguments against capital punishment. The debate is over; there is no justification for it. But, to the bigger purpose, as long as we execute human beings we should, at least, do the moral thing, and, keep our mouths shut instead of preaching to others regarding their laws and activities.


    In ancient Scotland (none / 0) (#54)
    by fishcamp on Fri Oct 03, 2014 at 02:28:56 PM EST
    they cut their thumbs off for certain dastardly deeds.  

    How Many Christians Bruitally Murdered... (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 02, 2014 at 05:10:42 PM EST
    ...someone yesterday ?  How many murders pray to a christian god in prison ?

    What is the murder rate in Muslim Nations compared to the US ?

    Why is it we freak out when a Muslim kills someone brutally, but when a Christian does it they don't even mention their religion ?

    Any idea what religion the guy is who is suspected of killing women around the University of Virgina ?  I don't know because they haven't reported it, but the fact he went to Christian Liberty is probably a good indication.  Why aren't they asking his church leaders questions ?

    What happened in Oklahoma is horrific, but no more horrific that the murders committed every day by Christians.  

    You insistence on Muslims being more dangerous than Christians is like most of your views, Fox News hyperbole that that the data doesn't support.

    Excuse me, but I don't think this is (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by ZtoA on Fri Oct 03, 2014 at 02:47:02 PM EST
    exclusively about religion.

    My uncle beheaded his two daughters (they were 11 and 13) with a kitchen knife then went after his wife and got caught. Discovered he had been a serial killer. He talked about the christian bible ALL THE TIME ! Mostly the Book of Revelation. He completely justified his murders by the christian bible.

    He was not killed by the state, but sent away to a prison for the "criminally insane". That was in the 60s. He got his own room/cell and a subscription to a newspaper and lived the rest of his insane life out there.

    OMG ZtoA I'm so sorry to hear this (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by fishcamp on Fri Oct 03, 2014 at 07:37:48 PM EST
    I think you live in Portland as I did for my first 20 years and I hope you were not a child that had to try and understand this tragedy.  My heart goes out to you.  In fact I don't now what to say other than I'm truly sorry

    Ditto to that (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Oct 03, 2014 at 07:42:25 PM EST
    Thank you Fish (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by ZtoA on Fri Oct 03, 2014 at 11:55:58 PM EST
    Actually I haven't read all the comments on this thread because.... well because it's personal to me. My childhood was in Chicago and rural Illinois. Moved to my beloved Portland in 1989.

    Even tho I have had many years to deal with a tragedy like this (and it was a tragedy - I loved my uncle... he was a very charismatic handsome bald tall guy, cool, with a gorgeous deep voice singing some religious stuff and the girls were my summertime playmates who I loved and always wanted to stay over at their farm house even tho that last week my mother refused for some reason unknown to me)(she was a psychologist and thought things were not right in that home) ... over 50 years now (I'm over 60 - I was 10 at the time of the girl's murders one week after I was visiting them) it has taken this long for me to be "OUT' about it. I feel like I am 'coming out' on TL !

    Religion is not the basis, only the excuse for murder.


    If Nolan was not a Muslim and if (1.00 / 1) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 03, 2014 at 05:37:40 PM EST
    beheading wasn't a favorite punishment for infidels and if there wasn't a long history of lone wolf terrorists and if......

    Oh well, I think you see my point.


    But, Jim, do YOU see MY point??? (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by ZtoA on Fri Oct 03, 2014 at 06:20:37 PM EST
    And your point is what?? (1.50 / 2) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 03, 2014 at 07:53:46 PM EST
    That an insane man read the Bible?

    That an insane man beheaded his daughters and was a serial killer??

    Or is that there is no connection between what Nolan learned about Islam and his beheading a co worker????


    Jim (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by ZtoA on Fri Oct 03, 2014 at 11:40:36 PM EST
    I am too old, had too much rather really good red wine, am in too much physical pain and too tired tonite to think your reply was cute.

    No, you did NOT UNDERSTAND MY POINT !!  (and it was NOT easy for me to make that point.)

    Pls don't be an A$$. You are better than that.

    ANY of the modern (as in the last 2000 years) organized religions can spawn murderous behavior or a murderous basis for a philosophy for gruesome behavior. Wake up, Dude !

    Yes, maybe Islam is not in the very exact same place in the modernist position/philosophy/sociological/trajectory  as judaism or christianity, at this exact point in time (but when were all organized religions in exact sociological positions...? never)....but it is not that different for the vast majority of practitioners.



    And, jim (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by ZtoA on Sat Oct 04, 2014 at 12:48:52 AM EST
    these were not his first murders as we found out later. They were not beheadings but murder was the point. All for religious "reasons". We found his writings and "justifications".

    I mean to say that my uncle's murders, (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by ZtoA on Sat Oct 04, 2014 at 02:12:03 AM EST
    while they were not all beheadings, were murders in essence. His other murders were not beheadings but were murders all the same. No gun murders. Murder of his earlier son, and before that, prostitutes in Chicago during the depression. No official accounting of how many or who they were.


    Dude, you made me say that. don't be a jerk on this thread.


    Studying old religious text (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 04, 2014 at 12:06:50 PM EST
    In an effort to take them literally never seems to be a healthy modern day exercise.

    ZtoA (1.00 / 1) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 04, 2014 at 11:01:36 AM EST
    So disagreeing with you makes me a jerk??

    No problem here because I don't post to illicit hugs and kisses. Just the truth as I see it.

    And if you desire to post a painful fact of your life in order to make your point that Nolan didn't act because of his religion that is your business.

    But as Nyshooter said:

    What we're talking about here is the growing philosophy by one group of religious zealots to commit genocide upon anyone, and, everyone, who will not submit to the zealot's position.

    Pointing out some outlier murders committed by random killers who may, or, may not, belong to any number of religions is simply a distraction.

    No jim (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by ZtoA on Sat Oct 04, 2014 at 11:36:35 AM EST
    being a jerk makes you a jerk. Done talking to you.

    Okay fine (1.00 / 1) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 04, 2014 at 01:25:27 PM EST
    I guess the truth was too much.

    Those who get too big (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by fishcamp on Sat Oct 04, 2014 at 01:49:06 PM EST
    for their pants will be totally exposed in the end.

    He who talks like a fortune cookie (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Oct 04, 2014 at 03:44:02 PM EST
    May be cracked

    solicit not illicit (1.00 / 1) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 04, 2014 at 11:03:22 AM EST
    According to a supposed former member (none / 0) (#1)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 02, 2014 at 01:32:51 PM EST
    of Nolan's mosque, they were taught there:
    beheadings were discussed [as] the means of which you confront the infidel as it is related to in the Koran that when you meet the unbelievers you should smite at their necks."

    However the leader of that mosque says:
    "This heinous crime he committed is outrageous," said Enchassi. "I could tell you, if he claims to be a Muslim, he's as far away from Islam as he could be."

    "Having known he came here, it hurts me," said Enchassi. "Maybe I could've reached out to him...and helped him."

    Funny How No One Speaks to... (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 02, 2014 at 04:50:09 PM EST
    ...religious leaders when Christians commit horrendous crimes.

    It would be ridiculous to wonder if a Christian murderer was influenced by his place of worship.

    Prisons are packed with Christians, yet their religious beliefs don't ever seem relevant, so irrelevant the FBI doesn't track religion and crime statistics.  People would freak the F out if they tied Christianity and the church to every front page murderer that attended church.

    According to the FBI, the bible belt is the the most violent region in the US.

    The US, which is predominately Christian has the highest murder rate of all industrialized nations.  Only two countries in western Asia have higher rates of murder than the US, Iraq and Palestine, all these are lower(from lowest to highest):

    Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Armenia, Israel, Cyprus, Jordan, Azerbaijan, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Unite d Arab Emirates, Iran, Georgia, Yemen.  2012 data

    Obviously, that is in general as no one is asking murders in the US if they are Christian.  It's irrelevant as all religions at their core promote love, peace, and respect.


    Scott, what religious leader (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 02, 2014 at 04:57:47 PM EST
    are you speaking about that was the preacher in the Church were the horrendous crime was discussed as a solution for not being a Christian??

    by stringing their victims up on a cross or something I'd see your point.

    This muslim guy purposely beheaded the woman.

    You get why there might be a religious aspect to this one, right?


    I don't get it (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Slado on Thu Oct 02, 2014 at 05:12:48 PM EST
    For some reason people don't want to see a difference.

    Of course, there is no ambiguity (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by NYShooter on Fri Oct 03, 2014 at 01:40:11 PM EST
    regarding this issue.

    One group  murders people in the name of their religion.

    Another group (or, individual) murders people, and, just happen to belong to a religion (or, to no religion.)

    Yes, of course, dead is dead, regardless. But, if we're going to debate this issue intelligently, the motivation for inflicting these deaths is of primary importance.

    What we're talking about here is the growing philosophy by one group of religious zealots to commit genocide upon anyone, and, everyone, who will not submit to the zealot's position. Pointing out some outlier murders committed by random killers who may, or, may not, belong to any number of religions is simply a distraction.

    I find it a little distressing that this distinction isn't an absolute given.


    Me too (1.00 / 1) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 04, 2014 at 10:38:28 AM EST
    I find it a little distressing that this distinction isn't an absolute given.

    It appears to me that there is a segment of the Left that absolutely hates America and our values to the point that anything we do is wrong.

    And included in that is our opposition to what you refer to as:

    What we're talking about here is the growing philosophy by one group of religious zealots to commit genocide upon anyone, and, everyone, who will not submit to the zealot's position.

    would we even notice? (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by CST on Thu Oct 02, 2014 at 05:15:58 PM EST
    I'm not sure I would.  A beheading is not inherently religious to me, except that apparently it is?

    Also, it seems a little absurd to me that in certain circles of this country it's totally cool to talk about the "danger" of Islam when a Muslim person kills someone, but we can't talk about the "danger" of gun-culture when someone goes on a mass-murder spree.

    One woman died.  Yes it's terrible, yes it's brutal.  It's not a massacre in a theater or a school.

    I realize I am one of those that thinks one "problem" is bigger than the other and more relevant to discuss (I bet you can figure out which one).  But at least I've got statistics on my side.  I wonder what Fox News has - other than racism.


    I don't know anything about fox news (none / 0) (#26)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 02, 2014 at 06:11:24 PM EST
    I just know that when a christian murders someone by stringing them up on a cross or a muslim murders by beheading, it does not surprise me that people wonder if there is a religious aspect.

    Really ? (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 02, 2014 at 05:28:08 PM EST
    No serial killer has ever used a religious aspect/ritual when murdering, or was told by god to kill.

    How many heads were cut off of people last year ?

    I certainly get the religious aspect, but that is not uncommon.  It's one thing to state their religion, it's quite another to go to their place of worship looking for answers.

    Google results for "US homicides by decapitation"


    another (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by CST on Thu Oct 02, 2014 at 05:30:21 PM EST
    Really. (none / 0) (#28)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 02, 2014 at 06:11:54 PM EST
    Door #1 or Door #2? (none / 0) (#2)
    by squeaky on Thu Oct 02, 2014 at 02:16:51 PM EST
    Given that we have not seen massive infidel beheadings in OK, my guess is that the teachings at Nolan's mosque reflected what leader said, and not the supposed former member of the mosque said.

    I hope so. (none / 0) (#3)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 02, 2014 at 02:23:53 PM EST
    they aren't entirely (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by CST on Thu Oct 02, 2014 at 02:30:46 PM EST
    mutually exclusive.  I assume you can discuss things without advocating them.  Honestly I'm not that familiar with religious service in general but do people ever talk about the less PC parts of the Bible in church?  I wouldn't assume that having a conversation about it is the same thing as advocating violence/slavery/etc...  Although maybe I should, and it has certainly been used that way in the past.

    I guess what I'm saying is, there could be a middle ground between not talking about it and beheading people.


    Mostly what I remember is the mainstream "do unto others" type stuff.

    Is the "less PC" parts you are talking about old testament?

    I do remember being taught some old-testament, but it was mostly about "cubits" and "two by two," iirc.

    That said, I didn't pay much attention to anything in school back then, so I'm probably not the right person to talk about it...


    When you attend a Catholic (none / 0) (#16)
    by Slado on Thu Oct 02, 2014 at 05:05:36 PM EST
    Mass you hear three readings from the Bible.

    First - Old Testament

    Second - New Testament

    Third - New Testament (specifically from one of the four Gospels).

    Having attended Catholic Church my entire life and recently converting and becoming indoctrinated in the teachings of the church there is no mention of the violence, carnage and similar teaching from the Bible in a daily Catholic mass.

    All the readings (and they are the same at every church in the world) for the most part refer to the teachings of Jesus and in the case of the Old Testament usually are a parable laying out a basic Christian tenant like forgiveness, charity etc...

    Then the Priest gives a sermon that refers to the Gospel reading and it's always about what would Jesus do and how you can be a better Catholic.

    I've not been to every Catholic Church in the world so I'm sure every once and while a fire and brimstone sermon is laid down about how God doesn't like certain sins etc... but none of them are about how you should kill someone who isn't Catholic.

    I must say it is alarming how little people on this site know about the major religions and how different they all are.

    Maybe because I was a sociology minor in college and took religious courses I shouldn't just assume that people know this stuff but people should really read a little more about at least the three major religions before equating them.

    They are not the same.   Each has it's own nuances, difference, good and bad.


    I grew up in an Athiest house (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by CST on Thu Oct 02, 2014 at 05:25:39 PM EST
    In a Catholic city, with Jewish ancestors, and I have a Muslim sister.

    I find religion in general to be... culturally interesting?  They've built some cool buildings.  But no, I've never studied religion or religious texts.

    I also think that there is such a wide variety of differences between two churches/mosques/temples of the same religion, that it's not particularly useful to make generalizations.

    Kind of like how there can be wider DNA differences between two people in Africa than between an African and a European.

    Again, this is not from any reading of religious texts, just my life experience interacting with different groups of people from different backgrounds.

    Frankly - I think they're all kind of nuts.  But whatever floats your boat.


    Where you would (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Oct 03, 2014 at 07:11:41 AM EST
    hear this kind of stuff is in Pentecostal, fundamentalist and some Southern Baptist churches. They don't come right out and say kill someone but they do a great job of saying X is evil and the world must be rid of it. I went to one Southern Baptist church back in the 90's and honestly they never mentioned the name Bill Clinton but I would not have been surprised if someone from that congregation had headed to Washington DC and tried to assassinate+ him.  

    And That Rash of Abortion Doctors... (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 03, 2014 at 01:28:41 PM EST
    ...get killed a decade ago with the maniacs and their kids carrying signs promoting the murder of the murders and acting shocked when people started practicing what they preached.

    I doubt many atheists were in the deep south stringing up black people for looking at their women.


    Just a silly comparison (none / 0) (#50)
    by Slado on Fri Oct 03, 2014 at 01:42:43 PM EST
    simply on a matter of scale.

    How many doctors exactly have been killed by anti abortion Christians?

    When was the last time the KKK lynched someone?

    There is no comparison to the threat today from radical Islam all around the world.

    Also the biggest victim of this threat is actual Muslims themselves.

    Muslims who give up the faith, are women, are gay or just happen to be the wrong kind of Muslim.


    religion is not the topic (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Oct 02, 2014 at 05:49:22 PM EST
    please stick to the topic of Nolan Alton.

    I grew up in midwest protestantism. (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 02, 2014 at 09:34:45 PM EST
    Those harrowing Old Testament excerpts were addressed in Sunday School. Which, in retrospect, is pretty amazing.

    Oh come now (1.00 / 2) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 02, 2014 at 04:46:20 PM EST
    They weren't discussing something out of the Old Testament which no longer applies. They were discussing something that is current in Islam as defined under Sharia Law.

    When are you folks gonna get it??? There is something going on here that is leading Muslims to do some very terrible things.


    You keep making this same claim (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 02, 2014 at 08:08:25 PM EST
    They weren't discussing something out of the Old Testament which no longer applies

    You do realize that this is not true for all Christians, ... don't you?


    Please tell me what Christian (2.00 / 1) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 02, 2014 at 10:57:23 PM EST
    denomination believes that Old Testament's laws apply.

    I will then email them Mathew 5 Vs 17 and 18.


    So your interpretation is correct ... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Yman on Fri Oct 03, 2014 at 06:37:49 AM EST
    Many Christians believe that only parts are applicable, others believe that none are applicable, dual-covenant theologians believe that only the Seven Laws of Noah apply to gentiles, and a minority have the view that all are still applicable to believers in Jesus and the New Covenant.
    - Link

    ... and theirs is wrong, and you'll straighten them out by pointing to a biblical verse, to which they'll respond with a contrary verse.  In the meantime, you'll continue to tell people what "Christians" believe.


    BTW - The "But That's Just the Old Testament!" Cop-Out


    See what I wrote to Ga. (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 03, 2014 at 10:45:28 AM EST
    Apparently (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Oct 03, 2014 at 07:15:32 AM EST
    you don't even know much about your fellow political travelers. People that believe that the bible is inerrant do not believe that the old testament does not apply. Fundamentalists take it as seriously as any other part of the bible. You are confusing bible as a whole people with fundamentalists. And a lot of fundamentalists work backwards. They decide they want to do something so they go back and find a bible verse to justify it. You can find a bible verse to justify anything you want to do, mass killings bombing etc.

    Yes, Ga, all Christians (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 03, 2014 at 10:41:55 AM EST
    take the Old Testament seriously. It is full of history, prophecies and moral examples. But, since it is fulfilled

    to bring to an end; finish or complete, as a period of time:

    it does not apply as the "law." Mathew 5 vs 17 and 18 is clear.

    Let me expand.

    Christians are not required to follow the Mosaic Laws. Stoning is out along with marrying your cousin being okay, having slaves, blood scarifies, etc.

    The moral examples, genealogy and prophecies  remain as history. And yes, some people think that God created everything in 6 days. (I think we don't know the length of God's days or how He created, just that He did.)

    The reason for this debate is that the New Testament teaches love. The Koran has many passages in it that allows Muslims to lie in dealing with infidels and to kill them along with honor killings, female circumcision (genital mutilation), stoning of gays and fornicators, beheading and chopping off hands and feet.

    It is that fact that cause some people to strive to find a reason to excuse the acts of radical Muslims by seeking a moral equivalency with Christianity. To do that they rush to the Old Testament.

    Now, all Muslims are not radicals. We all know that. But we have had some 35 plus years in which
    radical Muslims have committed acts of terror at an ever increasing rate.

    Which brings me to Alton Nolan. It is alleged that he converted to Islam in a certain mosque and that in it was taught/discussed the killing of infidels. Note the "alleged." You can believe or not believe. But we know he beheaded a fellow worker after his conversion.

    Calling this "work place violence" is as silly as calling Fort Hood the same. Both were terrorist attacks.

    Now, should we execute him? Over the past years I have grudgingly moved from believing that we should execute some murders to LWOP. I remain there. But he should be imprisoned in such a manner that he cannot pollute the minds of others.



    I don't think there will be a wave (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Oct 03, 2014 at 10:48:17 AM EST
    of beheadings in the workplace, or anywhere else across America because of the actions of one murderous nut in OK.

    Let me expand furher (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 03, 2014 at 11:25:10 AM EST
    as with the Koran, the issue isn't what law individual believers like you interpret scripture as "requiring" ALL Christians to follow, but how many other individual Christians differ with your interpretation.

    Karl Rove's buddy and ex-College Republican leader Ralph Reed has publicly stated that he believes Christians should return to the adherence to Mosaic Law.

    Now, who has more influence on how Christians in the U.S read and interpret scripture, you or Mullah Ralph Reed?

    And just how morally different in essence is your stated belief in the necessity of taking off the heads of women and children with "all the weapons at our disposal" and Nolan's seeming belief that he was doing what Allah required of him?  


    Your problem is this (1.00 / 2) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 03, 2014 at 01:57:53 PM EST
    There are no Christian terrorist groups invading countries, beheading journalists and doing assorted other nasty things. And no Christian terrorist groups are being funded by theocratic nation states.

    And you provide no credible examples of Christian denominations who do not believe the Old Testament was fulfilled and that Christians must follow the Law of Moses.

    And you do your usual thing in taking my comments out of context.

    1. Radical Islam has declared war on the West. That includes us.

    2. We should respond with every weapon that we have.

    Now obviously that doesn't mean every soldier has a nuke in his pocket. It means what it says. We do what we need to do to win guided by common sense.

    Now, would non combatants be killed?


    But the decision to put them in harms way has been made by the radical Muslims... Who, btw, aren't shy about killing their fellow Muslims of a different sect.

    Nolan's actions are directly connected to his religious beliefs just as were the actions of the Army Major at Ft Hood, the Boston Marathon Bombers, the LAX attacker on EAL and all the other attacks both successful and failed.

    They do it because they believe they are supposed to do it.

    And I do not have a solution beyond meeting force with force and by forcefully telling the so-called moderate muslims that they have to fix their problems or they will suffer in our responses.


    Reading (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Oct 03, 2014 at 02:35:56 PM EST
    comprehension is not your strong suit Jim. Apparently you don't know the difference between fundamentalists and other Christians but of course lowest common denominator is how you operate.

    Ga, you can't give me any examples (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 03, 2014 at 04:46:23 PM EST
    That says all we need to know about your claims.

    And the King James version says servants, not slaves. Col 3 22

    And you need to read this in context. Paul is teaching that people must live peacefully with each other.

    And he is also teaching that Christian justice must be blind.

    Col 3 V 25 - But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.


    You'r wrong about slaves Paul explicitly mentions (none / 0) (#81)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Oct 04, 2014 at 07:24:25 AM EST
    them in this passage, Galatians 3:28:

    New International Version
    There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

    New Living Translation
    There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.

    English Standard Version
    There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

    New American Standard Bible
    There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

    King James Bible
    There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ.

    There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female--for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

    Aramaic Bible in Plain English
    There is neither Jew nor Aramaean, neither Servant nor Free person, neither male nor female, for all of you are o
    GOD'S WORD® Translation
    There are neither Jews nor Greeks, slaves nor free people, males nor females. You are all the same in Christ Jesus.

    Jubilee Bible 2000
    Here there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

    King James 2000 Bible
    There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

    American King James Version
    There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

    American Standard Version
    There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus.

    Douay-Rheims Bible
    There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.

    Darby Bible Translation
    There is no Jew nor Greek; there is no bondman nor freeman; there is no male and female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus:

    English Revised Version
    There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female: for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus.

    Webster's Bible Translation
    There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

    Weymouth New Testament
    In Him the distinctions between Jew and Gentile, slave and free man, male and female, disappear; you are all one in Christ Jesus.

    World English Bible
    There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

    Young's Literal Translation
    there is not here Jew or Greek, there is not here servant nor freeman, there is not here male and female, for all ye are one in Christ Jesus;
    Parallel Commentaries
    Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

    3:26-29 Real Christians enjoy great privileges under the gospel; and are no longer accounted servants, but sons; not now kept at such a distance, and under such restraints as the Jews were. Having accepted Christ Jesus as their Lord and Saviour, and relying on him alone for justification and salvation, they become the sons of God. But no outward forms or profession can secure these blessings; for if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. In baptism we put on Christ; therein we profess to be his disciples. Being baptized into Christ, we are baptized into his death, that as he died and rose again, so we should die unto sin, and walk in newness and holiness of life. The putting on of Christ according to the gospel, consists not in outward imitation, but in a new birth, an entire change. He who makes believers to be heirs, will provide for them. Therefore our care must be to do the duties that belong to us, and all other cares we must cast upon God. And our special care must be for heaven; the things of this life are but trifles. The city of God in heaven, is the portion or child's part. Seek to be sure of that above all things.

    Pulpit Commentary

    Verse 28. - There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female (οὐκ ἔνι Ἰουδαῖος οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ); there is no dew here nor Gentile (literally, Greek), there is no bond man here nor freeman, there is not here male and female. The word ἔνι, occurring also in 1 Corinthians 6:5 (according to the now accepted reading); James 1:17; Ecclus. 37:2; and very noticeably in Colossians 3:11, is probably (see Winer's 'Gram. N. T.,' § 14, 2, 'Anm.') an adverbialized form of the preposition ἐν, of the same description as the thus accented πάρα and ἔπι. The prepositional element implies a somewhat indefinite indication of a sphere in which the statement of the clause holds good. The Revised Version renders, "there can be," and Bishop Lightfoot, "there is no room for;" but Ecclus. 37:2 and 1 Corinthians 6:5 do not much favour this particular modification. In Colossians 3:11 we have a very similar passage; there, after describing Christians as "having put on (ἐνδυσάμενοι) the new man, which is being renewed unto knowledge after the image of him that created him," the apostle adds, "Where there is not Gentile [Greek, 'Greek'] and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondman, freeman; but Christ is all [literally, 'all things'] and in all." We may group with them also 1 Corinthians 12:12, 13, "So also is Christ; for in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews, whether Gentiles [literally, 'Greeks'], whether bondmen, whether freemen." In all three of these passages we see the reference both to "Jew and Gentile" and to "bondman and freeman." The particular mention of these two forms of outward classification was suggested by the circumstances of the Christian Church generally at that time. Wherever the apostles went, they were sure to be confronted by questions and difficulties arising both from the one and from the other. In the kingdom of God were Jew and Gentile, were circumcised and uncircumcised, to stand on the same footing? Should believers as such be concerned to vary their treatment of one another or to modify their own condition from regard to these circumstances? Questionings of this description were being agitated everywhere, and most especially just now in the Galatian Churches. And, on the other point, the universal existence of slavery more or less throughout the civilized world would necessarily give occasion to a variety of questions relative to the position which bondmen should hold in the Christian community; how a bondman on becoming a Christian should stand, or what he should do, in respect to obedience to his owner or to seeking a change in his condition. St. Paul, in his Epistles, has briefly discussed some of these points, as in 1 Corinthians 7:20-24; Ephesians 6:5-9. So often had the apostle occasion to affirm the perfect identity of Christian privilege possessed by all believers in Christ, that the statement would naturally mould itself into a sort of formula. In Colossians he varies the form by inserting "barbarian, Scythian;" degrees of national civilization made no difference. In place of this, he here adds the particular, that diversity of sex made no difference. We cannot tell what especial reason he had for introducing these modifications in writing to the Colossians and the Galatians respectively. Possibly he had none beyond the pleasure which he felt in dilating on the large catholicity of the Divine grace. In the clause, οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ, "there is here no male and female," the neuter is used (remarks Alford) as being the only gender which will express both. The change of form, "male and female," from "no Jew nor Gentile," "no bondman nor freeman," was perhaps suggested by the passage in Genesis 1:27 (ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ), "male and female created he them," which is quoted in Matthew 19:4; Mark 10:6. If so, the clause may be regarded (as Bishop Lightfoot says) as forming a climax: "even the primeval distinction of male and female." But perhaps the change is simply made for the sake of variety; as in the way in which several of the classes are introduced in the Colossians. For ye are all one in Christ Jesus (pa/nte gar u(mei = ei = ἐστὲ ἐν Ξριστῷ Ἰησοῦ); for all ye are one and the same man in Christ Jesus. The pronoun ὑμεῖς, ye, is inserted to recite emphatically the qualification already expressed; as if it were, "ye being what ye are, believers baptized into Christ." The apostle's object here is not, as in 1 Corinthians 12:13; Colossians 3:11-15, to exhort to the performance of certain mutual duties on the ground of the unity which in Christ is established among all believers, but to enforce the view that each individual's title to the inheritance is altogether irrespective of external distinctions, and is based entirely, in one case as well as in another, upon his being clothed with Christ. The word εῖς is "one and the same," as in τὸ ε{ν φρονοῦντες, "of one mind" (Philippians 2:2); and in εῖς Θεός, εῖς μεσίτης, "One and the same God, one and the same Mediator" (1 Timothy 2:5). So Chrysostom: "That is, we have all one form and one mould, even Christ's. What," he adds, "can be more awful than these words? He that was a Greek, or Jew, or bondman yesterday, carries about with him the form, not of an angel or archangel, but of the Lord of all, yea, displays in his own person the Christ." The distribution of the universal quality to each individual, so far as the grammar of the sentence is concerned, is imperfectly expressed. But the grammatical inadequacy of the verbal exposition is not greater than in 1 Corinthians 6:5, "Decide (ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ) between his brethren," literally, "between his brother;" and in vers. 19, 20 of the same chapter, σῶμα ὑμῶν, "your body;" not "thy body," nor "your bodies." The apostle has in view the subjective application only of the principle here stated; each was to feel that, having the qualification which he has explained, he himself is a son of God and full inheritor, without casting about for any further qualification, as, for example, from ceremonial Judaism. The principle plainly is pregnant with an objective application also; namely, as to the manner in which they were to estimate and treat each other and every baptized believer, notwithstanding any circumstances of extrinsic diversity whatever.

    Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

    There is neither Jew nor Greek,.... Not but that there were such in being; and in the churches of Christ, for the primitive churches consisted of both; but the meaning is, that there is no difference between them, the middle wall of partition being broken down, and that, in the business of justification and salvation, it signified nothing whether a man was a Jew or a Greek; he was never the better for being a circumcised Jew, nor never the worse for being an uncircumcised Gentile; both by nature are equally sinners, and stand in need of the justifying righteousness of Christ, and the regenerating grace of the Spirit. The Gospel was equally preached to both, and was made useful to some of the one and of the other; and who, believing in Christ, had a right to the same ordinances and privileges of the Gospel, and shared in the same blessings of grace.

    There is neither bond nor free. There were such persons in the world then, and in the churches too; nor does the Gospel dissolve the civil and natural relations and obligations men are in and under to one another, it confirms and secures them; but the sense is, that God, in calling, justifying, and saving men, is no respecter of persons, as being high and low, rich and poor, bond or free, servants or masters: he calls, justifies, and saves men of every station and condition of life; and bond slaves and servants called by grace are Christ's free men, and have an equal right as those that are free to all the immunities of the Gospel: in some Heathen nations bond slaves and servants were not admitted, only freemen, to be present at the sacred service, and worship of their deities (r); but the Gospel makes no such distinction of men in its doctrine, worship, and ordinances, which lie open to all ranks and orders of men:

    there is neither male nor female; among the Heathens (s) also females were not admitted to some of their sacred rites and ceremonies; and among the Jews the males only were concerned in many things both of a civil and religious nature; no female might be heir to an inheritance with a male (t); females had no share in the civil government, nor in the priesthood; males were to appear three times a year before the Lord, and, according to their oral law, women and servants were exempted (u); the mark of circumcision, the sign of the covenant made with Abraham and his natural seed, was only upon the males; but now under the Gospel dispensation there is no distinction made between male and female as to divine things; as they are alike called by the grace of God, they have the same right to Gospel ordinances, baptism and the Lord's supper, and to every spiritual privilege. The apostle's design is to show the common right of believers, of every nation, condition, and sex, and to encourage the Gentiles, and demolish the pride, vanity, and boasting of the Jews, their men especially, who valued themselves upon these "three" very things which the apostle here makes no account of; as that they were Israelites and not Gentiles, freemen and not servants, men and not women; and in their public prayers they give thanks to God in this form,

    "blessed be the Lord our God, the King of the world, that he hath made me an Israelite; blessed be the Lord, &c. who hath not made me a Gentile; blessed be the Lord, &c. who hath not made me a "servant"; blessed be the Lord, &c. who hath not made me a "woman";''

    instead of which last the woman say,

    "blessed be the Lord, &c. who hath made me as he pleased (w):''

    for ye are all one in Christ Jesus; being alike chosen in him, united to him, redeemed by his blood, justified by his righteousness, regenerated by his Spirit, the children of God by faith in him, and heirs of the same grace and glory, they make, both Jews and Gentiles, bond and free, male and female, as it were but one new man in him; one body, of which he is the head, one spiritual seed of Abraham and of Christ.

    (r) Alex. ab Alex. Genial. Dierum, l. 2. c. 14. Aurel. Victor. de orig. Gent. Rom. c. 8. Aristophanis Thesmophor, & Bourdin in ib. p. 782. (s) Alex. ab Alex. ib. Aurel. Victor, c. 6. (t) Maimon. Nechalot, c. 1. sect. 1, 2.((u) Misn. Chagiga, c. 1. sect. 1.((w) Sedor Tephillot, fol. 2. 2. Ed. Basil. fol. 4. 1. Ed. Amst. T. Hieros. Beracot, fol. 13. 2.

    Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

    28. There is in this sonship by faith in Christ, no class privileged above another, as the Jews under the law had been above the Gentiles (Ro 10:12; 1Co 12:13; Col 3:11).

    bond nor free--Christ alike belongs to both by faith; whence he puts "bond" before "free." Compare Note, see on [2342]1Co 7:21, 22; [2343]Eph 6:8.

    neither male nor female--rather, as Greek, "there is not male and female." There is no distinction into male and female. Difference of sex makes no difference in Christian privileges. But under the law the male sex had great privileges. Males alone had in their body circumcision, the sign of the covenant (contrast baptism applied to male and female alike); they alone were capable of being kings and priests, whereas all of either sex are now "kings and priests unto God" (Re 1:6); they had prior right to inheritances. In the resurrection the relation of the sexes shall cease (Lu 20:35).

    one--Greek, "one man"; masculine, not neuter, namely "one new man" in Christ (Eph 2:15).

    Galatians 3:28 Additional Commentaries

    In case you missed it (1.00 / 1) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 04, 2014 at 10:22:47 AM EST
    I was quoting the King James version.

    And in case you missed it (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Oct 04, 2014 at 11:28:45 AM EST
    I quoted the KJV of the passage which talks about "bond and free", the former being a now-antiquated reference to slaves, which were common in the Roman Empire at the time.

    Glad I could help you dispel your theological ignorance, Jim.


    EXACTLY what I said (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Yman on Fri Oct 03, 2014 at 08:59:54 PM EST
    Your interpretation of Christianity is the right one, all the others who disagree are wrong.

    Heh - funny stuff.

    All of which ignores the obvious:

    1.  Your interpretation isn't the interpretation of the Christian bible
    2.  You don't speak for Christians
    3.  There are many verses in the New Testament that support adherence to the Old Testament - Matthew 5:18-19, John 1:17, John 10:35, etc., etc.
    4.  Many Christians disagree with your interpretation,
    5.  "The Old Testament Doesn't Count!" is just a cop-out
    6.  There is a tonof violence advocated in the New Testament, conveniently ignored by you and others with fingers in their ears,
    7.  The Quran is not more violent than the Bible, and
    8.  See number 7.

    Hooey (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 03, 2014 at 11:15:15 PM EST
    The first item sets the tone.

    The unquenchable fire it refers to is in Hell and not delivered by Christians.

    The second is even more laughable:

    Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. 5:17

    Ah yes. He approved of it so much that allowed himself to be sacrificed on the cross with his Resurrection and Ascension ending the Law of Moses.



    Thank you, Reverend (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Yman on Sat Oct 04, 2014 at 06:56:31 AM EST
    Did you spend "10 years in biblical education", too?  You should let all those other Christians know that they're wrong and you're right.

    Heh, heh, heh.

    BTW - Need a list of all the violence advocated in the New Testament?  Oh, wait, you just ignored that - just like the parts of the Bible you don't like.  A Cafeteria Christian!


    He still thinks the New Testament (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Oct 04, 2014 at 07:10:04 AM EST
    was written by transcribing the accounts of the narrators directly into writing, all of which have been shown by scholarship to have been written decades or even a century or so after the time that Jesus of Nazareth was alleged to have lived.

    I can't wait for James to take his show on the road and tell all the Christian churches in his neck of the woods that if they are reading and studying the Old Testament, that they're doing it wrong.


    Please quit making things up. (1.00 / 1) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 04, 2014 at 10:32:43 AM EST
    And the slur of "his neck of the woods" is just so typical of ignorant people who trash US culture and defend that of our southern neighbors.


    Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text.  They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Quran.



    I can't help it if you take (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Oct 04, 2014 at 11:01:10 AM EST
    offense at a neutral American English idiom, J-man.

    From the Urban Dictionary

    neck of the woods
    Your area. Your region or neighborhood.
    Al Roker: That's the forecast. Stay tuned for local weather info in your neck of the woods.

    What time is it in your neck of the woods?
    by Insufficient Postage April 30, 2006

     144  13

    So, Al Roker is actually expressing his bigotry against American culture?  Who knew?

    Of course, when Sarah Palin told her followers they were real Americans, there was nothing bigoted or nasty about that, Right.

    Thanks for cluing us in on that, Jim.


    Context is everything... (1.00 / 1) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 04, 2014 at 01:43:40 PM EST
    Down here if one friend greets another with,

    "Bill, you Old s.. of a b....How yawl been..."

    A smile is returned.

    Roker is, if not a friend, not an enemy.

    You are not a friend and since you can't hold your own in a debate I will just ignore you and not respond to your baiting.


    Oh, so it depends on who is saying it (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Oct 04, 2014 at 01:51:02 PM EST
    And in what context?

    Thanks for exposing Mr. Rocker for the Northeastern elitist that he really is.


    Since you can't refute (none / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 04, 2014 at 10:28:13 AM EST
    my point all you can do is snark, attack and make things up.

    No need to "refute" anything (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Yman on Sun Oct 05, 2014 at 09:19:43 AM EST
    I've already demonstrated that your interpretation of the abrogation of the OT isn't shared by all Christians and that you would claim that their interpretation was wrong and yours was right.  Not to mention how the OT claim is just a copout anyway, as you just continue to ignite ask the violence advocated in the NT.

    Cafeteria Christians.

    It's funny how predictable you are ...


    Matthew 10:34-36 (none / 0) (#105)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Oct 05, 2014 at 09:33:27 AM EST
    "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword"

    An open-ended statement of violence, isn't it?


    Yep (none / 0) (#108)
    by Yman on Sun Oct 05, 2014 at 02:41:18 PM EST
    ... and there are many, many more examples in the NT, which he conveniently ignores.

    Jim (none / 0) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Oct 03, 2014 at 02:38:40 PM EST
    having slaves is in the new testament. I guess you must have forgotten that one.

    Somebody is firing Muslims (none / 0) (#32)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Oct 02, 2014 at 09:10:38 PM EST
    from their jobs?

    If this mosque was teaching conservative (none / 0) (#12)
    by Slado on Thu Oct 02, 2014 at 04:57:14 PM EST
    or radical Islamic teachings one must be familiar with the practice of Taqiyaa.

    The practice is used in Islam to deceive one's enemies or in this instance the infidels.

    Basically summed up it means a Muslim is allowed to lie to his enemies in order to further his goals.

    This is often used by radicals to act like moderates while preaching more conservative or radical principals to their followers.

    Historically this practice is used when the Islamist or radical is not in a position of power.   Later when the tide is turned they can stop being deceitful and just come right out with the good stuff.

    Now this is not always the case as some Imams are right out in the open about their radicalism but it is an ancient tradition found in the Koran that can be used to deceive.

    Not saying that is what's happening here but one should be aware that this practice exists before assuming that a religions leader is telling the truth.

    If you just want to believe this guy coudln't have become radicalized in his local mosque then someone radicalized him.   Either he got it from somebody he met during his conversion or used the internet to self radicalize.

    Both entirely possible.


    According to reports (none / 0) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 02, 2014 at 05:24:42 PM EST
    Nolan converted to the Muslim religion in 2011 while in prison.

    He had a history of violence prior to his conversion.



    that information is not correct (none / 0) (#27)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Oct 02, 2014 at 06:11:28 PM EST
    He did not try to convert until after he left prison. And the violent record the media keeps referring to is not really violent. The assault on a police officer was not really an assault. According to the officer's version, she tried to handcuff him during a traffic stop when he couldn't produce a valid driver's license and she found he had an outstanding warrant. (I think it was on an old probation violation complaint in a drug case although I'm not positive of that.) She got of his hands in her handcuffs and he ran. Her finger got caught in the handcuffs as she ran, hence the assault charge.

    Here's his criminal record. Notice the dates of the charges and sentencings and resentencings and that there are multiple entries for the drug offenses.

    I'll probably address this in a long post soon.


    Sorry if I posted inaccurate information (none / 0) (#29)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 02, 2014 at 06:21:00 PM EST
    The few reports I read said he converted while in prison.

    Basically when you're doing God's work (none / 0) (#44)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 03, 2014 at 11:44:59 AM EST
    all's fair in love and war. God understands.

    Kill them all and let God sort them out.

    The Moonies used to talk about what they called "Holy Deceptions". Acceptable lying and dissembling in the service of Chosen One.

    This sort of thinking may be part of the reason so many on the Christian Right were so thunderously silent about all the lying and dissembling involved in events like Watergate and Iran Contra.



    Watergate and Iran Contra? (none / 0) (#51)
    by Slado on Fri Oct 03, 2014 at 01:45:53 PM EST
    Wow, what a stretch.

    Is atheism the reason liberals keep their mouths shut when Democrats fornicate and break the law?


    Silly comparison.


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by jondee on Sat Oct 04, 2014 at 12:44:41 PM EST
    religious right has always seemed to believe that if they cheat, lie, smear, duck under and around the constitution long enough, liberals will stop fornicating, men will stop loving men, women will stop loving women, "secularism" will finally be defeated once and for all and Jesus will come back.



    A very, very minor point, jondee (none / 0) (#52)
    by Zorba on Fri Oct 03, 2014 at 01:57:41 PM EST
    But the original saying (during the Albigensian Crusade) was:

    Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius (Kill them all. For the Lord knows those who are His.)

    And it's somewhat questionable whether Arnaud Amalric, the Pope's representative, actually said this, or not.  But it did reflect the Papal response towards the Cathars (Albigensians).


    I just knew that someone would (1.00 / 1) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 03, 2014 at 05:32:52 PM EST
    bring up the Crusades.

    After all, the attempt to push back Islam's military expansion was only a 1000 years or so ago.


    Are you even aware (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Zorba on Fri Oct 03, 2014 at 06:42:54 PM EST
    that the Albigensians, also known as the Cathars, were Christian, Jim?  They had nothing to do with Islam.
    And the slaughter of the Cathars is, BTW, also known as a "crusade."
    For pity's sake, not everything has to do with the Muslims, you know.

    I knew that there was a religious war (1.00 / 1) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 03, 2014 at 07:50:03 PM EST
    around that time but I didn't recognize the name.

    So you got me.


    I mean, just because we were discussing a Muslim beheading there was no reason for me to connect crusade and Muslims and Christians.

    Nope. No reason. None. Nada.

    My bad.


    A God who is Love (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by jondee on Sat Oct 04, 2014 at 12:38:47 PM EST
    who tortures and kills his own son..

    That the Jims of the world find deep spiritual meaning in that savage, patently-pagan scenario goes a long way toward explaining the delusional beliefs and actions of the Jihadists.



    Jim, I was originally trying to add (5.00 / 5) (#103)
    by Zorba on Sat Oct 04, 2014 at 03:48:25 PM EST
    something to jondee's post by correcting the very common misconception about the original translation.  I also wanted to make sure that other readers unfamiliar with the quote did not think that it came from a Muslim.
    But, of course, with your usual propensity to ignore "Ready, Aim," and just go straight to "Fire," you responded in your rote, knickers-in-a-twist manner.  And when I brought up the actual origins of the phrase, you dismissed your own unwillingness to actually learn something and doubled down on your so-called hurt feelings.
    To use a word that you have more than once used in previous comments:
    And, as well: lol

    I have a movie for you (none / 0) (#68)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Oct 03, 2014 at 07:59:49 PM EST
    Vahalla Rising

    It's about a bunch of dark age christians who sail off to join the crusade to retake the Holy Land.  And end up being slaughtered by native Americans.