I found this interesting article today:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030606.html quote:
Dear Cecil:
I'll get right to the point. Why is the Islamic world so backward and ignorant? A thousand years ago, we hear, Arab culture put Europe in the shade, with great achievements in mathematics, astronomy, and architecture. Now it all seems to have boiled down to sadists and fanatics. I know this is a lot to explain in a column where they don't even let you jump to an inside page, Cecil, but give it a whiz: Where did our Muslim brothers go wrong? --Bud Clarke
Cecil replies:
Let's watch the glib generalizations, Bud. The Islamic world isn't uniformly "backward and ignorant." (And these days less than a fifth of its population is Arab.) Among the relatively nonignorant, nonbackward parts are Turkey and Malaysia, which, while not without their problems, have made considerable strides toward what Americans understand as modernity. But I'll grant you that those countries are exceptions. I'll grant you another point too: Throughout the Crusades, which began in 1095 when Pope Urban II called upon Christians to wrest the Holy Land from Muslim control, one side might reasonably have been described as civilized, tolerant, and progressive, while the other was by and large a bunch of backward, ignorant, bloodthirsty fanatics. Hint: It wasn't the Muslims who, upon capturing Jerusalem in 1099, gleefully slaughtered everyone there.
Today Islam claims some 1.2 billion adherents, most living in a broad swath stretching from the Atlantic coast of north Africa eastward to Indonesia and the Philippines. (For comparison, there are 1.9 billion Christians worldwide, most of them Catholics.) While abject poverty is rare in the Muslim world, the overwhelming majority of the population is just getting by. Take for example the 280 million people, the great majority of them Muslim, who live in the 22 Middle Eastern and African nations that make up the Arab League. According to a 2002 UN report by a group of Arab scholars, 65 million adults in these countries are illiterate, two-thirds of them women; the 1999 gross domestic product of the entire Arab League was less than that of Spain; for the past decade average annual growth in per capita income in the Middle East has been the lowest in the world outside sub-Saharan Africa; the 15 percent unemployment rate is one of the highest in the developing world; and Arabs have translated as many books in the last thousand years as the Spanish now do in one.
Some Western observers would have you believe that this is all because of an Islamic or Arabic culture that prizes bluster over substance. One influential book, Raphael Patai's The Arab Mind (1983), suggests that the Arab predilection for overstated rhetoric (remember the absurd pronouncements of Iraqi information minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf?) is rooted in the floweriness of the Arabic language. Nonsense--the inflated talk can be more readily explained as an attempt to compensate for powerlessness. Similarly, it's irresponsible to insist that some inherent quality of the Islamic religion perpetuates ignorant fanaticism. Islam is much like Christianity, in that you can find something in it to justify almost any fool notion.
The truth is that the present gap between the fortunes of the Islamic world and those of the West isn't a result so much of Muslim failure as European success. For roughly a thousand years, from the death of Muhammad in 632 to the breaking of the Ottoman siege of Vienna in 1683, Islamic rulers vied with Christian ones for dominance in the Mediterranean. In the end the Muslim powers lost because the circumstances of empire didn't compel them to develop their human resources the way the Europeans did--they were outmanned, outwitted, and outgunned.
The decline of the Ottomans (who were Muslims but not Arabs) is an instructive example. In 1453 they captured Constantinople and renamed it Istanbul, in the process eradicating the last vestige of the Roman empire. They built a mighty empire of their own and intimidated Europe for 200 years. But in the end their grand edifice suffered the fate of all empires--corruption, internal division, and decay. The European nations of the day had greater access to natural resources to start with and were obliged by the fiercely competitive nature of European politics to constantly innovate. As early as 1492 you could see the shape of things to come: not only did Ferdinand and Isabella finance Columbus's voyages to America, they expelled the Moors from Spain.
By the 18th century it was clear that the Ottomans (and the Muslim world in general) were in decline. The Islamic response was to turn inward. Reformist Muslim sects argued for a return to tradition, and what had once been a tolerant religion grew more and more conservative and xenophobic. European colonization of Muslim lands in the 19th century increased resentment of the West, which in turn contributed to Muslim isolationism in the postcolonial era. By the time oil was discovered it was too late--Muslim (and particularly Arab) countries lacked the ability to exploit their own wealth and had to rely on Europeans to do it for them. Oil money enabled small elites to become Westernized, but despite a sharp increase in literacy in the past few decades, it's fair to say that in many countries the Islamic masses remain comparatively backward and ignorant.
All of which is an object lesson, I guess. What did our Muslim brothers do wrong? Nothing. They just stopped doing a lot of the stuff they'd gotten right, and the world passed them by.
--CECIL ADAMS
Quite a nice summation of the book Germs Guns and Steel, written by Diamond, and "What Went Wrong?" by Bernard Lewis.
It also suggests the idea that political competition will advance a society - an argument agains a European Union by people who value war over peace, I suppose.
Comments?
quote:
From Cecil:
In the end the Muslim powers lost because the circumstances of empire didn't compel them to develop their human resources the way the Europeans did--they were outmanned, outwitted, and outgunned.
That's what happens when you trust people named Bud and Cecil for social commentary.
I'll write more later, but right now I just woke up and my head hurts.
It's difficult to summarize close to two millenia of Islam, and all its impact on every Islamic and European nation, and do so with complete accuracy.
The overview of the decline of Islam is worthwhile.
But I dislike that Islam and Christianity are spoken of as two interchangeable religions.
quote:
(from the above article):
...it's irresponsible to insist that some inherent quality of the Islamic religion perpetuates ignorant fanaticism. Islam is much like Christianity, in that you can find something in it to justify almost any fool notion.
I find this sweeping statement about Christianity unfounded and insulting. It clearly has a contempt for Christianity, a level of bias and contempt that makes me wonder if the rest of what the writer says could possibly be accurate.
Islam is far more conquest-oriented and brutal at its root. The early spread of Islam was through conquest for hundreds of years, and putting any in conquered areas who would not convert to Islam "to the sword".
Christianity is far more peaceful at its root, and in its first 300 years, never had an army fight and conquer in its name. It was Constantine who first aligned with Christians and granted them the right to freely practice Christianity in the Roman Empire, and began the more secular influence of Christianity over armies and politics, that became the Roman Catholic church.
But BEFORE Constantine, Christianity had already spread to every corner of the Roman Empire. Christianity had already spread throughout the empire peacefully, it was only recognition and the freedom to practice Christianity openly that Constantine offered.
The Inquisition, under the Roman Catholic Church, was an abberation and temporary corruption of the church, where the average Christian didn't have access to Bible teachings themselves, and had to rely on the interpretation of a corrupt clergy, which led to the Reformation, begun my Martin Luther in 1517, and other reformers.
And the Inquisition and Crusades were also a direct result of Islamic invasion deep into European/Christian territory. It was more of a taking back what had been taken from them, with some obvious excesses that were done in the name of Christianity, but were clearly more political than religious.
Once printing presses made the Bible widely available to individuals, Christianity changed dramatically, and regained the peaceful nature that had been lost. Those fleeing the stranglehold of Rome on Europe, came to Pennsylvania and the other English colonies, to practice Christianity in a way more consistent with the Bible. And establish government that guaranteed the free practice of true Christianity, in a new form of government strongly based in Christian principles.
Universities, science, humanitarian aid, hospitals, and democracy are all innovations that came from the Christian community.
I recognize that Islam has made some contributions in these areas as well, but I don't like seeing Christianity block-labelled in the same category as Islam.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Universities, science, humanitarian aid, hospitals, and democracy are all innovations that came from the Christian community.
This is simply not true. You don't really believe this do you?
Interestingly, the one quote that Dave TWB points out, is the one I like the most. And its not because of Christianity Dave TWB, but really goes to my take on all organized religions in general. In truth, I think one could put in the name of any organized religion in each of those spaces and say that each religion can find reasons for justifying most anything.
Interesting article BTW, Dave.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
I find this sweeping statement about Christianity unfounded and insulting. It clearly has a contempt for Christianity, a level of bias and contempt that makes me wonder if the rest of what the writer says could possibly be accurate.
Funny that you would disagree with one of the few points from the original article that I actually agree with.
The idea that the scriptures of Christianity, Islam, and most any other religion share the common potential of misuse has been proven time and time again throughout history. If you don't believe that the teachings of Christianity can be interpreted in many different ways, review this thread.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Islam is far more conquest-oriented and brutal at its root. The early spread of Islam was through conquest for hundreds of years, and putting any in conquered areas who would not convert to Islam "to the sword".
Muslims ruled Spain for roughly 800 years and during that time, the non-Muslims there were alive and flourishing. Christian and Jewish minorities have survived in the Muslim lands of the Middle East for centuries. Countries such as Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and Jordan all have Christian and/or Jewish populations. If Islam taught that all people are supposed to be killed or forced to become Muslims, how did all of these non-Muslims survive for so long in the middle of the Islamic Empire?
After Christianity gained dominance in the Roman Empire, it became clear that they regarded their God as very authoritarian in nature. Christians then began imitating their God and become exceptionally authoritarian themselves. Controlling society, they ruthlessly exterminated other religious beliefs, with only Judaism being permitted to co-exist with their own One True Faith.
I'm not trying to bash Christianity here, just point out that it's not as innocent as you portray.
quote:
Originally posted by Wednesday:
Muslims ruled Spain for roughly 800 years and during that time, the non-Muslims there were alive and flourishing. Christian and Jewish minorities have survived in the Muslim lands of the Middle East for centuries. Countries such as Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and Jordan all have Christian and/or Jewish populations. If Islam taught that all people are supposed to be killed or forced to become Muslims, how did all of these non-Muslims survive for so long in the middle of the Islamic Empire?
After Christianity gained dominance in the Roman Empire, it became clear that they regarded their God as very authoritarian in nature. Christians then began imitating their God and become exceptionally authoritarian themselves. Controlling society, they ruthlessly exterminated other religious beliefs, with only Judaism being permitted to co-exist with their own One True Faith.
I'm not trying to bash Christianity here, just point out that it's not as innocent as you portray.
Muslims have certainly lived in Christian lands as well.
The Inquisition, as I said is (1) arguably not true Christianity, and certainly an era where the Bible was kept from the public by Catholic clergy, and (2) an extremist reaction to Muslim invasion of Christian lands.
All nations, whether Christian, Muslim, or whatever, have trade relations and visitors from other lands of other religions. You take the most extreme period of Christian history, and say "this is what Christianity is about". I disagree.
Christianity was peaceful in its spread for 300 years, and has been throughout most of its history.
Islam, again, was violent in its spread from the time it began.
There have been peaceful and violent periods in both Muslim and Christian history. But at its root beliefs, Islam advocates violence in the name of Islam. Christianity does not. They are NOT comparable religions.
~
quote:
klinton:
This is simply not true. You don't really believe this do you?
Yes, I "really believe this."
klinton, if you look at the histories of Harvard, Princeton and Yale, in the founding of those Universities, you will quickly see this confirmed.
In the age of the Reformation, literacy was promoted by Protestant Christians, so each individual could read the Bible for themselves.
Most of the major scientists until the 20th century were devout Christians. Including Isaac Newton, the founder of modern Mathematics and Physics.
quote:
Originally posted by Wednesday:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
I find this sweeping statement about Christianity unfounded and insulting. It clearly has a contempt for Christianity, a level of bias and contempt that makes me wonder if the rest of what the writer says could possibly be accurate.
Funny that you would disagree with one of the few points from the original article that I actually agree with.
The idea that the scriptures of Christianity, Islam, and most any other religion share the common potential of misuse has been proven time and time again throughout history. If you don't believe that the teachings of Christianity can be interpreted in many different ways, review this thread.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Islam is far more conquest-oriented and brutal at its root. The early spread of Islam was through conquest for hundreds of years, and putting any in conquered areas who would not convert to Islam "to the sword".
Muslims ruled Spain for roughly 800 years and during that time, the non-Muslims there were alive and flourishing. Christian and Jewish minorities have survived in the Muslim lands of the Middle East for centuries. Countries such as Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and Jordan all have Christian and/or Jewish populations. If Islam taught that all people are supposed to be killed or forced to become Muslims, how did all of these non-Muslims survive for so long in the middle of the Islamic Empire?
After Christianity gained dominance in the Roman Empire, it became clear that they regarded their God as very authoritarian in nature. Christians then began imitating their God and become exceptionally authoritarian themselves. Controlling society, they ruthlessly exterminated other religious beliefs, with only Judaism being permitted to co-exist with their own One True Faith.
I'm not trying to bash Christianity here, just point out that it's not as innocent as you portray.
Well said, Wednesday.
The cultural/literary/scholarly decline of the arab/islamic world started when Persia fell as a world power. I've read many Persian works of literature and they are beautiful and brilliant. Persia was the glue that held the Islamic world together in an intellectual/ creative way. persian culture seemed to balance the Arabian ideals with the Islamic religion. Once that was over the Islamic religion took over and seemed hell bent on conquest and revenge against the "christian" world that Crusaded against them, and focused moreso on the tenant of conquest for Allah. Also education of the populace became a thing of the past (in no small part..thanks to the crusades).
DTWB, I must say I do believe the "christians" of the Medievel period were indeed anti-semitic and murderers/thieves/rapists/charlatans for the most part. especially pre-Elizabethan. This is not to say Muslims were innocent of any travesties and conquests themselves. Just an observation.
You are correct though that literacy kept christianity from becoming more corrupt and eventually helped it become a religion of mostly peace. Because the common people could finally understand the text and meanings and not be swayed by those who corrupted and tarnished the message.
In America, I know absolutely, that the public school system and universities were created to teach children and young adults to read and study the Bible. It was generally understood in that day that biblical principles would hold American society together by founding it on a moral grounding. That biblical study would lead to knowlegdeable, creative citizenry and create a solid work force dedicated to building a great nation with a solid footing in brotherhood. Those aren't my words they are the words of Dewey and America's forefathers.
The humanitarian stuff I can't verify....
Yes, Pig Iron.
The role of Christianity as an essential element in American Democracy is clear in the writings of the founding fathers.
The only fear of our founding fathers was that
one form of Christianity would possibly rise to dominate how Christianity was practiced in the United States, as the Roman Catholic church had dominated Europe. They valued Christianity as an essential element in democracy, and in education, as is reflected in these quotes:
Quote:
Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man toward God.
Gouverneur Morris, signer of the Constitution.
from The Life of Gouverneur Morris by Jared Sparks, vol 3, p 483
There was a belief by the founding fathers that previous attempts at democracy had inevitably failed because of the absence of Biblical principles in their foundation, as in the Greek and Roman empires.
Their belief was that without Christian teaching and principles, democracy could only descend into chaos and self-destruction. That only the Bible could make democracy in the United States turn out differently:
Quote:
Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.
James Madison
from The Federalist on the New Constitution, p 53
Quote:
Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a Democracy that did not commit suicide.
John Adams,
from Works, John Adams, vol 6, p 484, from a letter by Adams.
Quote:
All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, opression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.
Noah Webster.
from The History of the United States, by Webster, p 309
Quote:
The only true basis of all government [is] the laws of God and nature. For government is an ordinance of Heaven, designed by the all-benevolent Creator.
Samuel Adams
from Writings, vol 1 p 269
Quote:
The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained... It is impossible to rightly govern without God and the Bible.
George Washington
from A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol 1, pp52-53
Quote:
The law dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries and at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this.
Alexander Hamilton
from The Papers of Alexander Hamilton by Harold C. Syret, vol 1, p 87
Quote:
It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Patrick Henry
from God's Providence in American History, by Steve Dawson, p 1
The concept "separation of Church and State" is in no U.S. document of government. It is a creation in the 20th century, from a phrase Jefferson wrote in a personal letter.
It is NOT in any of Jefferson's books. But technically, it is in one of his writings. It is one phrase by Jefferson, not something he repeatedly or strenuously argued for.
But in any case, the role of Christianity in forming the principles of American democracy is clear.
And equally clear, the desire of its creators that Christian principles would continue to be an enduring part of that democracy, as long as American democracy continues to exist.
Again, I consider Christian concepts to be vastly different from those of Islam.
The ideas of a personal God (-vs- an unknowable God in Islam), of free will (-vs- a more fatalist mindset of Islam), and other ideas of human rights and dignity. That arguably have largely not reached the Islamic world even 200 years after the birth of democracy in the U.S. and Europe.
quote:
Muslims have certainly lived in Christian lands as well.
Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis disagrees with you. That is something which only happened in very recent times. Lewis says in his book, "What Went Wrong?" that Muslims hated coming to the backwaters of Europe, and that in fact until the decline of the Ottomans, Jews much preferred the tolerance of Islam to the murderous antagonism of Christendom.
quote:
Universities, science, humanitarian aid, hospitals, and democracy are all innovations that came from the Christian community.
Universities, democracy, and science came from ancient Greece, a society which both Christendom and Islam claim as their root.
The word "hospital" comes from the Knights Hospitaller, a sect of Christians who helped the injured on the battlefields of the Crusades. But for most of the past 1000 years Muslim doctors were much superior to Western doctors.
"Humanitarian aid" is a modern concept hardly unique to Christian countries.
quote:
Christianity is far more peaceful at its root, and in its first 300 years, never had an army fight and conquer in its name.
You're being very selective with your dates. Christians were in sufficient numbers to gather an army in their first 300 years - the Romans would have annihilated them if they had.
quote:
And the Inquisition and Crusades were also a direct result of Islamic invasion deep into European/Christian territory. It was more of a taking back what had been taken from them, with some obvious excesses that were done in the name of Christianity, but were clearly more political than religious.
What nonsense! The Spanish Inquisition was established as a pogrom against Jews and the few remaining Muslims in Granada - see http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?search=Spanish+inquisition&go=Go
As for the Crusades, from www.wikipedia.org
quote:
The Crusades were a series of several military campaigns sanctioned by the Pope that took place during the 11th through 13th centuries. They began as Catholic endeavors to capture Jerusalem from the Muslims but developed into territorial wars.
Historical background
The initial conquest of Palestine by the forces of Islam did not interfere much with pilgrimage to Christian holy sites such as Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Nazareth. However, in the year 1004 the Fatimid caliph of Cairo, Hakim, had the Church of the Holy Sepulchre destroyed. His successor permitted the Byzantine Empire to rebuild it, and pilgrimage was permitted again.
The decisive loss of the Byzantine army to the Seljuk Turks at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071 brought the beginning of Byzantine pleas for troops and support from the West.
Reputation and evaluation
In Western Europe the Crusades have traditionally been regarded by laypeople as heroic defensive enterprises, although not all historians have agreed. In the Islamic world, however, the Crusades are regarded to this day as cruel and savage onslaughts by Christendom on Islam, and so, for example, some of the rhetoric from Islamic fundamentalists uses the term "crusade" in this emotional context to refer to Western moves against them. Eastern Orthodox Christians also see the Crusades as attacks by the West, especially because of the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade.
There is an interesting symmetry between the terms "Crusade" and "Jihad". In the West the term "Crusade" has positive connotations (for example a politician might use rhetoric such as "a crusade against illegal drugs") while the term "Jihad" has negative connotations associated with fanatical holy war. In the Islamic world the term "Jihad" has positive connotations that include a much broader meaning of general personal and spiritual struggle, while the term "Crusade" has the negative connotations described above. Thus to correctly translate nuances of meaning, the use of "Jihad" in Arabic should be translated to "Crusade" in English while use of the Arabic term for "Crusade" should be translated to "Jihad" in English.
In truth much of what the crusaders did was less than heroic. They committed atrocities not just against Muslims but also against Jews and Christians. For example the Fourth Crusade never made it to Palestine, but instead sacked Constantinople, the capital of the Christian Byzantine Empire. This crusade served to deepen the already hard feelings between Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Western Christianity. The Byzantine Empire eventually recovered Constantinople, but its strength never fully recovered, and the Byzantine Empire finally fell to the Ottomans in 1453.
And then, you contradict yourself in two adjacent sentences:
quote:
Islam, again, was violent in its spread from the time it began.
There have been peaceful and violent periods in both Muslim and Christian history.
And finally, we see your prejudices and ignorance laid out in full:
quote:
But at its root beliefs, Islam advocates violence in the name of Islam. Christianity does not. They are NOT comparable religions.
But see this:
quote:
Islam assigns Jews and Christians (and certain other, smaller, religions) the status of people of the Book on the basis of their monotheism, and their beliefs about God and the world. This status is based on several passages from the Quran that say how Christians, Jews, and Muslims share common scripture, morals, and prophets. Muslims believe that the 'People of the Book,' if they are decent and good, regardless of the fact that they are not Muslim, will go to Heaven. They are seen as cousins in the family of believers, and Muslims are encouraged to live on peaceful and equitable terms with them.
In one verse of the Quran, it says "God forbids you not, with regards to those who fight you not for [your] faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them; for God loveth those who are just." (Quran, 60:8) which is interpreted as a clear admonition not to be disrespectful or unkind to non-Muslims. According to an authentic hadith, Muhammad said to his people "The one who murders a dhimmi(non-Muslim under protection of the state) will not smell the fragrance of Paradise, even if its smell was forty years travelling distance" [Sahih Ahmed].
Extra info on Muhammed:
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?search=Islam&go=Go quote:
His basic message was one of belief in one God, respect for morality above and beyond tribal links, and prayer. As the ranks of his followers swelled, he became a threat to the local tribes, especially the Quraysh his own tribe whose responsibility it was to look after the Kaba, which at this time was home to the several thousand 'idols' that people worshipped as gods. As Muhammad preached against this pantheon he became deeply unpopular with the rulers and his followers suffered from repeated attacks to person and property. Eventually there was an assassination attempt. He was forced to flee Mecca on July 16, 622; this is known as the Hijrah, and it is the date that marks the beginning of the Islamic calendar.
Muhammad went to Medina (at that time known as "Yathrib") where he was invited to become ruler of the town by a large group of residents. He declared a welfare state, collected taxes for the needy, organised town defences against numerous raiding parties from Mecca and beyond, and entered numerous trade agreements. He built mosques, and established a religous culture based on respect for other religions and their freedom to practice (the town also was home to a number of Christians and Jews). He is credited with creating the first Constitution.
After the repeated raid attempts on the town, Muhammad and his followers began to raid the raiders' caravans, in retaliation and he distributed the treasure equally amongst his followers. By 627, Muhammad had united Medina under Islam with protected privileges for the Jews and Christians who lived there. Word of the new religion, with the peace and prosperity it brought spread by trade.
So what do we have here? Peace, tolerance for other religions, the first constitution, a welfare state, morality, monotheism. I see no violent source, as Dave claims.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
quote:
Muslims have certainly lived in Christian lands as well.
Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis disagrees with you. That is something which only happened in very recent times. Lewis says in his book, "What Went Wrong?" that Muslims hated coming to the backwaters of Europe, and that in fact until the decline of the Ottomans, Jews much preferred the tolerance of Islam to the murderous antagonism of Christendom.
I was thinking of modern times, from the European colonial period forward.
I acknowledge that in the Middle Ages, beginning with The Inquisition, that it was a very bad time for Jews to be living in Spain. Although Holland became a place where Jews could live in relative freedom. Areas of Southern Europe directly under the rule of Rome were the worst places for Jews, and Muslims, and for non-Catholic Christians as well, during the Inquisition.
And again, I see the Medeival Roman Catholic church as not representative of true Christianity, as I already outlined above.
And again, I think it is undeniable that Islam had invaded all of Spain and Portugal, and much of the Mediterranean portion of Southern France. Regardless of how it is spun otherwise, the Crusades and Inquisition were a clear backlash to a Muslim invader that has been expelled, and at this point, anyone in those re-conquered regions (Spain particularly) who were other than Christian were viewed with suspicion and brutal treatment.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy:
Universities, science, humanitarian aid, hospitals, and democracy are all innovations that came from the Christian community.
Universities, democracy, and science came from ancient Greece, a society which both Christendom and Islam claim as their root.
The word "hospital" comes from the Knights Hospitaller, a sect of Christians who helped the injured on the battlefields of the Crusades. But for most of the past 1000 years Muslim doctors were much superior to Western doctors.
"Humanitarian aid" is a modern concept hardly unique to Christian countries.
Ah, but it began as part of Christian outreach, to care for the poor.
In Roman times, unwanted children were left in the streets to die. Christians first created orphanages to care for unwanted children.
The Salvation Army, and the Red Cross, are likewise organizations that began for the sick and the poor, that were later imitated by other cultures.
The Red Crescent in the Muslim world is an offshoot, emulating the example of the earlier Red Cross. There was no similar organization before Christians brought it to the Muslim world.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy:
Christianity is far more peaceful at its root, and in its first 300 years, never had an army fight and conquer in its name.
You're being very selective with your dates. Christians were in sufficient numbers to gather an army in their first 300 years - the Romans would have annihilated them if they had.
They were in sufficient numbers, but didn't try to gather an army, because conquest was not in their beliefs.
It was Constantine, who politically used Christians to serve his own political ambitions, and established the Roman Catholic church to serve his own purposes. The reward was that Christians could, from that point forward, live in Rome and practice their religion without persecution.
My dates are not "convenient", they reflect --as I made clear above-- the point at which Christianity was hijacked and diverted from its true Biblical teachings, toward the corrupt political/state ambitions of Constantine.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy:
And the Inquisition and Crusades were also a direct result of Islamic invasion deep into European/Christian territory. It was more of a taking back what had been taken from them, with some obvious excesses that were done in the name of Christianity, but were clearly more political than religious.
What nonsense! The Spanish Inquisition was established as a pogrom against Jews and the few remaining Muslims in Granada - see http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?search=Spanish+inquisition&go=Go
As for the Crusades, from www.wikipedia.org
As I said, part of an over-reaction after dispelling an invader who had completely occupied Portugal, Spain, and a large portion of France. It is a manifestation of xenophobia toward all non-Christians at that time, by a Christian population who wanted to eliminate the possibility of being over-run again.
Cruel, yes, but understandable.
I think that the atrocities of the Crusaders described in your quoted historical account make it clear that these were not wars fought on Christian principle, but were the ambitious wars of a corrupt few, pursuing political ambition. Their success in driving the Moors out of Spain made them confident to invade the heart of Islam, and re-take the city of Jerusalem (which had, centuries before, been a Christian city, until it was seized by the Muslims in 638 ).
I don't know that Christians had good access to Holy places prior to Crusader invasion of Jerusalem.
I've heard similar notions of "free access" expressed about Jerusalem in recent times, that free access is available to Jews, Christians, and Muslims to Jerusalem and other holy places in modern times, before and after Israel took Jerusalem in 1967. And I've heard the "freedom" of all religions to use these places hotly questioned, in all eras, by all sides. I don't buy that Muslims gave "more free" access to Jerusalem's holy places.
The comparison of what "Crusade" and "Jihad" mean in the Christian and Islamic worlds was actually quite interesting.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
And then, you contradict yourself in two adjacent sentences:
quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy:
Islam, again, was violent in its spread from the time it began.
There have been peaceful and violent periods in both Muslim and Christian history.
As I made clear, I don't consider true Christianity to be practiced violently. I made clear that brutality occurred in the absence of true Christian teachings, under the deliberate misrepresentation of the Roman Catholic church and its clergy, which was finally abolished with the Enlightenment, begun by Martin Luther in 1517 (as I said above).
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
And finally, we see your prejudices and ignorance laid out in full:
That's a bit venomous and unnecessary, Dave. If you disagree with my views, there is ALWAYS a more diplomatic and polite way to say it than that.
As in the Gay Marriage topic, I think you go beyond respectful disagreement, and resort to name-calling.
I don't ever call you ignorant.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy:
But at its root beliefs, Islam advocates violence in the name of Islam. Christianity does not. They are NOT comparable religions.
But see this:
quote:
Islam assigns Jews and Christians (and certain other, smaller, religions) the status of people of the Book on the basis of their monotheism, and their beliefs about God and the world. This status is based on several passages from the Quran that say how Christians, Jews, and Muslims share common scripture, morals, and prophets. Muslims believe that the 'People of the Book,' if they are decent and good, regardless of the fact that they are not Muslim, will go to Heaven. They are seen as cousins in the family of believers, and Muslims are encouraged to live on peaceful and equitable terms with them.
In one verse of the Quran, it says "God forbids you not, with regards to those who fight you not for [your] faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them; for God loveth those who are just." (Quran, 60:8) which is interpreted as a clear admonition not to be disrespectful or unkind to non-Muslims. According to an authentic hadith, Muhammad said to his people "The one who murders a dhimmi(non-Muslim under protection of the state) will not smell the fragrance of Paradise, even if its smell was forty years travelling distance" [Sahih Ahmed].
There are many other portions of the Quran that teach violent treatment of all who are unreceptive to the teachings of Islam.
Christians, contrary to what you quoted above, are seen as unbelievers who have a misguided view of the Bible. Muslims teach that that Ishmael is the favored son of Abraham (not Isaac, as the Bible clearly teaches in Genesis chapters 16 and 17: )
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=GEN+16&language=english&version=NIV
And they likewise view Christians with more contempt than the verse you just quoted above would indicate.
They look at the Old Testament and New Testament (selectively excerpted) as books of wisdom, but they don't believe Jesus is God, or really much of any of what the Bible teaches beyond Genesis 16.
Muslims believe Christ's resurrection is a fraud, that another man died on the cross, so he could pull off a hoax.
Muslims believe that Christians are "polytheists" (Father/Son/Holy Ghost is seen as worshipping multiple gods), and the idea that Allah had a human son is considered blasphemous:
quote:
The Quran:
[4.157] And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa [Jesus] son of Marium [Mary], the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.
[4.171] O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only an apostle of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His apostles, and say not, Three. [trinity: Father, Son, Holy Ghost] Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector.
[5.75] The Messiah, son of Marium is but an apostle; apostles before him have indeed passed away; and his mother was a truthful woman; they both used to eat food. See how We make the communications clear to them, then behold, how they are turned away.
[19.88] And they [Christians] say: The Beneficent God has taken (to Himself) a son.
[19.89] Certainly you have made an abominable assertion
[19.90] The heavens may almost be rent thereat, and the earth cleave asunder, and the mountains fall down in pieces,
[19.91] That they ascribe a son to the Beneficent God.
Clearly, Muslims do not share Christian faith in Jesus as Messiah. And view Christians with suspicion accordingly.
Here is the verse I was thinking of, about dealing with non-Muslim believers:
quote:
The Quran:
[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
[4.90] Except those who reach a people between whom and you there is an alliance, or who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people; and if Allah had pleased, He would have given them power over you, so that they should have certainly fought you; therefore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them.
[4.91] You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given.you a clear authority.
And here is Osama Bin Ladin's declaration of Jihad on Crusaders. You will note that the language is virtually identical:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A4993-2001Sep21
I say this because a considerable percentage of the Islamic world agrees with and approves of what Bin Ladin is doing, whether or not they would engage in violence on Crusaders themselves.
As I've said on other topics, many young Muslims have Osama Bin Ladin screen savers.
Between 30-50% of the population in most Islamic countries boycotts American products and businesses.
That is a clear endorsement of 9-11-2001.
The multiple Arab/Muslim nations (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and others)involved in terrorism toward Israel, in rallies rich with Islamic holy rhetoric and noble martyrdom for Allah, likewise demonstrate a considerable Quran-based body of aggression and destruction.
To say nothing of Quran-based Muslim aggression in Sudan, Liberia, The Phillipines, Indonesia, East Timor, Chechnya, and elsewhere.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Here is the verse I was thinking of, about dealing with non-Muslim believers:
quote:
The Quran:
[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
[4.90] Except those who reach a people between whom and you there is an alliance, or who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people; and if Allah had pleased, He would have given them power over you, so that they should have certainly fought you; therefore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them.
[4.91] You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given.you a clear authority.
And here is Osama Bin Ladin's declaration of Jihad on Crusaders. You will note that the language is virtually identical:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A4993-2001Sep21
...
The multiple Arab/Muslim nations (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and others)involved in terrorism toward Israel, in rallies rich with Islamic holy rhetoric and noble martyrdom for Allah, likewise demonstrate a considerable Quran-based body of aggression and destruction.
To say nothing of Quran-based Muslim aggression in Sudan, Liberia, The Phillipines, Indonesia, East Timor, Chechnya, and elsewhere.
Hmmm... How should I rebut?
quote:
From Cecil:
...Similarly, it's irresponsible to insist that some inherent quality of the Islamic religion perpetuates ignorant fanaticism. Islam is much like Christianity, in that you can find something in it to justify almost any fool notion.
Yeah, that about covers it.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
I say this because a considerable percentage of the Islamic world agrees with and approves of what Bin Ladin is doing, whether or not they would engage in violence on Crusaders themselves.
As I've said on other topics, many young Muslims have Osama Bin Ladin screen savers.
Between 30-50% of the population in most Islamic countries boycotts American products and businesses.
That is a clear endorsement of 9-11-2001.
The same could be said for a healthy percentage of the non-Islamic world. Dislike of the 50 States (and the wealth and power they hold) is more of a third-world thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Yes, I "really believe this."
klinton, if you look at the histories of Harvard, Princeton and Yale, in the founding of those Universities, you will quickly see this confirmed.
In the age of the Reformation, literacy was promoted by Protestant Christians, so each individual could read the Bible for themselves.
Most of the major scientists until the 20th century were devout Christians. Including Isaac Newton, the founder of modern Mathematics and Physics.
Christianity (and again, in case it's not clear, I'm speaking of the institution, not individual faith in God) has for the most part stood directly in the path of scientific advancement. Things like university and democracy have far older and more pagan origins. Yes, there are some shining examples of christians that accomplished great things in these areas, but they did so largely in opposition to popular christian thinking. Newton himself puplished works declaring that chritianity had lost it's way, and no longer adhered to Christ's intentions.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
It clearly has a contempt for Christianity, a level of bias and contempt that makes me wonder if the rest of what the writer says could possibly be accurate.
One could say the same for your view of Islam.
quote:
The early spread of Islam was through conquest for hundreds of years, and putting any in conquered areas who would not convert to Islam "to the sword".
....so was Christianity!
quote:
Christianity is far more peaceful at its root, and in its first 300 years, never had an army fight and conquer in its name.
....what?!? You can't be serious, can you?
quote:
And the Inquisition and Crusades were also a direct result of Islamic invasion deep into European/Christian territory.
...no, they were direct results of paranoia and intolerance.
quote:
It was more of a taking back what had been taken from them, with some obvious excesses that were done in the name of Christianity, but were clearly more political than religious.
Back then there was no seperation between the two.
quote:
Once printing presses made the Bible widely available to individuals, Christianity changed dramatically, and regained the peaceful nature that had been lost.
No, it just provided a larger platform for misinterpretation. The KKK, the Darwin cases, most hate crimes are based on the principle of Christinaity. It's become nothing more than an excuse for criminals to exercise their violent tendencies without having to take responsibility for their actions.
How many foreign countries have Christians invaded, intent on conversion?
Too bad I don't share your knack for condescending remarks and insulting one-liners.
Perhaps then I could be a liberal as well.
Christian-bashing is quite fashionable, whether or not you have the facts on your side. It is fashionable to label Christianity as repressive and ignorant, and give no credit to the many achievements and benevolent social changes that have risen from Christianity.
It is not only Bible and Koran quotation that back up what I'm saying, but international news of violence and terrorism, violence toward women, and other repression, in virtually every Muslim nation.
All your smug condescension and skewed assumptions about Christianity won't change that.
I would argue that it is the stifling effect of Islam on personal freedom, business and trade that has left the Muslim nations behind the rest of the world.
You'd clearly rather rip on Christianity than address the flaws of Islam.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Too bad I don't share your knack for condescending remarks and insulting one-liners.
I wasn't being condescending. My confusion was genuine. You seem to be an intelligent, well informed individual, yet your comment(or, at least, what I took from it) seemed quite the opposite.
As for my "insulting one liners", no malice was intended. I just think that a lot of the things you discredit Islam and it's roots for are also historically apparent in Christianity. If you're offended by that, I'm sorry, but it's my opinion(and, I'm gathering, also the opinion of klinton).
quote:
Perhaps then I could be a liberal as well.
I don't recall disclosing my political leanings to you(and I'd prefer you not assume you know me, when you obviously don't), and I don't see what that has to do with the topic, either. As far as I'm concerned, that's another topic entirely.
quote:
Christian-bashing is quite fashionable, whether or not you have the facts on your side.
I think there's a reason it's "fashionable." I've met quite a few Christians in my brief time as a human being, and I've had to study more of Christian/Jewish history then I'd probably care to otherwise. There's no denying that Christianity has had a fairly sordid past.
quote:
It is fashionable to label Christianity as repressive and ignorant, and give no credit to the many achievements and benevolent social changes that have risen from Christianity.
Now, I don't think anyone labels Christianity as repressive and ignorant, as Christianity is just a religion. It's the people behind the religion and those that perpetuate it's growth that take the brunt of such generalizations.
I'd say that the "many achievements and benevolent social changes"(at least the one's you mention, like universities, science, humanitarian aid, hospitals, and democracy) are products of individuals or groups of people interested in helping societal growth, who, in certain cases, happened to be Christian. Not the church or prominent Christian figures, and not for Christrianity's benefit.
What's more, Christianity has often hindered the development of science. Some of the most famous scientific minds in history have been persecuted, ostricized and even executed because their theories and discoveries contradicted the popular beliefs and traditions of Christian teachings. Look at Galileo, who was imprisoned during the Inquisition in 1633.
quote:
It is not only Bible and Koran quotation that back up what I'm saying, but international news of violence and terrorism, violence toward women, and other repression, in virtually every Muslim nation.
You mention in your post how Christians are often labeled as oppressive and ignorant, then you do the same exact thing to those who practice Islam, here. Islam in no way promotes or supports the oppression of women, or violence of any kind. You'll probably say this is an example of "insulting, smug condescension", but I find that to be very hypocritical and pretentious.
quote:
I would argue that it is the stifling effect of Islam on personal freedom, business and trade that has left the Muslim nations behind the rest of the world. You'd clearly rather blame it on America and Christianity.
I don't blame Christianity or Islam for anything, as I've said before. I blame those that misinterpret it and use it to excuse their actions.
You know, I just posted a long point-by-point response to all your points, Animalman, and just decided to delete it instead.
My points are clear enough already. I respectfully agree to disagree with your interpretation.
I've not been about for the past day or so, and I see that this has kicked on without me.
I'm about to go to bed, and don't have the inclination right now to attack what you've had to say, Dave.
But I have to admit, this:
quote:
Cruel, yes, but understandable.
is a first for me: apologism for the Spanish Inquisition.
And, just because I can't help myself:
quote:
Christian-bashing is quite fashionable, whether or not you have the facts on your side. It is fashionable to label Christianity as repressive and ignorant, and give no credit to the many achievements and benevolent social changes that have risen from Christianity.
It is not only Bible and Koran quotation that back up what I'm saying, but international news of violence and terrorism, violence toward women, and other repression, in virtually every Muslim nation.
All your smug condescension and skewed assumptions about Christianity won't change that.
I would argue that it is the stifling effect of Islam on personal freedom, business and trade that has left the Muslim nations behind the rest of the world.
You'd clearly rather rip on Christianity than address the flaws of Islam.
I personally see no reason to rip into Christianity other than to point out that for every flaw you see in contemporary Islam, Christianity has suffered from similar flaws in its past. Benevolent Christianity is a recent phenomonon. Oppressive Islam is a recent phenomonon. There is no denying that Christian ethics were a factor in Western development. But by the same token, Islam was a factor in the development of the tolerant societies of the Middle East of the Middle Ages.
Further, for every Quranic verse you find which offends you, I can match it with an equivalent verse from the Bible (and certainly the Apocrypha, which was removed from canon by bishops because even they thought some of it was too offensive. I have read one story where a child Jesus calls own angels to rip apart his tormentors).
I'm sorry, Dave, but saying that Islam was born of the sword is ignorant of its origins - if not ignorant, then unreasonably biased or bigoted. If you find any academic, neutral, objective material on the origins of Islam which say anything to the contrary of a peaceful (anything to the left of the Christian Science Monitor), I'll gladly read them.
By "origins" I mean Muhammed, not his successors (many of which were conquest-orientated).
PS East Timor is a Catholic country.
It's been about a year since I looked at information on East Timor, so I researched it at these links, among others I found less useful:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/503050.stm I actually found this BBC link to be the most clear overview.
http://www.un.org/peace/etimor/UntaetB.htm I posted this because you seem to favor the UN perspective. I find the UN to generally favor Muslim and other anti-American/anti-European interests. Where brutal third-world dictatorships voice strenuous objection to relatively minor violations of more civilized nations, while they slaaughter and brutalize their own citizens and minorities. Sudan, for example.
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/EastTimor.asp Just a third source, which I also found to be a good overview of East Timor.
None of these sources mention that East Timor is Catholic, and that the invading Indonesia is Muslim. But I think we both know that's an influential factor.
The BBC link acknowledges that East Timor's independence represents a threatening presence of Europe in their region. But since the citizens of Timor are natives of the region, it is arguably East Timor's ties to European culture, and specifically Christianity, that Indonesia finds threatening.
I found this overview of the clash of Islam and Christianity particularly relevant to this discussion:
http://www.700club.com/cbnnews/commentary/islamhistory0212%2Easp It discusses in detail the events leading up to "Christian aggression" in the Crusades, detailing 400 years of Islamic brutality toward Christians in Jerusalem and the surrounding area.
I know you have an aversion to Christian sources, but there are few places these events would be given fair treatment elsewhere in the media.
There is a tendency to overplay Christian aggression, and downplay Islamic violence and aggression.
I'll take a look at them, although I'm going to take the link to the 700 Club (Pat Robertson, isn't it?) with an enormous grain of salt.
quote:
August 28, 2003
Stage Is Set for Islamic World Renaissance
By Jonathan Power, Jonathan Power writes a column from London.
Too many observers look at Iraq as if it were a boxing match. Invasion — one up for the West, well at least for the United States and Britain. Sabotage an oil pipeline — one down for the West. And so it will go on. Only one thing is clear: In the cold, searching light of history, each of these incidents that absorb us will not even rank as footnotes.
Whatever one thinks of political scientist Samuel Huntington's book "The Clash of Civilizations," a competition of civi- lizations it nevertheless is and has long been. And we need to know that history, if only to absorb its greatest lesson: Military success on either side has never determined the direction of the civilization in question for more than a century or two. That is the lesson of the Crusades and it is also the lesson of the great Ottoman Empire, which started to lose intellectual momentum in the 15th century when its military reach was at its zenith.
Yet even if the Christian West is now in the ascendancy, it has never come to terms with how much it owes Islamic civilization. It was the Abbasid dynasty, founded after an internal Muslim coup in the year 750, that absorbed the Hellenic legacy at a time when, under Charlemagne, Europe intellectually withered.
In Charlemagne's Europe, reading and writing were not highly regarded, as they were in the Islamic world. The scientific, medical and philosophical learning of classical antiquity was almost entirely forgotten. Christian culture was backward and conservative, and intellectual life was dominated by the Bible and the Latin fathers of the church.
The Western world didn't begin to regain its intellectual luster until the 12th and 13th centuries, when it borrowed back from the Islamic world the scientific and intellectual knowledge it had forgotten about. Then the rise of the West took the Islamic world by surprise.
Once the 15th century was underway, Europe started to find its pace. This was the age of printing, exploration and Western hegemony. Even though the Ottoman Empire was emerging as the most powerful state in the world, after the conquest of Constantinople, Islam started to regress intellectually. Historians find it difficult to explain this contradiction, but it should act as a warning to Western hubris.
The West, particularly the United States, is militarily strong today, yet it seems not to have the political leverage of only a generation or so ago.
It does not help our standing in the world to say that Islam is not a religion of the sword, as George W. Bush and Tony Blair have, in a mistaken attempt to fudge history and appear conciliatory. In part it is. Muhammad himself became a warrior, and within 20 years of his death the Muslims had captured much of the Roman and Persian empires.
Neither does it help to imply, as both Bush and Blair have done, that the West is motivated by its Christian principles. Christ, in marked contrast to Muhammad, was a man of nonviolence, as were his early followers.
It was only when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire after the conversion of Constantine in 312 that it changed its philosophy. Then it became, and has long continued to be, as much a warrior religion as Islam. Bush's and Blair's breath would be better spent educating electorates as to the likelihood of the Islamic world regaining its foothold in history and becoming again a mighty intellectual, scientific and, inevitably, military force. In fact, this is what Saddam Hussein in his own idiosyncratic, violence-infused way was trying to bring off.
These are today's missteps, but this renaissance of Islam will come to pass in one not-too-distant day, if only because the roots of civilization in the Islamic world run deep. The brainpower is certainly there. It is just a question of the right political structures. In the modern world perhaps democracy can be the key to unlock the stored-up potential, as modern Turkey seems to be demonstrating.
And the West should unreservedly welcome it.
The West should take its cue from scholars of 15th century Renaissance humanism, especially the Spaniard John of Segovia and the German Nicholas of Cusa, as Richard Fletcher has suggested in his new book, "The Cross and the Crescent." John argued that it was important to find points of contact between Christianity and Islam — convergence, not divergence. Nicholas, who became a cardinal, argued that despite the differences between the two faiths it had to be realized that human knowledge could never be more than conjectural. If there is a truth, it can be understood only by means of mystical intuition.
These eternal questions of civilization are the ones we should be concentrating on. Which side is up and which is down in Iraq are, by comparison, truly ephemeral.
I doubt there will be an Islamic renaissance any time in the short-term future, while Islam is in its current siege mentality state of existence.
Also , I think most of what got me irritated on this thread is that someone could so blatantly regard his religion as superior to any other, and be so dismissive of the merits another religion. But looking at Dave's sources, I realise why:
quote:
I found this overview of the clash of Islam and Christianity particularly relevant to this discussion:
http://www.700club.com/cbnnews/commentary/islamhistory0212%2Easp
It discusses in detail the events leading up to "Christian aggression" in the Crusades, detailing 400 years of Islamic brutality toward Cristians in Jerusalem and the surrounding area.
I know you have an aversion to Christian sources, but there are few places these events would be given fair treatment elsewhere in the media.
This link contains pure apologist propaganda. Its also wrong. Here is an academic perspective, agenda-free:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
quote:
In Western Europe the Crusades have traditionally been regarded by laypeople as heroic defensive enterprises, although not all historians have agreed. In the Islamic world, however, the Crusades are regarded to this day as cruel and savage onslaughts by Christendom on Islam, and so, for example, some of the rhetoric from Islamic fundamentalists uses the term "crusade" in this emotional context to refer to Western moves against them. Eastern Orthodox Christians also see the Crusades as attacks by the West, especially because of the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade.
There is an interesting symmetry between the terms "Crusade" and "Jihad". In the West the term "Crusade" has positive connotations (for example a politician might use rhetoric such as "a crusade against illegal drugs") while the term "Jihad" has negative connotations associated with fanatical holy war. In the Islamic world the term "Jihad" has positive connotations that include a much broader meaning of general personal and spiritual struggle, while the term "Crusade" has the negative connotations described above. Thus to correctly translate nuances of meaning, the use of "Jihad" in Arabic should be translated to "Crusade" in English while use of the Arabic term for "Crusade" should be translated to "Jihad" in English.
In truth much of what the crusaders did was less than heroic. They committed atrocities not just against Muslims but also against Jews and Christians. For example the Fourth Crusade never made it to Palestine, but instead sacked Constantinople, the capital of the Christian Byzantine Empire. This crusade served to deepen the already hard feelings between Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Western Christianity. The Byzantine Empire eventually recovered Constantinople, but its strength never fully recovered, and the Byzantine Empire finally fell to the Ottomans in 1453.
[quote]
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade
[quote]
After a break, the rest of the Crusader army marched on to Jerusalem, which had, in the meanwhile, been recaptured by the Fatimids of Egypt. After a lengthy siege in which the Crusaders probably suffered more than the citizens of the city (with 15,000 marching in starvation on July 8), Jerusalem was taken on July 15, 1099. The Crusaders massacred the whole Muslim and Jewish population, men, women and children. The Jews were burned alive in their main synagogue where they had fled; the Muslims were slaughtered in the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and according to the accounts their blood ran ankle-deep.
There can be no apologism for this.
You seem to apologize for Muslim atrocities, while holding in greater contempt any casualties/atrocities by Christians.
War is war, and atrocities occur on both sides in any war.
I still hold to the argument that Islam at its core is violent, and that it spread violently from its beginning, in the 7th century.
There are those who now (and throughout its history) have practiced Islam peacefully. But there can be no denying that Islam was spread from its inception by the sword, and has a long history of putting any dissenters to the sword.
Whereas, Christianity, despite some abberrant atrocities perpetrated in the name of Christianity, is clearly peaceful at its core, and initially spread across the Middle East and Europe peacefully.
"Free Will" is at the core of Christian faith. The freedom to accept or reject it.
And again, the period of the Crusades (1099 A.D.to 1300 A.D., roughly) was NOT a period of Muslim peace toward the West, but a period where Muslims had invaded deep into Europe. A quick look at a map of Moorish or Ottoman empires from 1000 A.D. to almost 1600 A.D. makes my point unmistakeably clear.
And I still hold to the argument of the 700 Club article you just quoted:
That whatever atrocities were perpetrated on the Christian side during the Crusades ( clearly not something endorsed in Christian teachings) that
there was provocation from the Muslim side over the previous several hundred years that finally brought about Christian retribution, that invoked the Crusades in 1099.
It wasn't just Christians, out of the blue, deciding to expand their territory into the heart of Islam. There was Islamic provocation. Islam had invaded deep into Europe.
And, I might add, Muslims had slaughtered the pre-existing Christian populations in the Middle East and North Africa, when "converting" those areas to Islam.
And I might also add, Islam still spreads the same way across the Islamic world.
Sudan has murdered between 2 and 3 million Christians and other non-Muslims since 1981 and ongoing.
And Islam has contributed to, if not solely instigated, many other regional conflicts across the globe, from Liberia to Chechnya, to Palestine, to Iraq and Iran, to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia, East Timor and the Phillipines. And that is not even a complete list.
Historically, and presently, Islam is a lightning-rod for fanatical violence, in the sacred cause of spreading its influence, and of maintaining its existing territory.
Finally, I question the impartiality of your so-called superior "academic source". It is difficult to say with certainty what the motivations of the person or persons are who wrote the anonymously authored piece on the
http://www.wikipedia.org/ website. It may be objective, or it may not.
I don't like the way you assume that your sources are entirely objective and right, and simultaneously assume that my sources are not, simply because this one I quoted is from a clearly attributed Christian news source. Your
http://www.wikepedia.org/ source may have ideological biases that are not as freely admitted.
Everyone, academic or not, has opinions and biases.
We're back to the same problem with your objective/subjective argument that we've had across several topics now.
Wikipedia has a set of editors who cull biased entries. It is intended to be an agenda-free source of information: if there are arguments for and against a topic, both are included. Setting aside the mission of Wikipedia, reading both sides of an argument is more persuasive than a mere, bald assertion of facts which happen to fit a certain contention.
I'll write more in a few days - we've got a typhoon passing through here and I've got to get home...
another murderous fundamentalist seeking martyrdomFunny how it's twice as disturbing when he's representing my own religion.
I don't consider him representative of
anything I believe.
![[no no no]](graemlins/nono.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
I still hold to the argument that Islam at its core is violent, and that it spread violently from its beginning. There are those who now (and throughout its history) have practiced Islam peacefully. But there can be no denying that it was spread from its inception by the sword, and has a long history of putting any dissenters to the sword.
Whereas, Christianity, despite some abberrant atrocities perpetrated in the name of Christianity, is clearly peaceful at its core, and initially spread across the Middle East and Europe peacefully.
Look, the Jews, Muslims, and Christians are all children of Abraham. We all have the same father, and the same God. Don't forget Ishmael was the first one born -- and through him the Muslim religion.
You know what I heard about Muslim culture the other day, DTWB? The first words a newborn hears are from the Koran. The same prayers he/she will hear for the rest of her life five times a day. I think that is one of the most beautiful and heartfelt things I have ever heard. I refuse to believe that any religion that encourages daily prayer (five times a day no less) and can produce some of the greatest inventions and artwork can be bad.
quote:
Originally posted by whomod:
another murderous fundamentalist seeking martyrdom
Funny how it's twice as disturbing when he's representing my own religion.
Dang it, you beat me to it!
I want this guy's lights put out. I want his little candle extingished. You know how I said I hated the death penalty -- and I'd hate it if it were gone? This is one case where I think its the best thing to do. This guy has been addressing fan mail for several years while in jail. He shot a man that was not commiting a crime -- I still think abortion should become illegal, but this doctor was not breaking any law. Yeah, Jesus wants you to shoot people like that. Boy, aren't you a good little Christian. It makes me sick to think I agree with this creep in some abstract way. I want no part of his cause, however.
In both these cases, people are making judgements baised on some extreamist. I don't associate with extreamist. Even if they are Christian. I call these people 'Bible-humpers' because they take the word of God and twist it around to suit there needs. They may not get it in this life, but I am sure they'll be punished in the next.
*sigh*
God bless America.
That may or may not actually be a dwarf.
Zealotry doesn't seem to be confined to the Middle East, I see.
Liberalism: All beliefs are created equal, but some are more equal and yield better poll results than others.
![[yuh huh]](images/icons/rolleyes.gif)
Should people be murdered because they practice abortions? Absolutely not! But should people who oppose abortion be lumped into the same category as such extremists?
All religion is shit,self belief is far more important than belief in some imaginary deity.
At the end of the day all religions are the creation of man anyway,god didnt write the bible or whatever book other religions read.
I'd love to hear your reasoning there.
"GOD works in mysterious ways"
Isn´t that the line that has been used to justify "insert whatever you want"?
and isn´t it a quote based on christianity?
and did´nt christian fanatics mercilessly slaughter muslims in the middleeast at the end of the 1970´s (or was it the 1960´s, can´t remember)
If the Christian faith is really a peaceful religion at the root, then God isn´t the right God for this religion!
read the old testament and then say that this is peaceful religion!
it´s full of death torment and genocide!
besides, the notion that Islam is a violent religion because Islamic Nations invaded Europe is just crazy, that has nothing to do with religion. It´s simply a nation invading another nation and then claiming that God is on their side and simply just another display of the violent side of the human nature.
heh, humanity, you gotta´ love it!!
"Don't let a few bad apples spoil the whole bunch."
I think that sums up what to do about religious terrorist from EVERY denomination.
Islam preaches the death of all those that are not Muslim.........there is no grey area here. Deep down they are not good people.
Now I know there are some peaceful muslims that live in western areas.....but they simply choose to ignore the parts of the Quran that preach war. The muslims in the middle east however.....even our "allies" won't shed any tears if we all go away.
Which is why I have never been able to understand how any Jewish people could ever vote for a Democrat.....or how Joe Lieberman and other powerful Democrats will simply look the other way while Muslims try to destroy Israel. My sister-in-law and many friends of mine are Jewish and Republican.....I can't understand how that isn't the norm.
I think America is and should remain a Judeo-Christian society. But I also think a lot of propaganda is going around since 9-11 about the Islam faith. Here's an interesting article I found yesterday:
quote:
Five Common Myths About Islam
Muslims around the world and in the US have long been subject to negative stereotyping where they are presented as terrorists, as uncivilized, barbaric, exotic peoples who are oppressive to women. This portrayal of Islam and Muslims is perpetuated by many sectors of the US mainstream media as well as public edcuational institutions. The following are five of the most widely held misconceptions about Islam and Muslims.
Islam Degrades Women
One of the most generally held misconceptions about Islam is that it is a mysogynistic religion: it requires Muslim women to cover their entire bodies except for parts of their faces, it sanctions different divorce rights based on gender, and it allows Muslim men to limit the freedom of movement of Muslim women.
Indeed, a brief look at the countries in which Islam is the predominant religion would support these views: in Saudi Arabia, women are not allowed to drive unless they are ast least 35 and married; until recently in Afghanistan, women were forced to remain at home, and were required to be entirely covered when they did emerge; in Nigeria, there have been accounts of rape victims being stoned to death for engaging in extramarital sex.
Yet many Muslim scholars today are emphasizing the distinction between what Islam as a religion advocates, and what Muslims (who often live in impoverished societies with little access to education) do. They draw attention to the fact that the laws sanctioning such misogynistic behavior are not advocated in the Quran (the holy text in Islam), but that this traditional Islamic jurisprudence (known in Arabic as shari'ah) was written primarily by Muslim men in the 10th-12th centuries who were interpreting the Quran to fit their own socio-cultural circumstances. Today many progressive Muslims are emphasizing the importance of re-interpreting the Quran for the present day, allowing Islam's ideals of social and gender justice to be highlighted. They point out the many sections in the Quran regarding the equality of men and women. According to these individuals, there is little basis in Islam for these violations of the rights of women. Rather, these practices are the products of laws written by Muslim jurists hundreds of years ago, combined with local customs... practices that don't reflect the egalitarian and humanitarian nature of Islam.
Just as Christian, Jewish, and other societies have evolved over the centuries gradually to allow greater rights to women, Muslim intellectuals insist that Muslim societies will also do so, if given the opportunity. Iran, a country in which there is a large reform movement among the younger generation, is one such example. However, US and Western intervention over the past century has kept the Muslim world in a state of political and economic unrest, making social change virtually impossible.
Islam is Intolerant of Non-Muslims
Recent announcements on television and radio by Osama Bin Laden and others who claim to speak in the name of Islam espouse a view that Muslims are a racist people with little tolerance, and even a desire to destroy, non-Muslim societies, and especially Jews. While these extremists and the Western xenophobes who oppose them attribute these opinions to Islam, an observer needs to separate politics from religion to understand the situation more clearly.
The Quran and other Muslim texts preach tolerance of non-Muslims and especially emphasize the value of human life, the ban on killing non-combatants, and respect for people of other religions. The fact that many acts of terror in recent years have been perpetrated by Muslims should not lead us to lay the blame on the religion of these individuals, since Christian, Jewish, and other histories - even in present times - are similarly filled with instances of violence waged in the name of their faiths. Rather, we should investigate the underlying motives of these individuals, most of whom come from nations in which the United States government has long been supporting puppet governments and providing funding for military actions against the people of these countries. We could point to the United States' support of the Saudi regime, in which the royal family is allowed by the US to rule in an undemocratic fashion in exchange for providing cheap oil resources; or the US' annual financial aid of about $9 billion to the government of Israel which uses these funds in its continued illegal occupation of Palestinian lands; or the US' financial backing of Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.
Such circumstances provoke the oppressed people of these nations to feel great animosity towards the United States. And just as others have unjustifiably pointed to religion as the inspiration for their actions, these individuals similarly claim Islam as their motivation, despite the numerous instances in the Quran which discourage them from doing so. Thus, in order to understand the root of the violence, it is important to recognize the significance of the role of US foreign policy in world politics as well.
Islam Advocates Conservatism
In various parts of the world, including the Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asia, there exist countries which claim to base their governmental system on Islamic law, and which are also strongly associated with conservatism. Such countries have limited opportunities for freedom of speech, and are well known for their violations of human rights, especially those of women, homosexuals, and non-Muslims. For this reason, Islam as a religion has come to be associated with conservatism and fundamentalism.
What this view does not acknowledge, however, is that the laws that govern these nations were written by men, and are not directly stated anywhere in the Quran or hadith (i.e. the speech and actions of the prophet Muhammad). While the individuals who wrote them would state that they were inspired by Islamic ideals, it is important to note that Islamic jurisprudence was written by men living more than 1000 years ago who were interpreting the Islamic holy texts to fit the patriarchal society which was prevalent not just in the Arabian peninsula where they lived, but throughout the world.
Today, many progressive Muslims are calling for a re-interpretation of the Quran and hadith to produce a revitalized system of Islamic jurisprudence that reflects the tolerance of individuals of different genders, religions, and sexualities, within the Islamic framework. With this view, it would be incorrect to state that Islam as a religion promotes conservatism and fundamentalism, but rather that a more contemporary interpretation of holy texts is required, free of the socio-cultural constraints present hundreds of years ago.
All Muslims are Arabs, and All Arabs are Muslims
Another myth prevalent today is that all Muslims are Arabs, all Arabs are Muslims, or that these two groups are in fact one and the same. This misconception could not be further from the truth. While Muslims are those who subscribe to the religion of Islam, Arabs are a linguistic and cultural group found mainly in the Middle East.
Islam is the religion of over 1.2 billion people in the world today, and only 15-20% of these are Arabs. In fact, the nations with the largest Muslim populations are Indonesia and India, and Muslims today come from a tremendous range of ethnic groups, including Asians, Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics.
Arabs, meanwhile, represent a number of different religions, not just Islam. Throughout the Arab world, there are Christians, such as those in Palestine, Lebanon, and Egypt, as well as Jews, such as those in Iraq, Yemen, and Morocco, and members of other religious groups.
Jihad Means Holy War, and it is Being Waged Against the West
In the past few years, the term jihad, literally "struggle" in Arabic, has become one of the most misunderstood terms surrounding Islam. Many have come to see the word as meaning a "holy war," one in which the entirety of the West and non-Muslims are being targeted.
The word jihad is used by Muslims to mean a struggle on three different levels to bring oneself closer to God. Firstly, it is an internal struggle against one's own selfish tendencies so that an individual becomes more spiritual and moral. Secondly, it is a struggle on the level of one's community, for goals such as social justice and human rights. Thirdly, jihad can be an armed struggle in the name of Islam, either for self-defense, to establish justice, or to deter an aggressor. As noted above, individuals who have been trampled by global politics have often turned to this final definition as justification for their violent actions against the United States, despite the presence of many sections in the Quran banning the killing of, and the violence against, innocents. Thus, while jihad sometimes - but not always - implies violence, many Muslims would object to its use in this context, stating that the actions of Bin Laden and others are primarily politically motivated, and not justifiable by Muslim texts.
Reference: Progressive Muslims. Ed. by Omid Safi. Oneworld Publications (UK), 2003.
Source: http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/islam/islammyths.html
Here's another interesting article with more facts:
http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp0724.html
In Muslim countries, teaching of Christianity is punishable by death. Conversion of a Muslim to another religion is punishable by death.
In the West Bank and Gaza, Muslims encourage children to become suicide bombers --CHILDREN ! As if it wasn't bad enough that adults would commit suicide bombings.
As a Jewish official said to ted Koppel on Nightline a few months ago: "They hate us more than they love their own children." I believe that is the very definition of fanaticism.
A vast percentage of Muslims are sympathetic to terrorism and openly endorse it. As I quoted earlier from a Washington Post article, 30% to 50% of the population in most Muslim nations began boycotting American products and businesses after 9/11. If that's not an endorsement of 9/11 terrorism, I don't know what is.
Even in the United States, so-called "moderate" Muslims, probably the most moderate Muslims in the world, when interviewed on 60 Minutes (in a story titled "Young, Muslim and American"), endorse suicide bombings as honorable, and that if one dies martyring themselves in the cause of Allah, they are assured a place in heaven. One 15-year-old Muslim girl from the New York City area volunteered: "Like, if I were to blow myself up to destroy an American military base... I would go to heaven."
At which point I began to wonder why ANY Muslims are allowed to stay in the United States.
Muslim hate of Westerners, particularly Americans, is so burning that just two weeks ago, an SUV carrying Americans (who were on a mission to recruit Palestinians for scholarships to a U.S. university) was blown up with a radio-controlled explosive buried under the road as they traveled into Gaza from the Israeli border. When other foreign reporters came to the shattered SUV to help, they were attacked by a Palestinian crowd, who clearly would have beaten the reporters to death if they didn't narrowly escape.
This incident is considered the shape of things to come, for potentially more violence against Americans in the area, and a direct result of the vitriolic anti-American rhetoric and news coverage in West bank and Gaza.
An estimated 90% of residents in the West Bank and Gaza were cheering in the streets at the news of the terror against the U.S. on 9/11/2001. After that, Israel could turn the West bank and Gaza into a smoking nuclear crater, and I wouldn't condemn it. These are people so indoctrinated in hate that no agreement could ever neutralize their thirst for Israeli blood.
In Saudi Arabia, a woman cannot leave the country without her husband's permission. A woman is property, who can be beaten into submission. And has no protection from this by Islamic law. A woman cannot DRIVE A CAR in Saudi Arabia.
If a woman divorces her husband, the husband has exclusive rights to the children. I have a friend from Turkey (a more civilized Muslim country, and still...) She has two children she has not seen since the divorce. She told me of one occasion when she flew from Florida to Istanbul, and stood outside her former home. She was still not allowed to see her children.
The movie Not Without My daughter describes the situation where many individual American and European women who have married Muslim men and reside in Muslim countries, are unable to leave. And if they DO manage to get out, they forever lose any contact with their children. (Thanks for the movie recommendation, batwomanamy!)
"Honor killing": the right of a Muslim man to murder a woman, wife or other female family member, if they feel that this woman has brought disgrace on their family.
I've heard many stories of women in Islamic countries being beaten, disfigured, or (frequently) scarred with acid, when a man's advances are refused.
A friend of mine, Kaivan, served in the Iraqi army during the 1980-1989 Iran/Iraq war. He described teaching of the Imams (Muslim clerics). They would send out children into the battlefield in front of the advancing army, to blow up the mines. The children were told that if they die for Allah (martyrdom), they are assured a place in heaven. Kaivan is adamantly non-Muslim as a result of his disgust for this, and other things he saw.
Multiple examples of Palestinian civilians lynching their own fellow citizems, for collaborating with Israelis, voicing ideas of negotiating peace with the Israelis, or being suspected of cooperating with the Israelis. Lynchings are common. I saw footage of one incident where the bodies of the collaborators were hung for several days in a public square of a town's city hall, as a warning to others.
A few examples I can think of off the top of my head, of how "misunderstood" Islam is. Misunderstood by misguidedly sympathetic press, for not being exactly as dangerous a belief system as these examples make clear.
quote:
A vast percentage of Muslims are sympathetic to terrorism and openly endorse it.
Assuming this is fact, why do you think they are that way? Do you it's because of their religion? Maybe they don't appreciate interventions and sanctions. Do they hate our freedom, or our interventions?
quote:
The children were told that if they die for Allah (martyrdom), they are assured a place in heaven.
That is extremely sick! But is it an example of a "misguided belief system" or sick people taking advantage of naive children?
quote:
Originally posted by JQ:
quote:
posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
A vast percentage of Muslims are sympathetic to terrorism and openly endorse it.
Assuming this is fact, why do you think they are that way? Do you it's because of their religion? Maybe they don't appreciate interventions and sanctions. Do they hate our freedom, or our interventions?
I think U.S./Western interventions and sanctions are rationalized by Muslims as the reason for violence against the U.S. and Israel. But that rationalization dismisses the situation that brought about U.S. intervention in the first place.
And also dismisses that the Muslim Imams are very active in stoking the fires of Arab hatred, raising the call for Jihad.
Every one of the Muslim terror groups (Al Qaida, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Ansar al Islam, etc.) is clearly an Islam-based group. Islamic religion is the core of it. Glamorization of martyrdom for Islam is the core of it. Quotation of the Quran --by the Muslim clergy-- is the core of it.
I'll acknowledge that other social elements factor in, such as Arab nationalism, and jealousy of the industrialized West. But the core is clearly Islam itself.
People don't talk about wanting to be suicide bombers simply because they disagree with a nation's (the U.S.'s) policies. Clearly, a much deeper belief system is the cause for that.
And clearly, the rhetoric for that comes from Islamic leaders throughout the Muslim world: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, Syria, Sudan, Indonesia, and a violent Muslim minority in the Phillipines.
quote:
Originally posted by JQ:
quote:
posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
The children were told that if they die for Allah (martyrdom), they are assured a place in heaven.
That is extremely sick! But is it an example of a "misguided belief system" or sick people taking advantage of naive children?
Perhaps I said it more directly than it is usually said, what motivates children to be suicide bombers, or to deliberately blow themselves up with mines in a battlefield.
But surely you've seen this belief-system described in the news before.
I agree, it certainly is a misguided belief system, but it is not deviant from the teachings of Islam, and it is the clerics themselves who proselytize that belief system.
While the Arab sect of Wahabism is far from the only sect of Islam teaching violent crush of dissent, it is an example that was highlighted in a lengthy story in the August 5, 2002 issue of TIME magazine. TIME points out that wherever Wahabi priests travel as missionaries (Afghanistan, Sudan, Minadao in the Phillipines, Chechnya...) these locations have become centers of terrorism and violence.
From the OPINION section of today's
Miami Herald, Sunday, January 4, 2004, page 5-L:
Quote:
ANTI-SEMITISM BECOMES GLOBAL PLAGUE
by Arthur N. Teitelbaum
Though counter-intiutive, at times we are too close to events to fully appreciate their dimension and meaning. Such is the case today as we face a dramatic resurgence of global anti-Semitism.
From the vocal to the violent, Jew-hatred of the past confronts us today with new energy, new advocates and, unfortunately, new accepting audiences. It is variously packaged for the masses, minorities and the misfits.
Take the antiglobalism movement. One finds anti-Semitic threads woven into its tapestry of ideas, with global currencies and markets portrayed as oppressive expressions of "international Jewish control."
In a lead article on antiglobalism, the current issue of the Carnegie Endowment's prestigious
Foreign Policy magazine reports a 12-year high in the number of attacks on European Jews, noting that "Not since Kristallnacht, the Nazi-led pogrom against German Jews in 1938, have so many European synagogues and Jewish schools been desecrated."
The problem has finally caught the attention of the countries which make up the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). In December, OSCE ministers from 55 member states agreed to hold a conference on anti-semitism in Berlin in April 2004.
Nor is this "new anti-Semitism" exclusively a European phenomenon:
- Mahathir Mohammad, Prime Minister of Malaysia, at the 10th Islamic Summit Conference said: "The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million. But today the Jews rule this world by proxy -- 1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews."
He got an enthusiastic ovation from the leaders of more than 50 nations, in response to his call for a holy war against Jews.
- Two synagogues in Istanbul were recently attacked [December 2003] with powerful and lethal terrorist bombs.
- In Florida on December 21, a new Muslim learning center south of Orlando held its inaugural event, with invited speakers including Shaikh Abdur-Rahman Al-Sudais, the imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, who was quoted in newspapers in April 2002 as calling Jews "the scum of humanity, the rats of the world, the killers of prophets and the grandsons of monkeys and pigs." After a public outcry, his invitation was withdrawn.
- In Terre Haute, Indiana, a Holocaust Museum dedicated to the children who were experimented on by in the infamous Dr. Mengele was burned to the ground.
- In New York City there has been a serious increase in anti-Semitic incidents involving vandalizing of Jewish property -- 32 cases last month alone.
The history of mankind is replete with examples where words and perverse ideas have moved people to action. Anti-Semitism is a prototypical example. From discriminatory exclusion of Jews through the centuries, to the culminating horror of the Holocaust's industrialization of murder, the Jewish community has learned the lessons of history the hard way.
Anti-Semitism's themes are old, but its delivery technologies are as modern as the Internet and satellite communication. It finds receptive audiences among both the ignorant and the educated. Its purveyors are extremist bigots of both the political right and the political left. Today's engines of anti-Jewish bigotry include both organizations and nation-states, with all of the latter's financial and political muscle.
They say that those who don't know history are destined to repeat it. Perhaps. But there are also those, perversely, who do know history and want to repeat it.
Some 60 years ago, Jews and other minorities were dispatched to camps in Europe and killed by the millions in an environment saturated with anti-Semitism. With the history of the 20th century as a guide, who could have predicted that early in the 21st century the 1 million Jews in who live in Britain, France, Germany, Belgium and Denmark would again feel under siege, with attacks on Jewish students, rabbis, Jewish institutions and Jewish owned-property?
Some European leaders blame anti-Israel sentiment among radicalized elements in their rapidly growing Muslim populations. They are partially correct. Also true is that the violence has occurred in an environment where governments and leaders have failed condemn anti-Semitic violence, or have at best been slow or tepid in their response. The message to Europe's burgeoning immigrant population is that there is a certain level of acceptance of such intolerance.
Historians note one way of determining the health of a nation's democracy is by examining the condition of its Jewish community. Doing so today we can see that democracy and the ideal of tolerance, one of its core expressions, are under assault in much of the world. To ignore this situation compounds a dangerous problem.
What does history teach? No matter the perpetrator or the victim, good people must not turn away nor shrink from the fight against bigotry. This is no time for bystanders. Not now, not ever.
_____________________________________
Arthur N. Teitelbaum is Southern Area director of the Anti-Defamation League.
Interesting that attacking of Jews seems to be clearly coming from Muslim immigrants, who seem to be inclined toward the same violence that was common in the countries they immigrated from.
France, as I've said elsewhere, is approximately 20% Muslim. Which makes it a large enough ratio that it is very difficult for the French to resist and stand up to.
It also explains why France has been so resistant to an invasion of Iraq (beyond the 30-year political ties Chirac had to Saddam Hussein).
A warning of what could occur in this country as well, if we allow Muslims to immigrate to the U.S. in large numbers.
As we've seen, Muslims don't assimilate, they stick to their own subculture. Long before September 11th, I read articles for a decade, saying that Muslims retain their religion across many generations, and are more likely to be sleeper cels than other immigrant groups. And that this was a danger we could prevent, simply by not allowing Muslims to immigrate. It was NSA and CIA studies that showed this.
And as this article reflects, American Muslims retain the same bitter anti-semitism as their counterparts in the Muslim world. But are somehow creditewd as being more liberal and enlightened.
But again, look at the Orlando meeting, and what they were willing to endorse and promote there.
I sincerely hope that Islamic immigration to the U.S. has pretty much frozen since 9-11.
But again, there are already 7 million Muslims in the U.S., that already present a considerable threat, to Jews in particular.
As this article makes clear.
If it were attacks on Jews and Jewish businesses in Alabama or Mississippi, I might guess that anti-semitic attacks in the U.S. were the work of the KKK.
But since they are happening in places like Indiana and New York City (areas with a large ratio of Muslim immigrants) I'm more inclined to believe these are Muslim-orchestrated attacks.
It appears that there may be two distinct stages of Islam: The stage of weakness and the stage of Jihad (Holy War)
Mohammed Hassanein Heikal, the noted Egyptian author, refers to this concept in his book "Autumn Furor". He states:
"So the element of Jihad emerged in the ideology.... [there are] two separate stages a Muslim community goes through: "The [first stage is] the stage of weakness - In it a Muslim community is unable to take charge of its own destiny. In this case - according to his thinking - they must withdraw for the purpose of preparing themselves to be capable of executing the second stage. The second stage is the Jihad stage, and it will come when the Muslim community has completed its prepardness and is ready to come out of its isolation to take charge, through Jihad. **** There is a ... comparison between the two stages of weakness and Jihad on the one hand, and on the other hand, Mohammed's struggle in Mecca then in Medina."
Historians agree that there is a big difference between Mohammed's personality in Mecca and his personality after his migration to Medina.
In Mecca Mohammed was weak, struggling to be accepted, often mocked at and ridiculed. He tried to appeal to the people of Mecca by being compassionate and loving. His teachings condemned violence, injustice, neglect of the poor. However, after he moved to Medina and his followers grew in strength and number, he became a relentless warrior, intent on spreading his religion by the sword.
This change in Mohammed's personality becomes apparent by comparing the Meccan and the Medinan surahs. The following are some examples:
In surah 73:10 God tells Mohammed to be patient with his opponents "Be patient with what they say, and part from them courteously." While in surah 2:191 God orders him to kill his opponents "Kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from wherever they drove you out..."
In surah 2:256 God tells Mohammed not to impose Islam by force "There is no compulsion in religion." While in verse 193 God tells him to kill whoever rejects Islam "Fight (kill) them until there is no persecution and the religion is God's."
In surah 29:46 God tells Mohammed to speak nicely to people of the Book (Christians and Jews) "Argue with people of the Book, other then evil doers, only by means of what are better! and say, we believe in what has been sent down to us and sent down to you. Our God is the same as your God, and we are surrendered to him." While in surah 9:29 God tells him to fight the people of the Book, "Fight those who do not believe in God and the last day...and fight People of the Book, who do not accept the religion of truth (Islam) until they pay tribute by hand, being inferior."
To justify this sudden change in the Quran's mood from peaceful to militant, conciliatory to confrontational, Mohammed claimed that it was God who told him so. It was God who abrogated the peaceful verses and replaced them by harsh ones.
Other examples of the "Medinian" teachings of Islam:
- Men are superior to women (surah 2:228).
- Women have half the rights of men: in court witness (surah 2:282) and in inheritance (surah 4:11).
- A man may punish his wife by beating her (surah 4:34).
- A man may marry up to four wives at the same time (surah 4:3).
- A wife is a sex object for her husband (surah 2:223).
- Muslims must fight until their opponents submit to Islam (surah 9:29).
- A Muslim must not take a Jew or a a Christian for a friend (surah 5:51).
- A Muslim apostate must be killed (surah 9:12).
- Adultery is punished by public flogging (surah 24:2).
- Resisting Islam is punished by death, crucifixion or the cutting off of the hands and feet (surah 5:33).
Therefore, it is entirely possible that there are "two" Islam religions:
- the "religion of peace"
- the religion that, sadly, seems to have taken hold in large parts of the mideast and elsewhere.
What percentage subscribes to the violent "jihad" ideology?
Some people have estimated only 10 percent, which sounds comforting until you realize there are about 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide.
Therefore, losing the "low" estimate there are 100 million "radical" Muslims out there.
I wish there was an answer for all this hate.
If I were an alien, disguised as a Human,
stationed here to observe mankind,
then I would extrapolate - based on current
and past human behavior - that humans
were a violent race with a poor prognosis
for the future.
For so many humans to believe the path
to glory lies in blowing yourself up and
taking as many of those you have designated
as the enemies of your belief is quite sad.
It would be so much more of a sensible
challenge to learn to get along - but that is
not an easy task, and there are so many
who are willing to die to prevent the goal
of world peace from actually becoming a reality.
I wish I knew what the answer is..I hope that
this planet and it's inhabitants are much more
than just a failed science experiment, orbiting
endlessly in a perpetual voyage of the damed.
I feel that man actually will evolve into a
being as advanced over us NOW as we are
are advanced over the very FIRST man like
creatures to walk erect on this planet a few
million years ago if he can somehow survive
the violence that so many humans inflict
on their fellow humans.
I'm hopeful. I'm pessimistic, too.
I hope the future will be a bright one,
in spite of humanity's violence.
May science, love, truth and beauty prevail.
I wish there was an answer for all this hate.
If I were an alien, disguised as a Human,
stationed here to observe mankind,
then I would extrapolate - based on current
and past human behavior - that humans
were a violent race with a poor prognosis
for the future.
For so many humans to believe the path
to glory lies in blowing yourself up and
taking as many of those you have designated
as the enemies of your belief is quite sad.
It would be so much more of a sensible
challenge to learn to get along - but that is
not an easy task, and there are so many
who are willing to die to prevent the goal
of world peace from actually becoming a reality.
I wish I knew what the answer is..I hope that
this planet and it's inhabitants are much more
than just a failed science experiment, orbiting
endlessly in a perpetual voyage of the damned.
I feel that man actually will evolve into a
being as advanced over us NOW as we are
are advanced over the very FIRST man like
creatures to walk erect on this planet a few
million years ago if he can somehow survive
the violence that so many humans inflict
on their fellow humans.
I'm hopeful. I'm pessimistic, too.
I hope the future will be a bright one,
in spite of humanity's violence.
May science, love, truth and beauty prevail.
I' sorry that I repeated my post but I made a spelling
mistake and could not find the edit function!
Quote:
PJP said:
Which is why I have never been able to understand how any Jewish people could ever vote for a Democrat.....or how Joe Lieberman and other powerful Democrats will simply look the other way while Muslims try to destroy Israel. My sister-in-law and many friends of mine are Jewish and Republican.....I can't understand how that isn't the norm.
Perhaps because not all Jews have your generalized view of Democrats(just as my interactions with you haven't made me think of all Republicans as close minded and ignorant)?
You state that "deep down (Muslims) aren't good people", unfairly branding millions of followers whom you don't even know, and have no way of knowing. Can't you see how absurd that is?
Yes, the Quran preaches certain ideals that are violent and hate-filled(to put it mildly). So does the Old Testament, and other contemporary religious writings. These are documents that were written by men, not God(something even the books themselves admit) during a time where sexism, racism and a vehement hatred of infidelity was commonplace. Just as our views and ideals have changed, so have the interpretations of these writings.
I've heard a couple things about the Quran, both conflicting. Back in college I took a M.E. history class and there were about 3 or 4 of us that were M.E. (in the class) aside from our teacher. One of th girls was Muslim and although she dressed normally, no head dress, she did say she had to make serious compromises with her parents to live a more normal life here in Chicago. She also said she read the Quran, out of curiosity, and said there was a lot of violence in it towards women.
Now the intersting thing is I saw a Muslim man speak at Willow Creek the day Afghanistan war broke out and he said Islam is a peaceful religion. I don't remember if he said anything about the violence the Quran teaches (and the wife beatings) but I have to admit, listening to him speak, was intersting. I did learn a few things about it, somethings I already knew, but most of what he talked about was peace. He also said something that I thought was very intersting, Jihad is not a word for them. There's no such thing as a Holy War. I don't remember exactly what he said about everything, because this was back in 02 I think, but like I said, it was intersting to hear him speak and get his interpretation on it.
Now as to the Christian perspective of fundamentalist Muslims, they are insane. Seriously, I've heard stories from my aunt about how they treat women in Iran, when they go to take their PASSPORT picture. They're not allowed to wear any make-up, not even lipstick. If they do have lipstick on, they're handed a klenex to take it off, if it doesn't come off comepletly, they're handed another one with a blade in it. Women can't even wear nail polish, if they do then they have to wear gloves! How is this normal? Yes there are normal Muslims living around the world, but there are a good number that are insane fundamentalists. Now a side note to what I wrote, when I heard about all that crap in Iran, it was back in the early 90s I think, and since then it's been changing for the better.
The students that are pressing for change now, have only known life in the oppressive state that they grew up in. They don't know what it was like to have lived in the more free rule of the Shah. Granted from what I've heard, the Shah wasn't the greatest, but he was far better than the Khuimeni(sp) and his insanity.
To correct something, women don't have half the rights as men, they have
no rights what so ever. If they did, then they wouldn't be treated as property. Look at the way women were treated by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Look at the way they were/are treated in Iran and Iraq. I've said it before and I'll continue to say it until the end of time, for a clear example of this go rent "Not Without My Daughter" staring Sally Field. It's not a touchy feely Hallmark type movie, it's based on a true story of an American woman who married an Iranian man. They had a daughter and when she was 6(?) they went back to Iran for "a visit" as he said. In reality she was held hostage by him/his family and when she threatened to file for divorce and come back here with their daughter, she was shown the crule reality that she has no rights there and that her husband would have gotten their daughter. She would have come back alone. When her husband realized she was up to something, he beat her and locked her up in a room alone. I don't remember if she was even given any food, but even the women in his family were against her.
She refused to do that and so she worked with a nice man who was sympathetic to America/the American lifestyle, who helped her smuggle both herself and her daughter out of the country via the hills.
Now for a more light hearted look at this, and more up to date, I recomend the movie "the Secret Ballot". Histarical. I'd definitley buy that one.
It's on DVD and it's in Farsi, but has both English and French subtitles. It's about a woman who's a ballot collector, that goes to a remote island off the coast of Iran, and she's driven around by a soldier. The thing that makes it so funny is this guy's lazy, he sees the package dropped from the plane, reads the note, but then when he sees the woman come and she tells him he has to drive her around, he says he didn't see any note, etc. There were some good sight gags in it too.
I know from other previous discussions that you clearly see the contradictions of those who allege that Islam is a "peaceful" religion, Amy (particularly a violent demonstration against the Shah in November 1977 that you attended in Washington DC, that you've described on several occasions here). And you're more familiar than most of us with the language and culture of Iran.
While the word "Jihad" may not be clearly stated in the Quran, the
concept of Jihad certainly
is in the Quran. Repeating myself, from the middle of page 1 of this topic:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Here is the verse I was thinking of, about dealing with non-Muslim believers:
Quote:
The Quran:
[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
[4.90] Except those who reach a people between whom and you there is an alliance, or who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people; and if Allah had pleased, He would have given them power over you, so that they should have certainly fought you; therefore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them.
[4.91] You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given.you a clear authority.
And here is Osama Bin Ladin's declaration of Jihad on Crusaders. You will note that the language is virtually identical:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A4993-2001Sep21
I say this because a considerable percentage of the Islamic world agrees with and approves of what Bin Ladin is doing, whether or not they would engage in violence on Crusaders themselves.
As I've said on other topics, many young Muslims have Osama Bin Ladin screen savers.
Between 30-50% of the population in most Islamic countries boycotts American products and businesses.
That is a clear endorsement of 9-11-2001.
The multiple Arab/Muslim nations (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and others)involved in terrorism toward Israel, in rallies rich with Islamic holy rhetoric and noble martyrdom for Allah, likewise demonstrate a considerable Quran-based body of aggression and destruction.
To say nothing of Quran-based Muslim aggression in Sudan, Liberia, The Phillipines, Indonesia, East Timor, Chechnya, and elsewhere.
And as I've said in other topics, Amy, I'm in complete agreement with you that Not Without My Daughter is a terrific dramatization of the true story of a woman who lost all rights and dignity when moving to Iran with her Iranian/Muslim husband, and who managed to escape from Iran with her daughter in the late 1980's.
It's a powerful dramatization of her true story. And a story that is all too true for tens of thousands of other American and European women who are married to Muslim men and trapped in the Middle East, with no rights, beyond being the property of their husbands.
As the movie itself makes clear.
It´s funny how they describe the US. troops as Satan´s US. troops.
I remember being told in school that one of the core beliefs of Islam is that there is nothing between Man and God. Therefore there is no Satan!
It seems like that these people are just using the religion for their own purposes.
Which is exactly what they're doing. Like I said, their insane. I mean, look at what the Taliban did in Afghanistan in an effort to control women.
Oh and Wonder Boy, I agree with you there, I don't deny the Quran doesn't say stuff like that. In fact, I think I meneioned this before, a guy I went to church with back in teh 90s went to the M.E. on a missions trip. The running joke around here was, only a couple people knew his exact location, and so the joke was, they could tell us, but they'd have to kill us.
But seriously, the reson for suh extrmeme secrecy was because if it was found out that he was there, where he was exactly, and why he was there, not to mention his religion, then he'd be killed. We ultimatly found out where he was, but off hand I don't remember.
There was something else I was going to say about this, but don't remember off hand. *sigh*
Now I remember, this friend of mine told me that Muslim men come to America and get jobs as cab drivers to convert people to Islam. How messed up is that. Normal Christians don't do stuff like that. They don't get certain jobs in certain parts of the world with the express purpose of converting others.
Well I have had both Christian AND Muslim
taxi drivers try to convert me.
I don't tell people what to believe, I expect them
NOT to tell me what I should believe.
Humans are Strange.
Maybe I'll start converting people.
My slogan will Be :
" I believe in Crystal Lite ' cause I believe in me! "
I still don't see how quoting passages from the Qu'ran proves Islam is a violent religion. At least, not any more than quoting passages from the New Testament proves Christianity is a violent religion, or quoting passages from the Torah proves Judaism is a violent religion. For every Osama Bin Laden there's a Nathan Bedford Forest, a Tomas de Torquemada, an Adolf Hitler. To these people, religion was nothing more than the means by which they could push their own political agendas. The only thing their actions show is that any message, no matter how noble seeming, can be twisted and distorted to perpetuate evil.
Regarding the "two versions of Islam" people keep mentioning, the Islam of war and the Islam of peace, I'd like to offer some insight here.
In Judaism, we have the Torah, and we have the Talmud - the oral law. The Torah is merely the blueprint. You will find very few details of the actual practice of Judaism in the Torah itself. The Torah is the reader's digest of Judaism. To get the details, that's where the oral law comes in. The torah is NOT meant to be taken at face value. We need the Torah AND the Talmud together. To have one and not the other is not considered true Judaism.
It wasn't until the First Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians that the oral law was written down, becuase the great sages and rabbis of the time were worried that it would be forgotten.
Many of the commandments spelled out in the Torah seem very harsh, but when we study the commentaries and the Talmud, we learn that punishments were rarely carried out by courts. For example, the Torah mandates death penalty for many things, but the Talmud has such strict guidelines for allowing the courts to execute anybody, making it almost impossible to do so.
Also in Judaism, you will have debates on how strict to be with certain laws. The Talmud is full of debates between rabbinic scholars on how strictly to interpret the Torah, and differnet yeshivas and shcolars hold with different opinions, trying to analyze the most minute detail, to find clues. There is no uniformity all throughout Judaism. Every community has there own customs, and even then, there's no uniformity.
Either way, the laws of Judaism were meant for our people, and we don't try and force them on anyone - because Judaism doesn't see anything wrong with other religions. You guys have your ways, we have our own, and that's how it should be. Jews are meant to be different from other people - the Hebrew word for "holy" has the same root as "different." To be a holy people is to be different from everyone else. Many of the laws of Judaism are probably there to make us unique from all the other nations of the world, like keeping kosher. But "different" doesn't mean "evil." It just means we have our own way. All of us are G-d's children, and that's why the Torah begins with the creation of the world, not with Abraham, the first Jew. Because G-d created everyone, and every human is G-d's child. We just have a different destiny than everybody else.
That's why Jews don't have missionaries - because the whole world doesn't need to be Jewish. We actually discourage conversion, because we think you're fine the way you are (and partially because when Christians would convert to Judaism, other Christians would respond by murdering Jews.) We won't stop you if you really wanna convert, but we don't think it's necessary for you to convert to be a good person.
We want all the world to recognize G-d and be monotheistic, but that's something that must come naturally, and not be forced on to anyone. Christianity and Islam are monotheistic, beleiving in one G-d. They acknowledge Him in a different way, but they still acknowledge Him. As for polytheistic religions like Hinduism, many feel that their many G-ds are just different aspects of one divine being. Even if they weren't, and they actually were worshipping many g-ds, we don't have the divine right to massacre Hindus for being polytheistic. We're just told "don't do what they do."
Only seven laws were given to all mankind - to Noah and his family after the flood. As far as Judaism's concerned, if you follow these, you're in good shape (and if you're not, it's for G-d or a court to judge you, depending on the sin. If you're sinning against G-d - idolatry, blasphemy - it's for G-d to punish you. If you sin against another person - murder, theft - it's for a legal court to punish you).
1) Prohibition on idol worship
2) Prohibition on blasphemy and cursing G-d's name
3) Prohibition on murder
4) Prohibition on theft and robbery
5) Prohibition on sexual transgressions (rape, adultery, etc.)
6) Prohibition on "tealing a limb from an animal and eating it while it lives" (there's a lot of debate about what this means. Many say it's a fancy way of saying to be kind to animals - because if you realize it's important to treat animals kindly, how much more so to treat your fellow man kindly! It also ties in with the prohibition on eating blood. To drink blood is considered an abomination of the highest order, since it is the life of a living being).
7) Requirement to establish a justice system and courts of law.
Now for the point of all this: I don't know how it works with Islam but if Islam has an oral law that works the same way as Judaism's, you're more likely to get a peaceful, neighbor-friendly Islamic messgae. If you only go by the Quran and disregard oral law, you get extremists and militant fanatics. That's why quoting from the Quran isn't always giving an accurate representation of Islam.
Does Islam have an oral law as well as the Quran? Do Muslim scholars write commentary on the Quran explaining obscurities in its text, or have a separate book of how to practice the actual laws of Islam in your day-to-day life, or anything like that?
BTW, keep one thing in mind - like I said, there are many different viewpoints in Judaism, so what I say here isn't what every Jew in the world believes. That's why I think it's dangerous to blame a whole group for the actions or beliefs of a few.
Well said, Darkknight....and quite extensively said, too, I might add. If not for the fact that your thoughts actually echoed some of my own I might think you were a Dave the Wonder Boy alternate ID.
Quote:
Animalman said:
Well said, Darkknight....and quite extensively said, too, I might add. If not for the fact that your thoughts actually echoed some of my own I might think you were a Dave the Wonder Boy alternate ID.
You must have missed the heated clashes that Dave The Wonder Boy and I have had in the past. 
(Hopefully, those are behind us. ) Besides, Dave doesn't seem the type to have an alternate ID - he does more than enough yapping with just the one! (sorry, Dave - I couldn't resist. 
)
But seriously, folks...sorry if I rambled on too much. I just wanted to make sure people understood the point I was trying to make, and I just happened to go off on a tangent or two in the process.
Quote:
Animalman said:
Well said, Darkknight....and quite extensively said, too, I might add.
I echo this. Well put, Darknight.
Quote:
Darknight613 said:
Quote:
Animalman said:
Well said, Darkknight....and quite extensively said, too, I might add. If not for the fact that your thoughts actually echoed some of my own I might think you were a Dave the Wonder Boy alternate ID.
You must have missed the heated clashes that Dave The Wonder Boy and I have had in the past.
(Hopefully, those are behind us. ) Besides, Dave doesn't seem the type to have an alternate ID - he does more than enough yapping with just the one! (sorry, Dave - I couldn't resist. )
But seriously, folks...sorry if I rambled on too much. I just wanted to make sure people understood the point I was trying to make, and I just happened to go off on a tangent or two in the process.
I was a bit surprised to see Darknight613 suggested to be an alternate I.D. for me. There was a time when we were about as friendly as Superman and Lex Luthor.
Some of the topics where we clashed:
"Do liberals HATE the President ?"
http://www.rkmbs.com/Number=205426
"Partisansship"
http://www.rkmbs.com/Number=217045
"Do racists have lower I.Q.'s ?"
http://www.rkmbs.com/Number=205705
But I think you're an okay guy, Darknight. You have a good heart, even if we've both phrased things in a way that rubbed each other the wrong way.
And even if you don't always realize that I'm right 
.
~
I guess what made us look similar was Darknight613's detailing of Mosaic and Talmudic ideology, bearing a vague resemblance to how I've often detailed Old and New Testament ideology.
While I have great respect for Judaism, I'm not a Jew. I'm a Protestant Christian. Or more specifically, I'm a Presbyterian.
Thank you for your comments, DK613. You're absolutely right, that I don't use alternate I.D.'s, and if I ever retire my Dave the Wonder Boy I.D., I'll make it clear what my new I.D. is.
Regarding your issue-related comments:
Quote:
Originally posted by Darknight613:
Now for the point of all this: I don't know how it works with Islam but if Islam has an oral law that works the same way as Judaism's, you're more likely to get a peaceful, neighbor-friendly Islamic messgae. If you only go by the Quran and disregard oral law, you get extremists and militant fanatics. That's why quoting from the Quran isn't always giving an accurate representation of Islam.
Does Islam have an oral law as well as the Quran? Do Muslim scholars write commentary on the Quran explaining obscurities in its text, or have a separate book of how to practice the actual laws of Islam in your day-to-day life, or anything like that?
I don't fully understand why the change occurred, but in the peak era of Islamic thought, when Islam was a leader in science and intellectual thought, there was much more of a Talmudic style of discourse and sharing of ideas.
But in the last 100 years or so, for reasons I don't fully understand, Islam has become much more focused on the Quran, and on the writings of a few influential Imams, Mullahs, and Ayatollahs, to the brutal repression of all dissent.
To answer Animalman's above counterpoint:
Quote:
Originally posted by Animalman:
I still don't see how quoting passages from the Qu'ran proves Islam is a violent religion. At least, not any more than quoting passages from the New Testament proves Christianity is a violent religion, or quoting passages from the Torah proves Judaism is a violent religion. For every Osama Bin Laden there's a Nathan Bedford Forest, a Tomas de Torquemada, an Adolf Hitler. To these people, religion was nothing more than the means by which they could push their own political agendas. The only thing their actions show is that any message, no matter how noble seeming, can be twisted and distorted to perpetuate evil.
Many Muslims throughout the world are taught from early childhood to memorize the entire Quran. A very strict interpretation of Islamic law, that rationalizes murder of unbelievers, suicide bombings, brutalization of women, "honor-killing" of female family members perceived by them to have dishonored their family name, clitoral amputation (female circumcision) and on and on. Violence based on deeply entrenched religious teaching.
Osama Bin Ladin and his followers aren't in any way religiously similar to Hitler.
Islam isn't a manipulative political tool for Al Qaida, they passionately believe they are acting based on the Quran, and are eagerly willing to kill or suicide-bomb in the name of those Quran verses.
Again, see Osama Bin Ladin's Declaration of Jihad on Jews and Crusaders, that I linked from the Washington Post, at the bottom of page 1 of this topic.
I challenge you to find a similar Bible-scripture-based statement by Hitler. Hitler had the Accord with the Vatican in 1933 that gave Hitler international political endorsement by the Pope, but the Accord is not scriptural, and was strictly a political maneuver.
In point of fact (much as many here seem to want to brand Hitler a Christian) Hitler viewed Christianity as a "Jewish infestation" that pacified the natural warrior nature of Aryans, with Christian beliefs of mercy and peacefulness.
Hitler at one point tried to resurrect Norse mythology through propaganda as a more warrior-focused ideology, but it was not well received by the German people.
And Hitler also imprisoned many Christians in concentration camps, such as Jehovah's Witnesses (who I heard a historical lecture on, of individuals giving personal accounts of their captivity), and Pastor Martin Neimoller, who I've quoted in prior posts.
So it's a complete myth to say that Hitler, on any level, acted in the name of Christianity. He used the Pope to get early diplomatic recognition, during his upward rise to power, not as part of some kind of Christian crusade.
~
Regarding Islam, I think it's highly relevant to criticize the violently fanatical Quran teachings that these Muslim acts are firmly (fundamentally) based on.
Again, a Washington Post article said that between 30 to 50% of every Muslim nation is boycotting U.S. goods --and that's WITH the pleas of their own leaders NOT to boycott the U.S., because they'll only damage their own economy, with virtually no effect on the U.S. economy-- and as many have Osama Bin Ladin screen savers, and other posters and calanders glamorizing the al Qaida destruction of 9-11.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36461-2002Jul7.html
To say nothing, as I said earlier, of Muslims in the U.S. who also proselytize radical Islamist beliefs. And even American born and educated Muslims (as I said earlier, that appeared on 60 Minutes' "Young, American and Muslim" story) that fully embrace the concepts of Jihad and suicide bombing.
It is not "a few", it is a vast and dangerous percentage of the global Muslim population.
As Quran-based violence worldwide, from Turkey to Iraq to Israel to Sudan to Indonesia to the Phillipines, and elsewhere, attests to.
Again, as said earlier, when violence of the IRA or an abortion clinic occurs, Christians worldwide groan with embarrassment.
Whereas violence in the name of Allah (9-11, suicide bombings) sends Muslims in the streets cheering with jubilant approval.
I find it very illogical to deny their Quran scripture is the obvious cause of that violence.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Again, as said earlier, when violence of the IRA or an abortion clinic occurs, Christians worldwide groan with embarrassment. Whereas violence in the name of Allah (9-11, suicide bombings) sends Muslims in the streets cheering with jubilant approval.
I find it very illogical to deny their Quran scripture is the obvious cause of that violence.
I don't know about that. I have to agree with Darknight that it may be an interpretational flaw that leads them to these beliefs. The problem is that this flaw is the accepted interpretation in the Arab culture.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Many Muslims throughout the world are taught from early childhood to memorize the entire Quran. A very strict interpretation of Islamic law, that rationalizes murder of unbelievers, suicide bombings, brutalization of women, "honor-killing" of female family members perceived by them to have dishonored their family name, clitoral amputation (female circumcision) and on and on. Violence based on deeply entrenched religious teaching.
From what I understand, this isn't entirely true. The interpretation and cultural submersion of the Qu'ran varies from region to region(Islam is, afterall, the second largest and fastest growing religion in the world).
Out of curiousity, I went to the library a few weeks ago and found A Border Passage: From Cairo to America, by Leila Ahmed. It describes what it was like for her to grow up as a Muslim in Egypt(and later in America), and it paints quite a vivid picture of the social and political changes Islam has undergone in the last 30-40 years.
What I sympathized with most about this book was that, like Leila, I too am searching for my own identity, and I imagine that I will not conclude this search until the day I die. We, as people, constantly find ourselves searching for what makes us human, desperately hoping to define our existence. "Who am I?" can be both the simplest and most deeply complex and profound question a person can ask themselves. I find that, in itself, to be fascinating.
I'm getting offtrack now, but the point I'm trying to make is, no one book can(or, at least, no one book should) define who we are or what we believe, as literature is an interpretative(and thus relative) medium. Leila Ahmed is just one of millions of people who grew up with Islam as a positive and peaceful influence on their lives. Unfortunately for her and for others like her, peace isn't newsworthy. Peace doesn't sell papers. Peace doesn't get high TV ratings. And for that reason, Islam is often portrayed as violent and hateful.
Quote:
Osama Bin Ladin and his followers aren't in any way religiously similar to Hitler.
Islam isn't a manipulative political tool for Al Qaida, they passionately believe they are acting based on the Quran, and are eagerly willing to kill or suicide-bomb in the name of those Quran verses.
Well, firstly, Hitler was just one of several I listed, but for sake of argument, we can focus on him.
I don't think that just because they(Bin Laden and followers) passionately believe they're doing what's right doesn't mean it still isn't a political tool. I imagine Hitler probably thought what he was doing was right(even if he didn't follow his own preachings to quite the extent they were often taken), otherwise, he wouldn't have committed the atrocities he did.
Quote:
I challenge you to find a similar Bible-scripture-based statement by Hitler.
As I said before, the quoting of scripture means very little. It's simply the slant of the religious influence(influence often provided by scripture, regardless of whether or not the individual quotes it regularly) on that person and used by that person. If you look at many of Hitler's speeches it becomes apparent that he was a deeply religious man and believed quite adamantly that his faith was what necessitated the annihilation of all other races and creeds.
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice....
And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people....
When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited."
-Adolf Hitler, April 12th 1922
"The Government, being resolved to undertake the political and moral purification of our public life, are creating and securing the conditions necessary for a really profound revival of religious life....
The National Government regard the two Christian Confessions as the weightiest factors for the maintenance of our nationality. They will respect the agreements concluded between them and the federal States. Their rights are not to be infringed....
It will be the Government's care to maintain honest co-operation between Church and State; the struggle against materialistic views and for a real national community is just as much in the interest of the German nation as in that of the welfare of our Christian faith.
The Government of the Reich, who regard Christianity as the unshakable foundation of the morals and moral code of the nation, attach the greatest value to friendly relations with the Holy See and are endeavouring to develop them."
-Adolf Hitler, March 23rd 1933
There are many, many more here.
Quote:
Again, a Washington Post article said that between 30 to 50% of every Muslim nation is boycotting U.S. goods
Even if that is true, how does that show Islam is a violent religion? Boycotting is hardly a violent act.
Quote:
and as many have Osama Bin Ladin screen savers, and other posters and calanders glamorizing the al Qaida destruction of 9-11.
.....how exactly do they know this?
Quote:
Again, as said earlier, when violence of the IRA or an abortion clinic occurs, Christians worldwide groan with embarrassment. Whereas violence in the name of Allah (9-11, suicide bombings) sends Muslims in the streets cheering with jubilant approval.
I have to respectfully disagree here. Abortion clinic violence is fairly common here(it's not unusual to hear a report every month or so, sometimes every few weeks), but that's neither here nor there. I don't think either party looks on the violent acts done in their respective religion's name as, in any way, justified.
Animalman......what I'm about to say is kind of off-topic but I just saw it the other night on the History channel and it surprised me........I had always thought of Hitler as deeply religious.....very fucked in the head but religious nonetheless because I was always reading his quotes about Providence and how Providence has given him the power blah blah you get the point.......but what they were saying on the documentary was that he was not very religious and in fact religion was frowned upon and more or less vanished during Nazi Germany.......he just said that shit because it probably made him feel better.......anyhow It was news to me just thought I'd share it.
And I know not all Muslims are bad.......but unfortunately right now the bad muslims have the loudest voice.
Quote:
Animalman said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Osama Bin Ladin and his followers aren't in any way religiously similar to Hitler.
Islam isn't a manipulative political tool for Al Qaida, they passionately believe they are acting based on the Quran, and are eagerly willing to kill or suicide-bomb in the name of those Quran verses.
Well, firstly, Hitler was just one of several I listed, but for sake of argument, we can focus on him.
I don't think that just because they(Bin Laden and followers) passionately believe they're doing what's right doesn't mean it still isn't a political tool. I imagine Hitler probably thought what he was doing was right (even if he didn't follow his own preachings to quite the extent they were often taken), otherwise, he wouldn't have committed the atrocities he did.
On the contrary, Hitler committed the atrocities he did because he could.
He wiped out his political opposition, simply to maintain power. The rest was impassioned but ultimately empty smokescreen rhetoric, to rationalize his actions to the public, to play to their beliefs, NOT his. This is equally true of his Christian rhetoric. And actions speak louder than words, he sent thousands of Christians to concentration camps.
I recently saw an excellent movie, The Hiding Place about a Christian who survived the camps, and saw many other Christians die.
Far from preserving the Aryan race, Hitler believed that if the Nazis lost the war, all the brightest and best of the German people would have died on the battlefield, and the rest deserved to die as a race.
And the German people would have too, if not for the massive importing of food and supplies by the Allied occupiers of Germany, because Hitler had so thoroughly ordered the destruction of the food, water and infrastructure in German cities in the path of the advancing Allied forces.
Hitler's own attempted Wagnerian Gotterdammerung on his own people.
Hitler's Christian rhetoric is more vaguely in the vein of "God blesses our Cause" and lacks any scriptural basis. As PJP said above, it was a tool, and as evidenced by the thousands of Christians he imprisoned, his deeds speak much louder than his words.
Quote:
Animalman said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Again, a Washington Post article said that between 30 to 50% of every Muslim nation is boycotting U.S. goods
Even if that is true, how does that show Islam is a violent religion? Boycotting is hardly a violent act.
Boycotting, in this case, is an endorsement of the violence of other Muslims. Especially in connection to the grass roots fundraising for Muslim terrorist groups that is done worldwide.
The Quran teaches violence (see my above quoted verses).
The Imams and Ayatollahs teach violence.
The terrorist groups practice violence.
And the Muslims in the streets cheer this violence, and are complicit in funding and other support in enabling this violence and eagerly supporting it.
And their boycotting is another way of endorsing that violence.
Quote:
Animalman said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
and as many have Osama Bin Ladin screen savers, and other posters and calanders glamorizing the al Qaida destruction of 9-11.
.....how exactly do they know this?
The same way they confirm any other facts in their stories. By interviewing Muslims in the street, and seeing the calanders and screen savers sold, and people interviewed who are shown using them.
I've seen the 9-11 and Osama Bin Ladin calanders and screen savers shown on 60 Minutes and 20/20 as well.
In the early days of Rob's DEEP THOUGHTS boards, someone posted those calander images right here on these boards.
Quote:
Animalman said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Again, as said earlier, when violence of the IRA or [ on ] an abortion clinic occurs, Christians worldwide groan with embarrassment. Whereas violence in the name of Allah (9-11, suicide bombings) sends Muslims in the streets cheering with jubilant approval.
I have to respectfully disagree here. Abortion clinic violence is fairly common here(it's not unusual to hear a report every month or so, sometimes every few weeks), but that's neither here nor there. I don't think either party looks on the violent acts done in their respective religion's name as, in any way, justified.
I don't see that abortion clinic bombing is all that common. Certainly not once a month, more like once a year. There was ONE guy who bombed like two clinics a few years ago, during the Olympics in Atlanta. And that was a big deal. And another guy who shot and killed an abortion clinic doctor, who was recently executed. In the last three years, I've yet to see other anti-abortion violence.
And regardless, those actions are overwhelmingly condemned by the Christian community.
Regarding Muslims' "not looking favorably" on Muslim terrorism "as justified", you've got to be kidding.
You obviously haven't seen Palestinians, Syrians, Egyptians, Kuwaitis, Saudis, or even American Muslims interviewed. I again reference the story "Young, American and Muslim" from 60 Minutes. Where a teenage American-born and raised Muslim girl from the New York/New Jersey area, educated in a Muslim-American school, went on national television and said that suicide bombers go to heaven, because they die fighting for Allah. And she then said "Like, if I were tobe a suicide bomber and blow up an American military base, I would go to Heaven."
Again, making me question the wisdom of allowing ANY fundamentalist Muslims to stay in this country.
And the most memorable for me, tens of thousands of Palestinians cheering in the streets on 9-11 like they'd just won the World Cup. This was more painful, and left me more enraged than 9-11 itself.
In another report, I saw an interview of two Egyptian girls at a University in Cairo, who said they wished they could go to Palestine and join "the Cause" as suicide bombers.
All say that the Quran states that if they die martyring themselves for Allah, murdering others as suicide bombers, they are assured a place in Heaven.
Quote:
Beardguy57 said:
THIS little tidbit is off Topic, too!
In the movie LITTLE NICKY, starring Adam
Sandler, there is a scene depicting The Devil
( Played quite well by Harvey Kietel. ) shoving
a LARGE pineapple up Hitler's ass every nite
as punishment for his crimes on Earth. Hitler
was ALSO forced to wear a dress for eternity.
I loved that scene......I liked how Hitler tried to pick a very small pineapple......adn then Harvey Keitel made him put it back and picked the biggest one of the bunch.......funny stuff.
Quote:
PJP said:
Animalman......what I'm about to say is kind of off-topic but I just saw it the other night on the History channel and it surprised me........I had always thought of Hitler as deeply religious.....very fucked in the head but religious nonetheless because I was always reading his quotes about Providence and how Providence has given him the power blah blah you get the point.......but what they were saying on the documentary was that he was not very religious and in fact religion was frowned upon and more or less vanished during Nazi Germany.......he just said that shit because it probably made him feel better.......anyhow It was news to me just thought I'd share it.
I remember seeing advertisements for the Hitler documentary(as well as documentaries of Saddam, Osama, etc), I may have to check that out. That is an interesting theory, but one that directly contradicts what information I've seen him. His speeches, his background, his political manifesto, they all suggest that he was a pretty religious person. I don't see how why religion would be "frowned upon" and then later vanish, when most of what Hitler preached involved it.
Quote:
And I know not all Muslims are bad.......but unfortunately right now the bad muslims have the loudest voice.
This I must agree with. It is unfortunate, indeed.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
On the contrary, Hitler committed the atrocities he did because he could.
I disagree, I don't think Hitler was a sociopath. I think Josef Mengele was a sociopath, but Hitler was just, quite simply, mad. A psychopath, but a socially adept one. His childhood experiences and time spent as one of society's castouts left him warped and deranged, burning with a scorn and resentment of the world.
Quote:
The rest was impassioned but ultimately empty smokescreen rhetoric, to rationalize his actions to the public, to play to their beliefs, NOT his.
I'd say this is half true. I think, for the most part, he was using religion as a political weapon, but, as I've said before, I still think it was proselytizing, in just about every sense of the word. To revise some of what I said before, none of these figures believed religion to be only a political tool. There had to be some sense of belief rooted there.
Hitler didn't need to "rationalize" much of anything, the public had already bought into his ideas of racial dominance, well before Poland was invaded.
Quote:
And actions speak louder than words, he sent thousands of Christians to concentration camps.
Yes, he sent those whom he did not feel were fit to be apart of his Arian society. This is where his insanity becomes overwhelming apparent. There is no rationalizing it, because the man was just crazy. A blanket hatred of such a tremendous degree as this is not the sign of a sociopath, it's the "me vs. the world" style of thinking a mentally unstable individual would display.
Osama Bin Laden has sent hundreds of his followers to their deaths, and has murdered even more of his fellow Muslims in his time. He seems believes that all those who do not share his beliefs must die, and that dying while abbeting such a cause is an honorable death(this concept of martyrdom exists both in Islam and in Christianity). Yet, despite this, he hides from enemy forces, electing to selfishly shield himself behind his followers, and occasionally issue a proclamation of his own righteousness.
Now, whether or not the reasoning behind such proclamations stem from his religious beliefs or simply his desire for power is highly debatable(actually, I would argue both, but I think the latter is the dominant factor). What I do not consider debatable, however, is that if Osama Bin Laden was as feverishly in support of his preachings as you have been suggesting, he would have strapped himself to one of his bombs and died while aiding his cause long ago. I think he, like nearly all powerful, religiously militant figures, in the end, values his own life above everything else. It's the reason people like him tend to end up safely tucked away, giving the commands(and then desperately trying to avoid paying the price), rather than on the front lines, taking them.
Interestingly enough, this article briefly makes the same comparison I did between Bin Laden and Hitler. As with Germany in the 1920's, Muslim society had sunk to it's lowest level of humiliation, which Bin Laden gladly used to his advantage(and was surely influenced by, at the same time).
Quote:
Hitler's Christian rhetoric is more vaguely in the vein of "God blesses our Cause" and lacks any scriptural basis. As PJP said above, it was a tool
Wait....I thought I was the one saying it was a tool?
Quote:
and as evidenced by the thousands of Christians he imprisoned, his deeds speak much louder than his words.
Oh, I agree. Infact, this is the point I've been attempting to make in regards to Islam(and Christianity) all along, though for some reason you seem to reject the argument there.
Quote:
Boycotting, in this case, is an endorsement of the violence of other Muslims.
Oh, I disagree completely. I think boycotting, in this case, is a peaceful display of dissaproval towards a nation that appears to be imperialistically bullying the rest of the world into adhering to their own set of rules. Whether or not that view is warranted or accurate is another matter entirely, but it is a pretty popular viewpoint(and one that is shared not only by most of the other countries around the globe, but from a small portion of America, itself).
Quote:
And the Muslims in the streets cheer this violence, and are complicit in funding and other support in enabling this violence and eagerly supporting it.
I'm still failing to see why you are attributing this to a group of millions of people around the world, when the only real evidence(i.e evidence that would suggest a massive trend existing, rather than the beliefs of a few individuals) I've seen of it is limited to one specific region where violence and war is commonplace. Unless they've polled Europe, Asia and Africa on "Who liked the outcome of 9/11", I think it's fairly illogical to assume that a great number of people were pleased with the death of thousands of people. You shouldn't take the expressed dissaproval of America as an endorsement of Osama Bin Laden and his cause. There are many issues prevalent in Bush's War on Terrorism; you can't just draw a line in the sand and expect everyone to take a side.
I think this essay states my case best; 4,000 men(Bin Laden's followers) do not represent the entire Islamic people.
Quote:
The same way they confirm any other facts in their stories. By interviewing Muslims in the street, and seeing the calanders and screen savers sold, and people interviewed who are shown using them.
They interview Muslims about what screen savers they have? I find it hard to believe that they could really compile enough information on something so trivial and unretracable. Most screen savers aren't "sold" anyway, they're downloaded.
Quote:
I don't see that abortion clinic bombing is all that common. Certainly not once a month, more like once a year.
I didn't say bombing, I said violence. Sadly, it is fairly common here. Several clinics had to be shut down last year because of all the protesting(both nonviolent and violent), which just encouraged them even more.
I remember a couple of months ago there was a guy arrested in Florida(in Coconut Creek, actually, which is I believe where Disco Steve lives) who was planning to bomb a series of clinics, but hadn't yet.
I saw a stat from a year or two ago showing that there 15 bombings and 150 attacks(burglary, vandalism, arson, battery) throughout America, and that the number of attacks and bombings were growing each year. I know recently the police have upped their efforts to stop it, though I still seem to hear about an incident every month or so in the news.
Quote:
You obviously haven't seen Palestinians, Syrians, Egyptians, Kuwaitis, Saudis, or even American Muslims interviewed.
I know that the Wahhabis are strongly opposed to Bin Laden's actions, as do Australian Muslims(even the individual interviewed in that article said that, while he supported Bin Laden, he would not if he was shown evidence that linked Laden to the killing of innocents), and countless others. Even Indian Muslims were shocked after first hearing about 9/11, and said that Bin Laden should be captured immediately(though peacefully, if possible).
I also know that, after the attacks, most Muslim scholars were convinced that Bin Laden's call for a Holy War would be ignored(on the grounds that his actions went against what Islam stood for), as discussed here. One such scholar has gone as far as to say that Bin Laden's violence is heresy against Islam.
Yes, I'm sure that here and there you could find people who think what Bin Laden is doing is right. I'm sure that here and there you could find people who believe Elvis is still alive, and that the U.S landing on the moon was actually taped in some Hollywood studio and the whole thing is one big conspiracy, too. However, if you look at the bigger picture, I think you'll discover that such people really are the minority.
Let's just ignore polls, articles, stats and tv spots for a second here.
Would a religion such as Islam really spread so widely if it was so socially exclusive? If what Bin Laden's preaching is so accepted and supported, then where are the other attacks? Why isn't the world in just complete disarray? 1.8 billion Muslims is a lot of people. Even if only half of the Muslim population sided with Bin Laden, that's an army of supporters no-one could contend with. Why, then, is Bin Laden hiding while his country is decimated?
It just doesn't make any sense to me.
Animalman, I think I've already answered virtually all your points in my previous posts.
It's still a stretch to compare Hitler to Islamic fundamentalism, beyond their murderous tendency to kill dissenters to their cause. But Hitler's alleged fervent Christianity is baseless and scriptureless (as I already said).
Regarding how reporters see pro-9-11 and pro-Saddam screen savers and other terror supporting propaganda, when reporters visit the homes and interview muslims, they eagerly show reporters these artifacts. And describe their friends as having them too.
I completely disagree with your assertion that the a vast percentage of the Muslim world does
not eagerly embrace terrorism and Jihad, and support it with grassroots fundraising and active support. Saudi Arabia's imams had a broadcast
telethon to support Palestinian terrorism, for God's sake.
It seems to me that your arguments try to intellectualize the issue with academic writings, and deny the obvious active widespread popular Muslim support of terrorism:
- The comments of teenage Muslims interviewed on 60 Minutes I mentioned, for example.
- And also Arab youth --college educated youth !!-- throughout the Middle East, who not only empathize with Palestinian terrorists, but express a desire to travel to Palestinian territories and participate in Jihad terror and suicide bombings themselves.
- The wave of terror against European Jews (and similar inciidents in Canada) which coincide with massive Islamic immigration.
- Teaching of radical islamic ideas in U.S. mosques (again, the 60 Minutes story on American teen muslims, and the article I posted at the bottom of page 2 of this topic, from the Anti Defamation League).
While I don't think that
all Muslims are dangerous, I find the teaching of fundamentalist Islam a breeding ground for terrorism.
Your article asserting that Wahabism is not connected to al Qaida, is likewise a skillful circumventing of the truth.
Al Qaida has long been recognized as a terrorist sect that has sprung from Wahabist missionary teachings in Afghanistan.
And likewise,
everywhere in the world Wahabist misionaries travel, from the Phillipines to Chechnya to Afghanistan to Algeria to Sudan and elsewhere, violent islamic terrorism
follows in its wake.
Again, I refer to to the story on Saudi Arabia in TIME, "Do We Still Need the Saudis", in the August 5, 2002 issue, exploring Saudi Islamic clerics's active cultivation and financial support of terrorism, and Wahabism in particular.
Islamic radicalism and participation in terrorism was encouraged by the Saudi government for decades, but that radicalism has now bitten them on the ass, and now threatens the Saudi government itself.
And it also begs the question that TIME asks:
Are the Saudis our friends or our enemy? It questions whether it would be more useful for us to break ties with the Saudi government.
You constantly mouth anti-American rhetoric, that "a vast part of the rest of the world opposes our foreign policy" in the Middle East.
You say that as if you're stating that as what
they believe, but you ambiguously imply that you believe that yourself. And I've seen comments by you on other topics that are very pessimistic about American motives and basic nature.
Which again ignores many facts. That our foreign intervention is not out of the blue, but a U.S. reaction to Arab aggression:
- We're in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and elsewhere in the Middle East at the invitation of those governments, because of Saddam's aggression in 1990-1991.
- We have troops training Georgians in former-soviet Georgia, because of Chechnyan islamic terrorism that has spilled over into that country.
- We have a presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan as a direct result of 9-11 al Qaida/Muslim terrorism.
- We bombed Libya because of its involvement in any number of hijackings and airline bombings.
- We have a presence in Liberia (somewhat reluctanty) as a result of Islamic violence, and de-stabilization of Liberia by neighboring Islamic states.
- We have a deep involvement in Indonesia, because of the 1990's internal meltdown of their economy, due to internal corruption.
- We have troops in the Phillipines because of Islamic violence and al Qaida activity. (Do most people even know that Islamic terrorists blew up a trade center building in Manila before 9-11 ? )
In every major crisis and natural disaster, the U.S. leaps to help Muslims. From the recent earthquakes in Turkey and Iran, to bailing out the Indonesian economy (a cost deep into the billions) to Ethiopian famine relief, to several cynically regarded military actions by the United States in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo and elsewhere.
Most of the nations who receive the greatest foreign aid from the United States are Muslim nations as well, including Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Pakistan, and now Afghanistan and Iraq.
But it seems whatever aid the United States provides, no matter how little the U.S. has to gain by its intervention, those hell-bent on hating the United States wil spin U.S. action into a negative light, and assume the most cynical motivations.
Perhaps you will pause from your knee-jerk anti-Bush/anti-Americanism to take note of these facts.
I'm sorry if that seems like a harsh statement, but I really don't understand the embracement of anti-American rhetoric by liberals, their eagerness to believe the worst about the United States, while accepting whole and undigested the hypocritical rhetoric of America's enemies.
The previously discussed words of Ann Coulter, from her book
Traitor come to mind, of how liberals are traitors because they constantly/reflexively take the position of whatever is worst for the United States. And thus actively support the enemy's cause.
And your anti-American rhetoric also ignores that the "imperialist"/"unilateral" United States leaps on virtually every occasion to help the Arab world.
Even under Clinton's reign, where Clinton had relatively limited military action in the Middle East, and demonstrated great sensitivity toward Arab concerns, terrorism
stillwent on unabated. During the Clinton years, the U.S. complied with the U.N., and the U.S. intervened on behalf of Bosnian Muslims and Kosovar Muslims. And
still Muslims worldwide found a way to rationalize their hatred of the U.S. As did other enemies of the United States in Europe and elsewhere.
It is
not because of American action that Arabs hate the United States. That is merely a
rationalization for violence. It is because of hate propaganda in the Arab world, no matter
what the United States does.
And fanning the flames of aggression toward the West at every opportunity are Islamic clerics.
And it's not just Muslim hostility toward the West either.
Islamic groups have waged similar terrorism against taoist/buddhist China, and hindu India. Within weeks of 9-11-2001, a Muslim attack killed a large number of members of the Indian parliament.
If not for the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania on 9-11, that would have occurred to the U.S. Congress and Senate as well.
Islamic violence is rampant. And it is utter blindness not to credit this violence as originating from Islamic religion and teaching.
Chapter and verse.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Animalman, I think I've already answered virtually all your points in my previous posts.
I've read through all the posts in this thread. I think we've touched on some of the points, but haven't really resolved any.
Quote:
It's still a stretch to compare Hitler to Islamic fundamentalism, beyond their murderous tendency to kill dissenters to their cause. But Hitler's alleged fervent Christianity is baseless and scriptureless (as I already said).
Baseless? Hardly, he goes on and on and on about his religious beliefs. Whether or not he quotes scripture continuously is beside the point. Religion is a lot more than a series of quotes.
In Hitler's Mein Kampf, he does, infact, quote the Bible, and states that the basis of his beliefs are consistent with that of a Christian. Furthermore, he says:
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
Clearly a profession of his beliefs as a Christian. Now, while I do think that he distorted the message of Christianity to fit his own agenda, it's quite clear(to me, at least) that he did infact believe he was doing what was right, on the basis of being a Christian.
Yes, he did kill Christians, too, but he only killed those that he thought weren't fit to be a part of his new Arian society. They "weren't Christian enough", essentially. The same holds true for the Christian officials he criticized later on for not supporting his call for war. It doesn't prove that he wasn't a religious person, I just think it proves that he was so crazy he turned on everyone around him, alienating himself(and his followers) from the rest of the world.
Quote:
I completely disagree with your assertion that the a vast percentage of the Muslim world does not eagerly embrace terrorism and Jihad, and support it with grassroots fundraising and active support. Saudi Arabia's imams had a broadcast telethon to support Palestinian terrorism, for God's sake.
Even if we were to assume that the Arabic Muslims were supportive of terrorism(and assumption that can hardly be made by local broadcasts, broadcasts that are controlled by the powerful, not by the majority), the Arabs make up only a small percentage of the Muslim people around the world.
Outside of this region(one that has been decimated by war and violence for so long it's not hard to see why such acts might be embraced), it becomes increasingly clear that the number of violent supporters lessen. For every 60 minutes interviewee, I can cite educated individuals in direct opposition to Bin Laden's Jihad.
And speaking of education, is it possible that the reason Bin Laden has so many supporters in Saudi Arabia is that the people aren't receiving truthful information? In one of the articles I linked in my last post there was a man interviewed who said he supported Bin Laden because he had yet to see evidence linking him to 9/11.
Is it possible that these people believe Bin Laden is a hero....because that's exactly what they're being told? After all, who controls the flow of information in these poor regions? How much do they really know? They know that Osama Bin Laden claims America's capitalist ways are destroying Islam, and they also probably know that we've invaded their Holy Land, in essence violating what they consider to be sacred. In such a scenario, who would you believe?
This is, for the most part, speculation on my part. I'm merely trying to provide different points of view, here, looking at "the bigger picture". I certainly have an easier time digesting a theory like this than I do the one you're presenting.
Quote:
It seems to me that your arguments try to intellectualize the issue with academic writings, and deny the obvious active widespread popular Muslim support of terrorism.
That's the problem. I don't see it as obvious. I consider the opinions of scholars to be more reliable than random people shown on 60 minutes or Dateline or other supposedly "non-partisan" TV shows because the scholars are often those who have studied Islam, it's believers, and it's affect on society for years; some devote their life to it. I'd like to believe that they would have a better idea of what the general Muslim population thinks of Osama Bin Laden.
Quote:
Your assertion that Wahabism is not connected to al Qaida, is likewise a skillful circumventing of the truth.
I'm not asserting that. This is just clearly what they themselves are saying.
Quote:
Al Qaida has long been recognized as a terrorist sect that has sprung from Wahabist missionary teachings in Afghanistan.
Well, the information on that website seems to suggest that that recognization, while common, is ultimately false.
Quote:
Again, I refer to to the story on Saudi Arabia in TIME, "Do We Still Need the Saudis", in the August 5, 2002 issue, exploring Saudi Islamic clerics's active cultivation and financial support of terrorism, and Wahabism in particular.
I'll have to check that issue out.
Quote:
You constantly mouth anti-American rhetoric
No. No, I do not. I'm simply stating what the common conception of America is. Just ask some of the foreigners here on this very message board, like Dave or Mxy. More than 85% of Chile(Mxy's home) was opposed to the U.S invasion of Iraq. This does not mean such countries are "anti-American". Disagreeing with a person(or a group of people)'s actions, and being "against" that person aren't the same thing.
I am not taking sides on the issue. I'm just presenting the evidence in as impartial a fashion as I am capable of, for argument's sake. That being said, yes, I do still have my bias, my leanings, my slant, as do we all.
I am not "anti-American". I almost feel silly having to even type that. Frankly, I wouldn't know how to go about being anti-American. It's who I am. I was born here, I've lived here my entire life, and I certainly don't regret that fact.
Quote:
You say that as if you're stating that as what they believe, but you ambiguously imply that you believe that yourself.
You're close to opening quite a can of worms here, Dave. I have to admit that one of my biggest pet peeves is having other people assume something about me and my thought processes without proper evidence. I cannot stand that. It infuriates me.
If I imply anything when in these conversations, it is that, in an argument, I am inclined to present opposing viewpoints, if I feel they might hold water. By presenting them, I am not pledging my own allegiance. I'm just the type of person who tries to examine as many different angles as possible in every discussion. I can tell you that I've held this same discussion from the opposing viewpoint, while talking with some of my more fiercely liberal friends.
If I wish to disclose my personal feelings on a matter, rest assured that(unless I think it's self explanatory) I shall prefice my statements with "I think", or someting similar. I'll make it blatantly obvious when I'm sharing my thoughts, and, from now on, I'd appreciate it if you'd respect that. In return, I shall try my best to reciprocate.
Quote:
And I've seen comments by you on other topics that are very pessimistic about American motives and basic nature.
I question that which I feel I must, and I make no apologies for that. If anything, I think that makes me a good American, and, to be honest, a more enlightened person. It is my greatest wish that the world will never reach a point where thinking for yourself becomes unfashionable, or something to be scorned. I don't feel entitled to speculate on whether or not that point already has been reached.
Quote:
Which again ignores many facts. That our foreign intervention is not out of the blue, but a U.S. reaction to Arab aggression
Without suggesting that I lend my support to either side of this issue, let me just say that your statement there(that the reason the U.S is intervening in foreign affairs is to react) is not a fact, but an opinion. An opinion that I do not ignore, but rather examine in relation with other opinions.
And, in any event, U.S intervention in the Middle East is another issue entirely, and one that I've already discussed to death elsewhere.
Quote:
It is not because of American action that Arabs hate the United States. That is merely a rationalization for violence. It is because of hate propaganda in the Arab world, no matter what the United States does.
Then why is it that America was the target of such hate propaganda to begin with?
Quote:
Islamic violence is rampant. And it is utter blindness not to credit this violence as originating from Islamic religion and teaching.
I do not deny that such violence stems from origins of an Islamic nature. I simply don't believe that because something has produced violence(with other factors being involved), it must, therefore, be violent itself.
I just checked in and saw your post, Animalman.
Your quotes of me in your post are from an earlier draft that I updated with correction of typos, and hopefully more clear language, while you were still writing your post.
What I'd earlier attributed to "you" I more precisely attributed to "the article", regarding ideas I consider anti-American.
Although I still feel you are overly accepting of that viewpoint as well.
I don't doubt that you're trying to weigh the issue.
And there are certainly things the U.S. (and many other nations across the world) can be criticised for, regarding our policy toward the Middle East and the broader Muslim world over the last hundred years.
(CIA maneuvering of coups and friendly dictatorships, in the Middle East as well as the hispanic world, for example.
But even that criticism ignores that we were fighting a cold war against communism, and that these actions, along with wars in Korea, Vietnam and elsewhere, while not the most shining moment for the United States, arguably saved lives and avoided greater bloodshed in the long term).
But again, what I consider anti-American is that you seem to (as many others here on the boards and elsewhere are doing) blame America first and foremost for the state of the Middle East, and be less cynical of what, say, the French and German governments, and activists throughout Europe say in criticism of U.S. policy in the Middle East, while not giving the same cynical scrutiny to what is said
against the United States.
Obviously, Britain, France, Russia and Germany have had their
own negative influence on the Middle East over the last few decades. Yet America is demonized, and others are given a free pass.
I stand behind the invasion of Iraq as a necessary act that was inevitable, and better
now than several years from now, when Saddam would have been able to become a greater threat and work unfettered without U.N sanctions and inspections. And would have several more years to exterminate even more of his own people.
Quote:
Originally posted by Animalman:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy:
Islamic violence is rampant. And it is utter blindness not to credit this violence as originating from Islamic religion and teaching.
Then why is it that America was the target of such hate propaganda to begin with?
Because it is propaganda, from both Europe and the Muslim world.
Arab governments are hostile to the United States because they would like to destroy Israel, or barring that possibility, make things as difficult as possible for Israel.
Arab governments dislike U.S. assistance of Israel, are hostile to the U.S., and paint the most demonized portrayal of the U.S. possible in their state-controlled media.
Independently owned arab news network Al Jazeera panders to existing Muslim hatred of the U.S. to get maximum audience.
Review of any Arab media coverage from during the Iraq war last year shows just how absurdly innacurate their "news" is.
The ease with which U.S. forces destroyed Saddam's government, and the painstaking U.S. efforts to fight a bloodless war against Iraq, and avoid Iraqi civilian casualties, were portrayed in the Arab media as a long valiant struggle against a ruthless and merciless U.S. aggressor.
European governments are hostile to U.S. action because the European Union is struggling to take the U.S.'s place in the Middle East, both economically and diplomatically.
Arabs welcome this courtship by Europe, because they know that Europe would negotiate a Palestinian/Israeli peace deal more to the advantage of the Arabs than the Israelis.
Regarding the purity of French, German and Russian motives for opposing the Iraq war:
Let's not forget that the oh-so-altruistic French government sold a nuclear reactor to Iraq, that was known to be used by Iraq to create weapons grade plutonium, until the Israelis bombed the reactor to the ground in 1981. Which act the Europeans and Arab governments all condemned as "illegal". (Sound familiar ?) But saner nations of the world breathed a sigh of relief.
Similarly, the Russian government has now built reactors for radical fundamentalist Iran, even as Iran also appears to be using these nuclear facilities for weapons development. Despite demands for verification from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the United States and other saner nations, the oh-so-altruistic Russians continue to enable Iran to pursue nuclear weapons.
And leftists in the European and global media have their own self-serving reasons for bashing the United States for its middle East policy.
The "illegal invasion" and "unilateral action" and "blood for oil" arguments, and all the other unfounded kneejerk and slanted arguments, just don't hold up.
Saddam was evil. Despite any U.S. action and/or inaction in the Middle East in recent decades, Saddam did these things:
- Genocide of his own people.
- Mass graves.
- Mass torture and rape of his citizens.
- Aggression against his neighbors.
- Pursuit of WMD's (whether or not he actually had them at the time of his fall, U.N. military inventory records from Iraq, not just the scouts-honor word of the U.S., show Saddam actively pursued, and had, these WMD's at one time, whether or not he still had them.)
- Setting aside a division of his army to secretly develop WMD's, and assigned to hide them from the U.N., as Iraqi military defectors began reporting in 1995.
- Non-compliance with U.N. weapons inspectors, and terms of the 1991 peace agreement, finally throwing out weapons inspectors in 1998.
And on and on.
To try and shift the blame to the U.S. for whatever level of interaction or non-intervention with Iraq and the Middle East region at various points over recent decades, ignores the key point that Saddam did these things. Whether successful or not in fully acquiring WMD's, or keeping the ones he produced, Saddam pursued WMD's and committed genocide, and given a free hand and the imminent lifting of weapons inspections, he would have had an opportunity in a year or three years or five years to become another Libya or North Korea or Iran.
Yes, it can be argued that U.S. troops were on the Arabian peninsula, as al Qaida rages about, as rationalization for their violence.
But again ( as I said above, I hope it's sinking in ! ) We are there at the invitation of the Saudi, Kuwaiti, and Qatar governments.
And we've only been there for 12 years because of U.S. compliance with U.N. limitations, authorizing the U.S. led coalition in 1991 to push Saddam's military out of Kuwait, and the U.S. continued to respect the U.N.'s limitation for 12 years that we were not to invade Iraq.
Likewise, we maintained Northern and Southern no-fly zones over Iraq, to keep Saddam's military from exterminating more of the Kurds and Shi'ites in his country. Again, we were there for 12 years in that limited capacity, because that is the limit of what the U.N. authorized the United States to do, and the U.S. respected that limit, until illegal trade with Iraq (enabling Saddam to stay in power) and crumbling sanctions made invasion a now-or-never proposition.
And as Bush pointed out in his Jan 20, 2004 State of the Union address, 60 nations did support an international effort to remove Saddam, despite the obstruction efforts of France, Germany and Russia. So while a U.N. mandate was obstructed, the U.S. was able to form an international effort regardless.
If Bush Sr. and Gen. Schwartzkopf had conducted the 1991 war the way they wanted to, the way we should have, we would have toppled Hussein in a few days in 1991, and American troops would never have been on the Arabian peninsula for 12 years. (And the contrived rationalization for Muslim/al Qaida violence would not exist.)
But either way, Arabs would have found a rationalization with which to curse the U.S.
Compliance, non-compliance.
Regardless, it is spun negatively.
The U.S. puts out fires, while the rest of the world would let them rage out of control. And then the U.S. is cursed for it.
I fail to see what you have left to ponder, when that fact is so obvious.
Not to get totaly off topic here, but I don't remember anything about Hitler doing the things he did in the name of religion. Granted it's been a good 13 years since high school, but my senior year I was in an Honors US History class and heard what Hitler did to his countrymen and his reasoning behind it. Yes my teacher was Jewish and so he spoke of it from more a personal level then someone else might have.
If you really wanted to justify his actions, then yes you can use religion as the basis, but in doing so, you're taking the responsibility away from him and putting it on religion. Like I said, I don't remember ever hearing anything about him using religion as the reasoning for everything he did. So I'm not buying into that. That's like the klan idiots that claim cross buring is in the bible. In all my life I have never once remembered seeing anything in the Bible mention cross burning, much less it being soemthing good, as I've seen them claim on a talk show once years ago.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
But again, what I consider anti-American is that you seem to (as many others here on the boards and elsewhere are doing) blame America first and foremost for the state of the Middle East, and be less cynical of what, say, the French and German governments, and activists throughout Europe say in criticism of U.S. policy in the Middle East, while not giving the same cynical scrutiny to what is said against the United States.
I wouldn't say I blame the United States first and foremost, but I do think they were a contributing factor. Afterall, we put Saddam Hussein in charge, and we were funding him for a while(the situation does, to a certain extent, resemble the U.S's relationship with the Viet Nam government 40 years ago).
At the same time, I think that because the common perception of the United States is that we are the "global bully", we are blamed for a majority of the world's international problems, and often unfairly so.
Quote:
Arab governments dislike U.S. assistance of Israel, are hostile to the U.S., and paint the most demonized portrayal of the U.S. possible in their state-controlled media.
Independently owned arab news network Al Jazeera panders to existing Muslim hatred of the U.S. to get maximum audience.
Review of any Arab media coverage from during the Iraq war last year shows just how absurdly innacurate their "news" is.
Interesting. I'd say this would support my theory on the Arab masses' perception of the United States being the creation of the media.
Quote:
European governments are hostile to U.S. action because the European Union is struggling to take the U.S.'s place in the Middle East, both economically and diplomatically.
Arabs welcome this courtship by Europe, because they know that Europe would negotiate a Palestinian/Israeli peace deal more to the advantage of the Arabs than the Israelis.
That seems awfully simplistic. You don't think there might be a little more to it than that?
Quote:
And leftists in the European and global media have their own self-serving reasons for bashing the United States for its middle East policy.
By "leftists", do you mean the liberal factions of the European government, or just the left leaning people in general?
Quote:
Saddam was evil. Despite any U.S. action and/or inaction in the Middle East in recent decades, Saddam did these things:
- Genocide of his own people.
- Mass graves.
- Mass torture and rape of his citizens.
- Aggression against his neighbors.
- Pursuit of WMD's (whether or not he actually had them at the time of his fall, U.N. military inventory records from Iraq, not just the scouts-honor word of the U.S., show Saddam actively pursued, and had, these WMD's at one time, whether or not he still had them.)
- Setting aside a division of his army to secretly develop WMD's, and assigned to hide them from the U.N., as Iraqi military defectors began reporting in 1995.
- Non-compliance with U.N. weapons inspectors, and terms of the 1991 peace agreement, finally throwing out weapons inspectors in 1998.
And on and on.
Saddam's violent and murderous exploits are certainly well documented. I don't think anyone questions that. From what I understand, the opposing viewpoint is centered more around the nature of the invasion(and any possible alterior motives Bush may have had) rather than the necessity of Hussein's removal from office.
Of course, we've already covered this before.
Quote:
I fail to see what you have left to ponder, when that fact is so obvious.
I don't think Saddam and the Iraq War has a whole lot to do with whether or not Islam is a violent religion. I think you and I have said just about all we can on those subjects. If I've caused this shift in topic I apologize.
Quote:
Batwoman said:
Not to get totaly off topic here, but I don't remember anything about Hitler doing the things he did in the name of religion.
I've read a few chapters of Mein Kampf and it's given me a decidedly different view of his motivation. He even disects various portions of the Bible and discusses their impact on his personal beliefs.
Quote:
If you really wanted to justify his actions
Why would I want to justify the deaths of millions of innocent people? There is no justification. Not in my mind.
Quote:
That's like the klan idiots that claim cross buring is in the bible. In all my life I have never once remembered seeing anything in the Bible mention cross burning, much less it being soemthing good, as I've seen them claim on a talk show once years ago.
I've heard various theories on the origin of the burning cross. Some trace it back to Roman times, other say that there were images of it conveyed in the New Testament, others say it's entirely an American invention.
The first reported cross burnings occured in the First Century CE (AD) in the Roman Empire. Nero made it a popular method of execution by burning Christians alive and using them as primitive lightposts throughout Rome. He basically stoked the flames (no pun intended) to the advent of the Great Persecution. He was also the first person to be deemed an "Anti-Christ" by the Christian Church centuries later. In ancient numerical code, 666 is the number/name of Nero.
History lesson over! My brain hurts...
Quote:
posted by Animalman:
Quote:
Posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
European governments are hostile to U.S. action because the European Union is struggling to take the U.S.'s place in the Middle East, both economically and diplomatically.
Arabs welcome this courtship by Europe, because they know that Europe would negotiate a Palestinian/Israeli peace deal more to the advantage of the Arabs than the Israelis.
That seems awfully simplistic. You don't think there might be a little more to it than that?
I find "simplistic" a rather insulting characterization for a view that is so widely held among pundits, scholars and Journalists writing about the situation in Europe and the Middle East.
There is little dispute that the European Union is a rising power, and that its rise to power makes it far less reliant, and increasingly less cooperative with, the United States.
France's obstructionism of the United States has been evident for decades. And now Germany has joined them for their own reasons, desiring greater power and influence for the European Union.
China is another rising power seeking to expand its political, economic and military influence.
Charles Krauthammer said the exact same thing I did in the January 12, 2004 issue of TIME magazine (page 45).
And I heard Robert Kagan voice the same perspective tonight on the Charlie Rose program.
There are other side issues, sure. But that's what it ultimately boils down to.
Quote:
posted by Animalman:
Quote:
Posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
And leftists in the European and global media have their own self-serving reasons for bashing the United States for its middle East policy.
By "leftists", do you mean the liberal factions of the European government, or just the left leaning people in general?
I actually mean both.
I recall when Gerhard Schroeder was elected President of Germany, and Tony Blair had just become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, many pundits joked that it was somewhat alarming that (less than a decade after the era of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher) the most conservative leader in the free world was now Bill Clinton !
And needless to say, Clinton was not a pillar of conservatism.
But relative to his fellow leaders in Europe, Clinton was conservative by comparison.
But more so in my comment, I was referring to leftist activist groups, and the left-leaning media, and the many pro-Muslim voices in The Guardian and elsewhere, which are obviously not leftist, but combine in a shared song of slanted anti-Americanism, that absolutely refuses to even give passing counter-perspective to the fact that the United States has a case for its war on terror, and an equal case for invading Iraq.
As Kagan said in an earlier interview(based on his observation, working in Europe), the case for invasion of Iraq is not even given token mention in European news, so of course the European public has a negative opinion of the Iraq War.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I find "simplistic" a rather insulting characterization for a view that is so widely held among pundits, scholars and Journalists writing about the situation in Europe and the Middle East.
So these pundits, scholars and journalists believe that Europe opposes U.S action simply because they want to usurp our position there?
I'd image they would find that insulting, unless I'm misinterpreting you.
Quote:
There are other side issues, sure. But that's what it ultimately boils down to.
Ah, ok then, so why is the suggestion that these "side issues"(as you call them) exist so insulting, when even you, yourself, admit they do?
Quote:
I actually mean both.
What "self serving" reasons would the general civilian population have to be opposed to U.S action?
Quote:
But more so in my comment, I was referring to leftist activist groups, and the left-leaning media, and the many pro-Muslim voices in The Guardian and elsewhere, which are obviously not leftist, but combine in a shared song of slanted anti-Americanism, that absolutely refuses to even give passing counter-perspective to the fact that the United States has a case for its war on terror, and an equal case for invading Iraq.
How exactly could they "give passing counter-perspective"? If you have an opinion on something, that's your opinion. Sometimes it just isn't going to coincide with someone elses. Would you expect them to be swayed by your argument, because you might think the war was justified? I don't see either side backing down here, and probably rightfully so. If this was such a clearcut issue, it wouldn't be one of the most heavily debated topics in the world today.
As I've said elsewhere, all extremists are crazy. I generally look more towards the middle ground, because it's there that you'll most often find the people that have actually weighed both sides.
Quote:
As Kagan said in an earlier interview(based on his observation, working in Europe), the case for invasion of Iraq is not even given token mention in European news, so of course the European public has a negative opinion of the Iraq War.
I can't testify to what is and isn't given credence in European news(I doubt anyone could really determine that, not even Kagan), but Europe isn't made up of third world countries. Information is available to those who wish to find it. Who's to say that the European case is given mention here in America? We're certainly no more or less guilty of media slanting than they are. The fact is, non-partisan reporting doesn't exist, despite what those reporting might say.
I really don't see much to respond to in your post.
Basically, you've just responded with argumentative opinion to everything I've said. And you respond with speculations, speculating that I'M speculating.
You have your opinion, and have a right to it.
The one thing that annoys me is this statement:
Quote:
Originally posted by Animalman:
As I've said elsewhere, all extremists are crazy. I generally look more towards the middle ground, because it's there that you'll most often find the people that have actually weighed both sides.
Implying that I'm an extremist, and that because I more strongly support one side (even though I've also repeatedly voiced criticism of aspects of Bush's current Middle East policy, and acknowledged the shortcomings of Western and American culture as well) that I'm an "extremist", and that I'm closed-minded and haven't "actually weighed both sides".
I've said repeatedly that I initially bought the liberal proaganda, and it was only as I continued to see more coverage of events that the liberal perspective (or in this case, the pro-Muslim portion of the liberal perspective) increasingly rang untrue.
I get really annoyed with the arrogance and presumptuousness of liberals, who dismissively box-categorize those who disagree with them, as "not having weighed" or "extremist".
I, and others, have an equally valid perspective, whether or not you agree with it. Your need to label me and others makes your opinion inherently and pointlessly antagonistic. Slapping labels on the opposition is not detailing, or helping, your case.
____________________________
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
I get really tired of liberal rhetoric on these boards that relentlessly bashes conservatives, and consistently bypasses these facts.
What constitutes "freedom" or "repression" for conservatives and liberals, really depends on which side best represents your views.
As a conservative, I find the liberal advances repressive on MY beliefs.
And I am deeply annoyed by a news media that favors liberals, and relentlessly and biasedly portrays Conservatives as the repressors. It cuts both ways.
Best. Post. Ever.
Whoah whoah whoah. I was not implying you were an extremist. I wasn't even thinking about that, it was just about the farthest thing from my mind. I was referring to the far left-wing European groups you mentioned.
Just wanted to clear that up. Otherwise, I'm not sure what else you expect of me. You make some pretty strong comments, and seem to draw a very distinct line between liberals and conservatives in this matter. For example, when you refer to "liberals", you call them simply that, making no seperation between the media, the extremists or the plain, average, everday middle-area people. Please understand, that's not intended as an insult, I just think it's a lot more grey than black or white. That's not to say you think it's a black and white issue, I'm just getting that kind of impression from your posts.
P.S-you stole my signature bit, there.
Quote:
Animalman said:
P.S-you stole my signature bit, there.
No, I responded to it.
I find it a presumptuous bit of arrogance that presumes if someone holds an opinion you don't like, that they must be this and that, and if they only believe what YOU believe, they'd be a fulfilled and intelligent person.
It's an arrogant slap in the face you attach to every one of your posts.
Your arrogant, presumed superiority.
Quote:
signature, Animalman:
Until you stop hating things and stop picking them apart, until you realize and embrace the quality of things around you, you'll just be an unhappy man. Until you are happy with your own life you can never see the greatness and potential in things and people. You will continue to judge them in through the eyes of a bitter, cynical nitpicker. For your own sake come out of those nature shadows and free yourself, embrace individuality and the unique voice within yourself.
best.post.ever.
Quote:
Animalman said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I find "simplistic" a rather insulting characterization for a view that is so widely held among pundits, scholars and Journalists writing about the situation in Europe and the Middle East.
So these pundits, scholars and journalists believe that Europe opposes U.S action simply because they want to usurp our position there?
I'd image they would find that insulting, unless I'm misinterpreting you.
Actually, on second look, this annoys me too.
It assumes, again, insultingly, that I've either misinterpreted or deliberately misrepresented what they've written and said, and adding to the insult, that they'd be pissed off by the context in which I quoted them.
Read their writings !
More presumptuous, insulting arrogance on your part.
Quote:
Animalman said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
There are other side issues, sure. But that's what it ultimately boils down to.
Ah, ok then, so why is the suggestion that these "side issues"(as you call them) exist so insulting, when even you, yourself, admit they do?
Because you can get lost in the details and miss the major thrust of what is occurring between Europe, the Middle East, and the United States. Which I attempted to focus on.
The side issues themselves are not insulting, your dismissing my evaluation of the core issue as "simplistic" is what's insulting.
Quote:
Animalman said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I actually mean both.
What "self serving" reasons would the general civilian population have to be opposed to U.S action?
I believe I'd focused in my comment on European anti-American opinion originating from liberal activist groups and liberal governments in Europe, a popular attitude cultivated to support attempts of the European Union to strengthen itself by usurping U.S. diplomatic influence in the Middle East.
But if you insist, on the smaller issue of what "selfish motivation" Europeans in the streets have for anti-Americanism, it's to scapegoat the U.S. to rationalize the failures they see in their own government, and believe in the superiority of their own system. Everyone wants to believe their culture is the best culture.
But anti-Americanism is less something the European population chooses, it is more something that is fed to them, by their media and government, and activists.
Quote:
Animalman said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
But more so in my comment, I was referring to leftist activist groups, and the left-leaning media, and the many pro-Muslim voices in The Guardian and elsewhere, which are obviously not leftist, but combine in a shared song of slanted anti-Americanism, that absolutely refuses to even give passing counter-perspective to the fact that the United States has a case for its war on terror, and an equal case for invading Iraq.
How exactly could they "give passing counter-perspective"? If you have an opinion on something, that's your opinion. Sometimes it just isn't going to coincide with someone elses. Would you expect them to be swayed by your argument, because you might think the war was justified? I don't see either side backing down here, and probably rightfully so. If this was such a clearcut issue, it wouldn't be one of the most heavily debated topics in the world today.
I was speaking of the European news media, not individuals. It is their job to provide both sides. Editorials or public forums are another issue.
But my own samplings of BBC, DW News, The Guardian, and other Euro-news, is that it's one-sided and anti-American, and the argument for war in Iraq is never even made. I feel it is barely made in the liberal press of the United States, and how much less so, in Europe and the rest of the world ? No wonder so much of the world opposes the Iraq war. They've been given virtually no counter-argument.
Quote:
Animalman said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
As Kagan said in an earlier interview(based on his observation, working in Europe), the case for invasion of Iraq is not even given token mention in European news, so of course the European public has a negative opinion of the Iraq War.
I can't testify to what is and isn't given credence in European news(I doubt anyone could really determine that, not even Kagan), but Europe isn't made up of third world countries. Information is available to those who wish to find it. Who's to say that the European case is given mention here in America? We're certainly no more or less guilty of media slanting than they are. The fact is, non-partisan reporting doesn't exist, despite what those reporting might say.
Well, I can't testify with absolute authority on European media and popular opinion. But I do have some idea, from watching BBC and other European sources I mentioned, and hearing panel discussions of scholars and journalists and leaders who frequent these places, that I see interviewed.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I find it a presumptuous bit of arrogance that presumes if someone holds an opinion you don't like, that they must be this and that, and if they only believe what YOU believe, they'd be a fulfilled and intelligent person.
It's an arrogant slap in the face you attach to every one of your posts.
Your arrogant, presumed superiority.
Huh?
I'm afraid you're way off base here. That signature came from my dealings with Pig Iron's alternate ID, Rue De Nocturne. He showed up out of the blue one day and started insulting several people(namely me, Uschi, Jaburg, and a few others) on the off topic/offensive post board, for no apparent reason. When I responded to him, he gave me that little diatribe, which was actually a lot longer than what I posted(the signature space is limited, though, so I had to edit to fit). I was so baffled at how somehow could take what we said on the off topic/offensive post forum so seriously(when the entire point of that forum is to goof off and say anything), I assumed it must be some trollish alternate ID of MrJLA, or someone like that. So, to get back at him, I put his post in my signature, figuring that if I rubbed it in his face enough he'd go away eventually and stop harrassing me, which he did. I kept it because I'm too lazy to change it, just like I'm too lazy to repick my avatar(which I'm assuming was reset during the move).
So, no, it's not my presumed superiority, it's just a simple, harmless, inside joke. I doubt Pig Iron takes offense, though if he does I'll gladly remove it. I think we've all moved on.
Quote:
Actually, on second look, this annoys me too.
It assumes, again, insultingly, that I've either misinterpreted or deliberately misrepresented what they've written and said, and adding to the insult, that they'd be pissed off by the context in which I quoted them.
Read their writings !
More presumptuous, insulting arrogance on your part.
What the hell?
Ok, Dave, I've tried really hard to be diplomatic here. I've chosen my words extremely carefully, I've been as unforthcoming as I know how, and I've even backtracked to give you the benefit of the doubt by specifically stating that I don't mean or intend to assume something about you(see the post before my "you stole my signature" joke).
Yet, time and time again, you say I'm insulting you, or implying that you're trying to spin things. It seems that we can't have an intelligent, adult conversation without it somehow turning into a personal attack. I don't know why you're so quick to assume that I'm assuming, but believe me, I try very hard not to do that.
I'm not insulting you. I'm not assuming anything about you other than what you specifically state. I'm not claiming moral superiority here. I'm sorry if you're taking it that way, but I really dont' know what else to say. I'm not going to just agree with everything you say word for word, simply to avoid confrontation and the possiblity that I might offend you. Unless you come right out and say something about me, as you're doing here, I never assume you're implying something, and so I'm rarely, if ever, insulted by the suggestion of an opposing view. I'm not taking what you claim about Islam as something to form an opinion of you on. They're just opinions(just words, really), and this is just a message board. Therefore, I have no reason to belittle you.
To be honest, I like debating with you because you're clearly intelligent, well read, and you don't back down from your stance on an argument. I respect that. As long as it's well stated, I have no problem disagreeing with somebody. It's only when the opinion is unfounded, and ignorant that my tolerance shortens. In that sense, yes, I suppose I do have some small inherent belief of superiority, but I think we all do. You wouldn't accept that the Klu Klux Klan or the Nazis were morally justified, right(I think you've already said that you didn't, otherwise I wouldn't assume)? Neither would I. And why is that? Because the only justification they ever give is something along the lines of "because we're better than the blacks, jews, hispanics and asians", which, by the values of our society is clearly wrong. So, we disregard them.
...anyway, I'm getting way off track here. Back to my statement. All I was trying to say was that there might be another interpretation to what scholars might say in regards to Europe's stance on U.S action. Not that you had misinterpreted them, and certainly not that you were deliberately misrepresenting them. Only that there might be more to it than what you had described.
Why did I feel bringing that up was necessary? Because, in your argument, you didn't say that "one of the reasons why Europe opposes America" or even "the main reason why Europe opposes America", you just listed it as the reason. Do I assume when reading that that you don't consider other reasons? No. You just didn't mention it, so I wanted to. I didn't really understand what was so insulting about that, but I apologize if you took it as an insult. It was certainly not my intention.
By the way, if you'd like me to read some of those writings, I'd certainly give them a look. I looked through my old Time magazines for that article, but it seems that it was after I cancelled my subscription, so I'll have to go to the university library.
Quote:
But if you insist, on the smaller issue of what "selfish motivation" Europeans in the streets have for anti-Americanism, it's to scapegoat the U.S. to rationalize the failures they see in their own government, and believe in the superiority of their own system. Everyone wants to believe their culture is the best culture.
But anti-Americanism is less something the European population chooses, it is more something that is fed to them, by their media and government, and activists.
I suppose I can agree with that. I also think there are those who look at how much American culture has invaded other nations, "Americanizing" them(especially third world countries), and resent that. And, of course, I think there are simply those who believe that war is always wrong, and that by invading Iraq, America is just "sinking to their level"(the "two wrongs don't make a right" thinkers).
I, myself, can see where someone might be coming from with some of those viewpoints. While I certainly don't hate America, I do regret the number of people we've assimilated into our culture, at the cost of theirs.
Quote:
I was speaking of the European news media, not individuals. It is their job to provide both sides. Editorials or public forums are another issue.
Do you think our media provides both sides? Honest question, here, not a loaded one. I'm not sure we do. Afterall, the media is just a bunch of people, and people have biases and slants like everyone else.
Animalman, I appreciate your polite and sincere response. And as has often been said, it's sometimes difficult to tell whether a posted written statement is made with a sentiment of sincerity, sarcasm, contempt or whatever.
If you say you meant no insult, that's good enough for me, and I apologize for perhaps over-reacting.
I hope you can see, looking through your previous comments that I specified, how I was able to interpret them the way I did.
Particularly this one:
Quote:
Animalman said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I find "simplistic" a rather insulting characterization for a view that is so widely held among pundits, scholars and Journalists writing about the situation in Europe and the Middle East.
So these pundits, scholars and journalists believe that Europe opposes U.S action simply because they want to usurp our position there?
I'd image they would find that insulting, unless I'm misinterpreting you.
I mean, to say that these journalists would find my comments insulting... normally I would have asked you for clarification, but that seemed pretty clear in its harshness.
But you've already answered that, and I don't want to continue to rake you over the coals for something you've already clarified and said was not meant as insult. I only repeat it to clarify my own reaction, and hope you can see my point of view on it, why I interpreted it as I did.
Regarding your signature quote, I see it as less confrontational now, after you explained the story behind it.
It certainly wasn't related to me.
The "stole my signature" joke you made, I actually didn't get at all previously that it was intended as a joke.
Again, it's sometimes difficult to see the tone with which something was said. If you said that in the "Superhero Sex" topic, I might have gotten that it was a joke.
But this has been a more consistently serious topic, and in the context of your other remarks, I wasn't expecting humor. Again, clearer now, with explanation.
Quote:
Animalman said:
...anyway, I'm getting way off track here. Back to my statement. All I was trying to say was that there might be another interpretation to what scholars might say in regards to Europe's stance on U.S action. Not that you had misinterpreted them, and certainly not that you were deliberately misrepresenting them. Only that there might be more to it than what you had described.
Why did I feel bringing that up was necessary? Because, in your argument, you didn't say that "one of the reasons why Europe opposes America" or even "the main reason why Europe opposes America", you just listed it as the reason. Do I assume when reading that that you don't consider other reasons? No. You just didn't mention it, so I wanted to. I didn't really understand what was so insulting about that, but I apologize if you took it as an insult. It was certainly not my intention.
Okay, that's much clearer than in your previous posts, and the point is well taken.
I thought of posting the Charles Krauthammer article from TIME, to save you the trouble of going to the library. I used to just click-and drag stuff from www.time.com , but now you have to pay for archived articles, which is a pain. But if I feel energetic, I'll manually type and post his one-page editorial here.
Quote:
Animalman said:
I also think there are those who look at how much American culture has invaded other nations, "Americanizing" them(especially third world countries), and resent that. And, of course, I think there are simply those who believe that war is always wrong, and that by invading Iraq, America is just "sinking to their level"(the "two wrongs don't make a right" thinkers).
Well, I see your point in the first part of this statement. That America can be resented not only for it's military policy, but also for its economic trade policy, and for its exports of culture that can threaten the native culture of places it is exported to.
An example of that is syndicated television programs. It's actually cheaper for a place like, say, India, to inexpensively purchase big-budget Hollywood programs, that are arguably not only cheaper, but better quality than anything India can natively produce.
And there was a period for several decades where India and many other third-world countries had a very high ratio of American TV programs, and that definitely stifles the preservation of native Indian culture, or other third-world nations where American programs dominate. India has since enacted laws that a certain percentage of programs broadcast now have to be natively produced in India.
So again, your point is made, that there are many factors that influence European thought, at the E.U. policy level, at the national level in each European country, and at the man-on-the-street level. And those factors can be military, economic, or cultural.
But having said that, I still think this is the dominant factor in French/German/Russian defiance of U.S. policy in Iraq, that they are playing to Arab resentment of U.S. policy, while simultaneously seeking to expand their own economic and diplomatic interests.
Quote:
Animalman said:
I, myself, can see where someone might be coming from with some of those viewpoints. While I certainly don't hate America, I do regret the number of people we've assimilated into our culture, at the cost of theirs.
At the cost of culture lost by U.S. culture exports that dominate in their own countries?
Or that they lose by immigrating to the United States?
The latter case, I fully expect them to assimilate within a generation, and have their first loyalty be to the culture of the United States.
For example, I am of English, Irish, Scottish, Dutch, German and Cherokee ancestry, and I have a level of pride in my heritage from each of these. But I'm first and foremost an American.
Quote:
Animalman said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I was speaking of the European news media, not individuals. It is their job to provide both sides. Editorials or public forums are another issue.
Do you think our media provides both sides? Honest question, here, not a loaded one. I'm not sure we do. After all, the media is just a bunch of people, and people have biases and slants like everyone else.
I actually think for American media, our news perspective is heavily influenced by foreign views of the U.S.
Especially up until 9-11, the media (which I've clearly said repeatedly is very liberal-dominated, about 80% liberal, according to every study I've ever seen of reporters) was almost apologetic about saying anything patriotic. I do feel that whether conservative, liberal or arguably neutral, the media tends to choose a "good side" and a "bad side" on a given issue reported, and consistently portray one side as favorable and right, and the other side as wrong, on just about any given story.
But despite that bias, you can still look through many sources and, with a little digging to find the less popular perspective, find perspectives of both sides.
You can read the New York Times and see one side, and read the Wall Street Journal and get the other, even though, in the specific example of news regarding Bush and Iraq, I think it's a very disproportionately small number of media sources in the U.S. --reporting about our government, our President !-- that give a pro-U.S. perspective.
What I object to is that as small a representation of the pro-Bush perspective is here, the pro-argument is virtually non-existent outside the U.S. Except for Blair's government in the U.K., I never hear ANYONE outside the U.S. argue the American perspective in Iraq. Not even the BBC.
Quote:
From TIME magazine, January 12, 2004 issue:
A FAREWELL TO ALLIES
Now they are neutrals. America can stand tall without them.
by Charles Krauthammer
Within days after Saddam's capture, France Germany and Russia announced their willingness to consider relieving Iraq's crushing debt burden.
This was no burst of conscience about repayable billions lent Saddam to squander on grotesque palaces and grotesque weapons. This was the wind shifting America's way in Iraq --and the neutrals adjusting course accordingly.
But this is not the beginning of a Great Conciliation. These countries were no help before the war, during the war, or after the war. France tried to rally the world to stop the U.S. from deposing Saddam. Russia was sending night-vision goggles to Saddam. Not one lifted a finger to help the postwar reconstruction.
Some Americans are bitter about this, others merely confused. Democrats think it's our fault. They charge Bush with mishandling relations with the allies. Theirs is an etmological problem.
Events have overtaken vocabulary.
These countries are not allies.
It is sheer laziness that counts France and Germany as old allies, sheer naivete that counts Russia as a new one.
It should not surprise us. Countries have different interests. For a half-century, anti-communism papered over these differences, but communism is gone.
Europe lives by Lord Palmerston's axiom: nations have no permanent allies, only permanent interests.
Alliance with America is no longer a permanent interest. The postwar alliance that once structured and indeed defined our world is dead. It died in 2003.
To be sure, there are some countries that see their ultimate security as dependent upon the international order maintained by the U.S. These are not insignificant countries, and over time they may become the kernal of an entirely new alliance system. They include Anglo-Saxons, (Britain, Australia), and a few Europeans (Italy, Spain, Poland, and other newly-liberated East European countries). They understand that the sinews of stability --free commerce, open sea lanes, regional balances of power, non-proliferation, deterrence-- are provided overwhelmingly by the American collossus.
They understand that without it, the world collapses into chaos and worse. They believe in the American umbrella, and are committed to helping the umbrella holder.
As for the rest, they are content to leave America out there twisting in the wind. They do not wish us destroyed -they are not crazy-- but they are not unhappy to see us distracted, diminished, and occasionally defeated.
When the Iraq war began, the French Foreign Minister refused a reporter's question, as to which side he wanted to win. This was not a mere expression of pique. When the existential enemy was Nazism or communism, the world rallied to the American protector.
But Arab-Islamic radicalism is different.
Its hatreds are wide, but its strategic focus is America. Its monument is Ground Zero.
Ground Zero is not in Paris.
The neutrals know that perhaps in the long run they too will be threatened. For now, however, they are quite content to see the U.S. carry the fight against the new barbarians. The U.S. was attacked, it will carry the fight regardless.
For much of the world, the war on terrorism offers not just a free ride, but a strategic bonus: American diminishment.
France unabashedly declares that American dominance is intolerable, and the world should by right be not unipolar, but multipolar.
Much of the rest of the world believes it, but does not have France's nerve to say it.
The hard fact is that war on many fronts is consuming and containing American power.
While America spends blood and treasure in faraway places like Baghdad, China builds the economic and military superpower of the future.
Europe knits itself into another continental collosus.
And the rest of the world goes about its business.
Meanwhile, the Americans take on the axis of evil one by one.
In the 1990's, containment of America took on a different form. With the acquiescence of the Democrat administration uncomfortable with American power, silk ropes were fashioned to tie down Gulliver: a myriad of treaties, protocols and prohibitions on everything from carbon emissions to land mines to nuclear testing. With the advent of the Bush administration, contemptuous of these restraints, that would no longer work.
Enter al-Qaida.
The neutrals may wax poetic about America's sins, but they do not hate us. The problem is not emotion, but calculation. At root, it is a matter of interests. Interests diverge. No use wailing about it. The grand alliances are dead. With a few trusted friends, America must carry on alone.
Quote:
Top Saudi Cleric Assails Terrorists
42 minutes ago
By RAWYA RAGEH, Associated Press Writer
MOUNT ARAFAT, Saudi Arabia - Saudi Arabia's top cleric called on Muslims around the world Saturday to forsake terrorism, saying those who claim to be holy warriors were an affront to the faith.
AP Photo
Two Million Complete Muslim Pilgrimage
(AP Video)
In a sermon that was remarkable not only for its strong language but also its timing — at the peak of the annual hajj — Sheik Abdul Aziz al-Sheik told 2 million pilgrims that terrorists were giving their enemies an excuse to criticize Muslim nations.
"Is it holy war to shed Muslim blood? Is it holy war to shed the blood of non-Muslims given sanctuary in Muslim lands? Is it holy war to destroy the possessions of Muslims?" he asked.
A large number of the victims of suicide attacks in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iraq (news - web sites) and elsewhere have been been Muslims.
Al-Sheik, who is widely respected in the Arab world as the foremost cleric in the country considered the birthplace of Islam, spoke at Namira Mosque in a televised sermon watched by millions of Muslims in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states.
The mosque is close to Mount Arafat, where the pilgrims converged Saturday for the climax of their annual trek. This year's hajj has been carried out amid heightened security after a year of terror attacks in the kingdom.
In speaking of terrorists who killed fellow Muslims, al-Sheik was clearly referring to the Prophet Muhammad's final sermon, delivered on Mount Arafat 14 centuries ago.
It contained the line: "Know that every Muslim is a Muslim's brother, and the Muslims are brethren. Fighting between them should be avoided."
Al-Sheik also criticized the international community, accusing it of attacking Wahhabism, the sect whose strict interpretation of Islam is followed in Saudi Arabia.
"This country is based on this religion and will remain steadfast on it," he said.
"Islam forbids all forms of injustice, killing without just cause, treachery ... hijacking of planes, boats and transportation means," he said.
Saudi Arabia came under Western pressure after the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States, in which 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens.
The Saudi government conducted a crackdown on extremist groups after suicide bombers attacked housing compounds inhabited by foreigners in May. Saudi and U.S. officials blamed the attack, and a similar suicide bombing in November, on groups linked to al-Qaida, which is led by the Saudi-born Osama bin Laden (news - web sites).
On Thursday, suspected terrorists shot dead six Saudi security personnel in a shootout in a house in suburban Riyadh.
In total last year, bombings in Saudi Arabia killed 51 people, including eight Americans. Saudi and U.S. officials have blamed the bin Laden's al-Qaida network. Bin Laden is a Saudi exile.
U.S. officials have been encouraging Saudis to crack down on financing for terrorism via religious charities and curtail teaching of religious extremism in schools as well as mount a campaign to undercut popular support al-Qaida.
Liberal intellectuals in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait also called for such revisions in the teaching of Islam in schools and mosques.
Governments in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan have taken steps toward purging school books of terms offensive to other religions, and reformers argue that change should start by lessening the religious grip on education.
Al-Sheik warned against "changing the religion's basics" in school curricula.
"The minds of youth in the Islamic nation need to be shielded with Islamic sharia (law) and good manners and deeds. The nation's future generations will only be reformed by what reformed the past generations," he said.
Pilgrim Mustafa al-Shawwaf, a Canadian of Syrian origin, said he agreed that terrorists had tarnished Islam. He criticized Muslim fundamentalists, including the Wahhabis, for practicing an exclusive form of the faith.
"Such rigidity of thought needs to be changed," he said.
The pilgrims arrived at Mount Arafat in the early hours of Saturday. Worshippers of all ages and origins, moving slowly, shoulder-to-shoulder, shaded themselves from the sun with white umbrellas, chanting in unison "at thy service, at thy service, oh God."
Emergency workers directed the crowd as it converged 12 miles southwest of Mecca, in a ritual believed to represent the Day of Judgment, when Islam says every person will stand before Allah, or God, and answer for his deeds.
Temperatures approached 86 degrees. The sunshine made parasols a popular purchase at $1.30 each, and street vendors sold fruit, prayer mats and drinks. Along the path to Mount Arafat, sprinklers mounted on poles cooled worshippers. Free water and milk were handed out.
"This is the worst day for the devil, when he sees thousands of Muslims gathered in such a show of force and piety," said Egyptian Abdel Aziz al-Jezairi.
Fatima Farouk, a Nigerian, said that despite the demanding journey, she was thrilled "because after Mount Arafat, you're almost promised heaven."
Quote:
GREAT MOMENTS IN THE ANCIENT TRADITION OF ISLAMIC LAW:
-- IranPressNews
14 year old boy died on Thursday, November 11th, after having received 85 lashes; according to the ruling of the Mullah judge of the public circuit court in the town of Sanandadj he was guilty of breaking his fast during the month of Ramadan.
Someone in their personal web-log attempted to tabulate all the foreign civilians killed in Iraq, in the name of Islam:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/055212.php#more
That gives some idea that this is more than a backlash against the "evil imperialist" United States.
These are names from all over the world, many from Islamic countries.
Especially self-incriminating is their murder of Margaret Hassan, a European woman married to an Iraqi, who devoted 25 years of her life to helping and improving the condition of the Iraqi people. Brutally murdered.
The list also doesn't include the roughly 1200 U.S. soldiers who have been killed (to date) since March 2003, and the 20,000 Iraqi citizens the al Qaida/Iraqi-resistance have killed.
The list also doesn't include the roughly 500 videotaped beheadings of Russian soldiers and civilians in Chechnya, already going on before al Qaida became active in Iraq.
Most disconcerting to me is how much of the Muslim world endorses these tactics and cheers them on. From Saudi clerics encouraging the jihad slaughter of Americans, to Al Jazeera distortedly whipping up anti-American anger in the Arab world, to the 30% to 50% population of Islamic countries who are boycotting American products and businesses.
I leave it to others to determine how well this reflects on the inherently benevolent and peaceful nature of Islam.
Quote:
was so baffled at how somehow could take what we said on the off topic/offensive post forum so seriously(when the entire point of that forum is to goof off and say anything), I assumed it must be some trollish alternate ID of MrJLA, or someone like that.
Good grief.
Some of you guys really do obsess over me.
I know this is rather old news, but I was just re-reading the thread and came upon this:
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
The Inquisition, under the Roman Catholic Church, was an abberation and temporary corruption of the church, where the average Christian didn't have access to Bible teachings themselves, and had to rely on the interpretation of a corrupt clergy,
This isn't true. Whilst you're correct regarding the corruption of the Church through the inquistions, their main problem wasn't false doctrine. It was their uses of torture and silencing enemies of the Papist (a certain one who's name escapes me) that made it shady and amoral. Other than that, however, most inquisitions (and I stress the word "most") were used legitimately for teaching for people. There's no evidence or reason to believe that the inquisitors taught false Biblical knowledge. The corrupt nature of the Vatican, at the time, involved Greed, not manipulation.
You see, the real problem with the Vatican back then wasn't actually religous-based in nature. Before the inquisitions became Vatican jurisdicted, The Spanish Inquisition, plus a few others I can't remember, were mainly the only true cases of religious fanaticism. The other officially Catholic founded inquisitions were used more to actually convert heretics rather than torture them—And I do mean that in the honest sense of the word. Torquemada wanted to hurt people, this wasn’t the case with every inquisition. Most were used for counseling and teaching, the closest thing that came to torture in the other inquisitions was actually pretty standard discipline for the modern times according to secularists and Christians alike. I’m not justifying their use of coerciveness mind you, but whatever form of torture used by the inquisitions not run by Torquemada in any inquisition at the time was a far cry from the SI’s methods. Lashings, water, stuff of that nature. Although there did remain acts of torture that were indeed heinous for select inquisitions--Only one I know of was endorsed by the Church. Moreover, those acts weren't monopolized by the Catholic Church, the methods were used by government secularists and Catholic Inquisitors alike. The difference here is that the Church founded Inquisitions were actually more merciful. Again though, the point is not to say the Church should be given amnesty, but to show that it was the sway of the times rather than a mere fanatical movement. Stones in a glass house.
Simply stating the intent of some inquisitions and using the ad hominem argument of 'They made people suffer! They're the scourge of the 10-15th century' is a propagandist knee-jerk that fails to dispel the existence of the Vatican's peers in terms of corporate power. All other governments had resorted to torture, and, in fact, are the ones who gave the inquisitors lessons. The only difference between the policy of each of those corporations was the Church's more merciful codes of conduct. And as far as executions go, burning heretics was a way of expelling corporate enemies; in reality, true religion didn't really have anything to do with these atrocities except that they were used as a smoke-screen. Furthermore, I’d like to reitterate that the majority of inquisitors were not only more tame in their practices of coerciveness, but also in their intent. While I’m sure inquisitors existed that had a passion for hurting people, the more consuming use of the inquisitions carried honest intent to convert heretics for the well-being of those held civilians and restraint in their painful process of interrogation/rehabilitation. Does that make it right? No. But by large margins, that makes the situation better for their case rather than the malicious intent of the parallel governments seeking to execute violators under false pretenses of law.
So in the end, the problem wasn't merely religion, but the sway of the times and its penchant for brutal interrogation. With the Vatican being more of a governing body than strictly a religious leader, it fell victim to secularism.
Okay. I got really off-track. Sorry. I wanted my reference to the inquisitions to be brief, but then I realized it lacked a bit of necessary detail and then it snow-balled. In any event, my main point is that it's flawed reasoning to label the teachings of the Church, in the middle ages, as faulty simply because the Church only allowed admittance after being given dowaries and because of the injustice of a numerous amount of the inquisitions.
Quote:
which led to the Reformation, begun my Martin Luther in 1517, and other reformers.
The reformation of the Catholic Church? That was spear-headed by Ignatius I believe. Not Luther......Luther wasn't even Catholic.
Quote:
Pariah said:
The reformation of the Catholic Church? That was spear-headed by Ignatius I believe. Not Luther......Luther wasn't even Catholic.
Luther was an ordained Catholic Priest, A member of the Order of St. Augustin.
Luther was ordained to the priesthood in 1507. The precise date is uncertain. A strange oversight, running through three centuries, placed the date of his ordination and first Mass on the same day, 2 May, an impossible coincidence. Kostlin, who repeated it (Luther's Leben, I, 1883, 63) drops the date altogether in his latest edition. Oerger fixes on 27 February. This allows the unprecedented interval of more than two months to elapse between the ordination and first Mass. Could he have deferred his first Mass on account of the morbid scrupulosity, which played such a part in the later periods of his monastic life?
Source: The Catholic Encyclopedia
Ah. I see.
Still though, I'm not sure if Dave meant the reformation of the Vatican or simply creation of the Protestant sect.
Quote:
Pariah said:
Ah. I see.
Still though, I'm not sure if Dave meant the reformation of the Vatican or simply creation of the Protestant sect.
I mean the Protestant Reformation that Luther began, when he broke away from the Catholic Church.
You make some good points, Pariah, about the bloody times in which the Inquisition occurred. Where it was not just the Catholic Church that used these methods of torture, but the (more secular) provincial rulers, and the invading Muslims as well.
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
The Inquisition, under the Roman Catholic Church, was an abberation and temporary corruption of the church, where the average Christian didn't have access to Bible teachings themselves, and had to rely on the interpretation of a corrupt clergy,
Clarifying my own statements about Catholic leadership "corrupting scripture", it is a simple fact that there were not a lot of Bibles in that period, since Bibles were handwritten in that era, and largely inaccessible to the average person in Europe.
It was not until creation of moveable type, printing and the Gutenberg Bible that the Bible became accessible to the average person, and Catholic Church's representation of scripture could be weighed for accuracy. And allow Catholics to put an end to corruption among their own.
Some specific examples of "corruption" as I refer to it include extorting sums of money out of people, threatening to cause a dead or dying relative to remain in purgatory for eternity unless it was paid. (Pergutory is not something listed in the Bible, Protestants do not beleive in it.)
Or accusing a person of heretical crimes to seize their property.
Likewise, many other things said to be "in the name of God" to direct people in service to the Catholic Church were not necessarily true to Biblical scripture.
In the absence of easily accessible mass-produced Bibles, the accuracy of such doctrine was difficult for the average person to know, and they could more easily be misled.
No doubt there were corrupt Catholic clergy who manipulated people for power and profit, and simultaneously also Catholic leaders who were true to the Bible and their faith as well.
The issue of moderate Islam has come up again in the press following the attacks in London. Politicians have been pressing moderate Muslims to rein in extremists.
Tony Blair had to remind Britons that the vast majority of Muslims in Britain were peace-loving and law-abidng, fearing a backlash against Britain's Muslim community following the bombings.
Burger King restaurants in the UK were forced to remove and replace ice cream containers across the country because a Muslim man said the swirly image too closely resembles the inscription for Allah and is therefor sacreligious, reports
the Scotsman.
Burger King said the image on the lid of an ice cream desert is supposed to look like a spinning ice cream cone.
But Rashad Akhtar of High Wycombe said he wants to put a Jihad on BK for the snafu, or at the very least a boycott. "This is my jihad. How can you say it is a spinning swirl? If you spin it one way to the right you are offending Muslims," he said.
Then go back and live in the Middle East, dude!
Would-Be FDNY Chaplain Resigns After Sept. 11 RemarksNEW YORK — An imam who was scheduled to be sworn in Friday as the second Muslim chaplain in the New York Fire Department's history resigned that day after he made headlines for questioning whether 19 hijackers really were responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks (search), FOX News has confirmed.
The imam, Intikab Habib, had suggested a broader conspiracy may have brought down the World Trade Center, put a hole in the Pentagon and left about 3,000 people dead.
"The fire department this morning received the resignation of Imam Intikab Habib from his position as FDNY chaplain," the FDNY commissioner said in a statement Friday. "Based on comments he made to Newsday, Imam Intikab Habib would have been unable to effectively serve in the role he was appointed to."
An hour before Imam Intikab Habib was to be officially sworn in, Fire Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta told reporters: "It became clear to him that he would have difficulty functioning as an FDNY chaplain. ... There has been no prior indication that he held those views."
In a telephone interview with Newsday Thursday, Habib, 30, a native of Guyana who studied Islam in Saudi Arabia, said he doubted the U.S. government's official story blaming 19 hijackers associated with Al Qaeda and Usama bin Laden
His doubt apparently stemmed from video and news reports widely disseminated in the Muslim community.
"I've heard professionals say that nowhere ever in history did a steel building come down with fire alone," he told Newsday. "It takes two or three weeks to demolish a building like that. But it was pulled down in a couple of hours. Was it 19 hijackers who brought it down, or was it a conspiracy?"
Some have blamed the destruction of the trade center on a U.S. or Israeli plot designed to whip up support for attacks on Muslim countries. In 2003, New Jersey eliminated Amiri Baraka's position as poet laureate after he wrote a poem suggesting Israel had advance knowledge of the attacks.
Muslims win toy pigs ban.
NOVELTY pig calendars and toys have been banned from a council office — in case they offend Muslim staff.
Workers in the benefits department at Dudley Council, West Midlands, were told to remove or cover up all pig-related items, including toys, porcelain figures, calendars and even a tissue box featuring Winnie the Pooh and Piglet.
Bosses acted after a Muslim complained about pig-shaped stress relievers delivered to the council in the run-up to the Islamic festival of Ramadan. Muslims are barred from eating pork in the Koran and consider pigs unclean.
Councillor Mahbubur Rahman, a practising Muslim, backed the ban. He said: “It’s a tolerance of people’s beliefs.”
That seems fair since they are so tolerant of christianity and western sociiety....
Religion in general doesn't breed tolerance (not counting Buddhism, as its aligned more with general spirituality). It assumes that they possess information vital to the survival of the human race, and that they have a limited time in which to tell everyone.
The general view of the Middle East as a somewhat backwards part of the world only sheds light on our assumptions about another culture. If you disregard either cultures glaring problems--overconsumption in the West versus adherence to dogma in the East, to name two--there wouldn't be all that much that separates them. Both sides believe they are superior, right, and have the right to enforce their views by most any means.
Quote:
PJP said:
That seems fair since they are so tolerant of christianity and western sociiety....
actually, they acknowledge Jesus as a prophet of Islam (just not a divine being in his own right).
Islamic people generally have a problem with Western countries over the religion. but since people like Bush insist on making us a christian country they see it as a religious war.
Public school officials in Tampa are poised to remove religious holidays from the official school calendar altogether rather than honor a request from local Muslims to add an Eid-themed holiday, reports the St. Pete Times.
In the interest of church-state separation, school board members want to eliminate vacation days coinciding with Yom Kippur, Good Friday and Easter Monday and replace them with time off on Presidents Day and later in the spring.
But board member Jennifer Faliero, who believes the secular calendar "waters down our values" by suppressing religious expression, has offered up an alternative. Hers would give students a day off for the Eid al-Fitr instead of the Monday after Easter. Faliero also wants the holidays called what they are instead of the current term "nonstudent days."
Debate over the holidays started when local Muslims asked for a holiday like everyone else. They said removal of all religious holidays was the last thing they wanted. "This is not what we asked for," said Ahmed Bedier, Florida director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. "We were simply asking for equal representation."
Quote:
Beardguy57 said:
Well I have had both Christian AND Muslim
taxi drivers try to convert me.
My cousin actually did missionary work for Presbyterians in multiple South American and Pacific Island countries under the guise of a teacher. He is actually considering immigrating to China or North Korea to quietly spread the word of Jesus in there which everyone in the family just thinks is insane and suicidal.
And for you Good Christians out there, here are some inspirational quotes:
Quote:
"A man or woman who calls upon spirits or fortune-tellers or magicians shall be put to death by stoning; their blood is upon them... anyone who turns to mediums and fortune-tellers or magicians prostitutes himself by following them, I will set my face against him, and will cut him off from the people"... (Leviticus:20: 6,27)
Quote:
Ex.21:15 "He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death."
Quote:
# Lev.20:10 "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."
Quote:
9These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you. (Leviticus 11:9-12)
Quote:
9
Onan, however, knew that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother's widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother.
10
What he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too. (Gen 38:9-10)
By looking at this only, Christianity is no better than Islam. You may say that I'm Christian bashing because it's cool but why are you Islam bashing?
Current Muslim states are as much representative of the Islamic religion as Nazi Germany to Lutherans. This is why I maintain a "pussy" neutral viewpoint.
Anonymous, I got a question for you:
If God were here today and He regularly spoke to the people and veritably proved His existence each day instead of having us be put through the test of faith, what do you think law should be composed of? Secularity? Or His law?
Good question, I think people should try to follow his way as much as possible to avoid our destruction. After all he is our heavenly father and supremely devine, though he gave us minds to think we should be grateful and listen to his enlightened POV.
But I also refuse to bow down to any being, you guys go follow him while I go to hell.
Even from a conceptual viewpoint, there's no pride in hell Anonymous (I really should start saying AO).
Anyway, my point is that those people in the time of Moses didn't have to rely on faith as much as we do. The fact of the matter is, they had God Himself to prove to them that he wasn't screwing around. It's one thing to break His law under the burden of faith, it's quite another to break it so flagrantly in front of His confirmed presence. The punishment for such actions now isn't going to be propotional to the punishment of back then--Especially not in the eyes of Christians (the ones who aren't radical anyway). So your example doesn't really work.
Quote:
Pariah said:
Anonymous, I got a question for you:
If God were here today and he regularly spoke to the people and veritably proved his existence each day instead of having us be put through the test of faith, what do you think law should be composed of? Secularity? Or His law?
that's like saying if Vulcans were here walking around everyday should star trek fans get more respect.
A) The Vulcans didn't create us.
B ) The Vulcans aren't all powerful.
C) We could kick the Vulcans' asses up and down the block if we really wanted to.
D) You ain't got nuthin' on the Trekkies.
Quote:
Pariah said:
A) The Vulcans didn't create us.
I can prove vulcans with as much real proof that you can prove god.
Quote:
B ) The Vulcans aren't all powerful.
nerve pinch, dude.
Quote:
C) We could kick the Vulcans' asses up and down the block if we really wanted to.
Vulcans are several times stronger than humans, have telepathic powers, and a vastly superior stamina.
Quote:
D) You ain't got nuthin' on the Trekkies.
Trekkies are a notch higher than most religious people, because no one's ever been murdered in the name of Star Trek.
But quite a few Star Wars fans have been pwn3d!
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
I can prove vulcans with as much real proof that you can prove god.
The vulcans have an historical basis?
Quote:
Vulcans are several times stronger than humans, have telepathic powers, and a vastly superior stamina.
So do gorillas.
Quote:
Trekkies are a notch higher than most religious people, because no one's ever been murdered in the name of Star Trek.
Well, people have gotten violent over disagreements involving the number of eps in the Star Trek series.
Quote:
Pariah said:
Well, people have gotten violet over disagreements involving the number of eps in the Star Trek series.
They turned PURPLE?!
Quote:
Pariah said:
The vulcans have an historical basis?
there is no historical basis to believe in god, only a basis that god was believed in.
also you don't say an when the h is pronounced. it "a" historical basis, but "an" hour."
Quote:
Vulcans are several times stronger than humans, have telepathic powers, and a vastly superior stamina.
Quote:
So do gorillas.
if you're proposing a gorilla cult, then i'm intrigued.
Quote:
Trekkies are a notch higher than most religious people, because no one's ever been murdered in the name of Star Trek.
Well, people have gotten violent over disagreements involving the number of eps in the Star Trek series.
how many wars/bombings have there been over the subject?
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
also you don't say an when the h is pronounced. it "a" historical basis, but "an" hour."
Actually, an historical is perfectly acceptable in proper usage. It's one of those holdovers from earlier patterns of usage that was retained in academic circles.
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
also you don't say an when the h is pronounced. it "a" historical basis, but "an" hour."
Actually, an historical is perfectly acceptable in proper usage. It's one of those holdovers from earlier patterns of usage that was retained in academic circles.
are you sure? is it just historical that gets around that rule? because i know you can't say "an horse."
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
there is no historical basis to believe in god, only a basis that god was believed in.
There's both logical prevalency as well as miraculous credibility attributed to the historical exploits of a God that conversed with His creations. The documentation of a God interacting with humans is empirically supported by history. If the scripture only noted a God that spoke with the people and did things in His name, you'd be correct, but there was action on his part.
Quote:
how many wars/bombings have there been over the subject?
None....Yet.
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
are you sure? is it just historical that gets around that rule? because i know you can't say "an horse."
"His" is allowed an "an". "Ho"'s don't get nothing!
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
there is no historical basis to believe in god, only a basis that god was believed in.
There's both logical prevalency as well as miraculous credibility attributed to the historical exploits of a God that conversed with His creations. The documentation of a God interacting with humans is empirically supported by history. If the scripture only noted a God that spoke with the people and did things in His name, you'd be correct, but there was action on his part.
Quote:
how many wars/bombings have there been over the subject?
None....Yet.
Please stay on topic.
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
there is no historical basis to believe in god, only a basis that god was believed in.
There's both logical prevalency as well as miraculous credibility attributed to the historical exploits of a God that conversed with His creations. The documentation of a God interacting with humans is empirically supported by history. If the scripture only noted a God that spoke with the people and did things in His name, you'd be correct, but there was action on his part.
unproven actions. If an insane person in New York in 2001 said they spoke with god and god was planning to smite a bunch of people, would you say 9/11 is proof?
All writing in the bible is essentially a story that is made up or an interpretation of events through the prism of religious belief.
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
unproven actions.
All history is unproven because it's just that: History. That's the beauty and function of empirical evidence.
Quote:
If an insane person in New York in 2001 said they spoke with god and god was planning to smite a bunch of people, would you say 9/11 is proof?
If the towers fell because of a storm or meteor, I'd be inclined to believe it was God who did it (the guy's prophecy would have to be pretty recent for me to buy it though). But in this case, it's a bunch of mortal assjacks who're the culprits. In that essence, it's not compatible with my example. Stuff like Sodom and Gammorah, Jericho, and the meteors that hit Job's house are more allignment with what I'm saying.
Quote:
All writing in the bible is essentially a story that is made up or an interpretation of events through the prism of religious belief.
OR or-or-or-or-or-or-or-or-or-or.....Maybe it's not.
http://www.jp.dk/english_news/artikel:aid=3318352/ Quote:
Cartoons have Muslims threatening newspaper
By The Copenhagen Post
Daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten has been forced to hire security guard to protect employees from angry Muslims, after it printed a series of cartoons featuring the prophet Mohammed
Death threats have forced daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten to hire security guards to protect its employees, after printing twelve cartoons featuring the prophet Mohammed.
The newspaper has been accused of deliberately provoking and insulting Muslims by publishing the cartoons. The newspaper urged cartoonists to send in drawings of the prophet, after an author complained that nobody dared to illustrate his book on Mohammed. The author claimed that illustrators feared that extremist Muslims would find it sacrilegious to break the Islamic ban on depicting Mohammed.
Twelve illustrators heeded the newspaper's call, and sent in cartoons of the prophet, which were published in the newspaper earlier this month.
Muslim spokesmen demanded that Jyllands-Posten retracted the cartoons and apologised.
'We have taken a few necessary measures in the situation, as some people seem to have taken offence and are sending threats of different kinds,' the newspaper's editor-in-chief, Carsten Juste, told national broadcaster DR.
The same day as the newspaper published the cartoons, it received a threatening telephone call against 'one of the twelve illustrators', as the caller said. Shortly afterwards, police arrested a 17-year-old, who admitted to phoning in the threat.
Since then, journalists and editors alike have received threats by email and the telephone. The newspaper told its staff to remain alert, but then decided to hire security guards to protect its Copenhagen office.
'Up until now, we have only had receptionists in the lobby. But we don't feel that they should sit down there by themselves, so we posted a guard there as well,' Juste said.
Muslim organisations, like the Islamic Religious Community, have demanded an apology, but Juste rejected the idea. He said the cartoons had been a journalistic project to find out how many cartoonists refrained from drawing the prophet out of fear.
'We live in a democracy,' he said. 'That's why we can use all the journalistic methods we want to. Satire is accepted in this country, and you can make caricatures. Religion shouldn't set any barriers on that sort of expression. This doesn't mean that we wish to insult any Muslims.'
Juste's opinion was not shared by Århus imam Raed Hlayhel, who gave an interview to the internet edition of Arabic satellite news channel al-Jazeera to protest the newspaper's cartoons.
Hlayhel told al-Jazeera's reporter that he considered the cartoons derisive of Islam, and described one of the drawings as showing Mohammed wearing a turban-like bomb, and another as brandishing a sabre, with two burka-clad women behind him.
Hlayhel said he did not understand how such illustrations could be printed with reference to freedom of expression, when Denmark did not tolerate the slightest sign of anti-Semitism.
Al-Jazeera concluded that the drawings seemed bizarre
More juicy bible quotes:
Quote:
[Lev 26:33] And I will scatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a sword after you: and your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste.
Quote:
Exodus 21:20-21 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
Quote:
Leviticus 25:44-46 "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour."
I see you have the ability to take a single passage of Scripture out of context to prove your point. Congrats, you're in good company. Such an ability was also demonstrated by the KKK, the supporters of Southern slavery, and... oh yeah! The devil.
Keep up the good work.
Quote:
Anonymous One said:
Yay! I'm a fundie!
Sure, whomod, suuuurrrrrrrre.......
Danish television reports that an extremist Islamic party in Pakistan has put a 50,000-kroner bounty on the heads of artists who had the gall to draw images of Mohammed and allow them to be published in a Copenhagen newspaper.
The Danish ambassador in Islamabad, Bent Wigotski, says the extremist Jamaaat-e-Islami party and it youth organization have also demanded that Denmark's ambassador leave Pakistan. The embassy has told all Danish citizens in Pakistan to lay low.
The adherents to the "religion of peace" are irked because the daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a dozen images of Mohammed a couple of months ago.
I think, G-man, that you should keep in mind that the most vocal of any religious group are the most radical. I don't think all Christians are accurately represented by Fallwell and Robertson.
Do you?
Before he dies, I personally would
love to see Billy Graham step out and denounce Robertson and Falwell for the extremists that they are. I think that'd be friggin'
terrific.
My mom phoned me the other week and informed me that my dad did the exact same thing from the pulpit at a gathering of several local churches from our denomination. I was pretty impressed. Apparently, my dad labeled Robertson and Falwell as "the Pharisees of this day and age" and said "if Jesus were to come back tomorrow, he'd say the same thing to [Robertson and Falwell] He said to the Pharisees".
Hardcore.
Quote:
the G-man said:
<a href="http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Andre+sprog/English/2005/12/02/100645.htm">Danish television reports</a> that an extremist Islamic party in Pakistan has put a 50,000-kroner bounty on the heads of artists who had the gall to draw images of Mohammed and allow them to be published in a Copenhagen newspaper.</p><p>The Danish ambassador in Islamabad, Bent Wigotski, says the extremist Jamaaat-e-Islami party and it youth organization have also demanded that Denmark's ambassador leave Pakistan. The embassy has told all Danish citizens in Pakistan to lay low.</p><p>The adherents to the "religion of peace" are irked because the daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten <a href="http://tonguetied.us/archives/002161.php#002161">published</a> a dozen images of Mohammed a couple of months ago.</p>
The Prime Minister is pissed!
The
Stockton Record says an art gallery at Delta College in California has been asked to remove a piece of art that features a Kalashnikov wrapped in images of Koranic script because it is offensive to some Muslim students on campus.
The piece, part of a show titled "My Country, Right or Left: Artists Respond to the State of the Union" in the L.H. Horton art gallery, consists of a ceramic assault rifle and is intended to make the point some that people in the world are using religion as a weapon.
Muslim students contend the work descrecrates the Islamic holy book and falsely equates Islam with terrorism. They want it removed, a request that school officials have so far resisted.
Scorecard so far:
--Radical Muslims kill over 2,000 American civilians, with no denunciation.
--Radical Muslims continue to bomb civilians overseas, with no denunciation.
--A piece of artwork offends those who believe it distorts their religion...
Huh?
Quote:
theory9 said:
Scorecard so far:
--Radical Muslims kill over 2,000 American civilians, with no denunciation.
--Radical Muslims continue to bomb civilians overseas, with no denunciation.
--A piece of artwork offends those who believe it distorts their religion...
Huh?
Christian Science Monitor:
It is a pattern echoed across Europe. While moderate Muslims may disown extremists and bar them from mosques, they do little to challenge extremist ideologies and the radical preachers merely regroup elsewhere, out of sight of both mainstream Muslims and the authorities.
Moderates of all western religions are a greater threat than radical fundamentalists like Osama, Pariah and WBAM. The perpetuate the survival of the irrational belief systems upon which all 3 of the western religions are founded.
God Wrote a Book my ass!
Quote:
On the scale of 1 to knee-jerk reaction, that would definitely score higher than a 1.
Bitter?
A group of Danish Muslims is said to be refusing to eat a traditional yuletide treat there because they are offended by their name -- "Jewish Cookies."
The cookies, which are made with cinnamon and hazelnuts, are not particularly Jewish. But they are popular during the pre-Christmas period.
The Danish daily B.T. quotes one Ole Poulsen, head of the public food consumer department, as saying that the name may have to changed at some point.
Denmark’s chief rabbi, Bent Lexner, said he wouldn't mind a name change, but added that "
I think that it would be better to educate Muslims to respect the culture of the majority in Denmark, if they want the majority to respect their culture."
Yeps, that's true G-man. But I don't see that happening anytime soon. I'm ashamed to say that the level of rascism has risen drastically these past years in Denmark. In conjunction with that the percentage of crime committed by immigrants has eclipsed that committed by danish citizens.
It's easy to say that they should respect danish culture before we will respect theirs, which is also true. But I just don't see that happening anytime soon. I should think it's only a minority of the immigrants who will not show respect for the nation which have taken them in, but they are still setting the agenda for all their people.
Another problem is that many immigrants send their children to "schools" in their home countries to relearn the muslim culture. Because in their opinion, Islam must take precedence over ANYthing.
This is not helping the integration process into danish society. And the danish government has responded to this by banning people from doing so. And if they do, the entire family will have their asylum or visa or whatever they have rescinded and be sent home.
Now, that's an extreme reaction, in my opinion. But in ít's defense, I don't really see any other option. Sadly, the danish people is at the end of patience. We have been very patient and there are those who simply will not listen.
What to do?
I think you're on the right track. If people are stubborn about refusing to acclimate to your culture to the point that they're willing to ignore fairly simple rules over it, they don't need to be there.
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Moderates of all western religions are a greater threat than radical fundamentalists like Osama, Pariah and WBAM. The perpetuate the survival of the irrational belief systems upon which all 3 of the western religions are founded.
God Wrote a Book my ass!
Right.... I'm teh irrational one
Besides no-one in my isle claims that God wrote a Book.
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Moderates of all western religions are a greater threat than radical fundamentalists like Osama, Pariah and WBAM. The perpetuate the survival of the irrational belief systems upon which all 3 of the western religions are founded.
God Wrote a Book my ass!
As a religious moderate, I'd like to offer some insight regarding your comments here (keep in mind I'm only speaking for myself here).
I've never really seen the genuine core of what religion should be about as being "G-d wrote a book," or about the Bible being historically true. Even Orthdox rabbis have told me that the Torah is not a history book - it's a moral guidebook. So you wanna take that on faith, good for you. If not, that's between you and G-d.
I've always considered the point of religion, when it's practiced properly, as being a guide on how to act in a decent way towards each other. Yes, if you look through the Bible, you'll find stuff that seems harsh (although the Talmud tones some of it down, especially regarding death penalty law,) but you'll also come across some ideas and concepts that maybe wouldn't be such a bad idea to practice in your day to day life.
Miracles and supernatural aspects (or whatever else you want to call it) aside, there are some laws in the Torah that encourage people to behave in a better way towards each other and just be decent people.
Lemme give you a few paraphrased examples of some of the commandments I'm talking about, just going from memory. (These are actual commandments that the Jews were given)
Gossiping about people and spreading malicious rumors about them (even if it's true) for the sake of embarassing or harming them in some way is considered to be one of the greatest sins possible in Judaism, equivalent to murder, adultery, and idol-worship (I can go into detail and explain why, if you like).
"Do not stand idly by while your borther's blood is being shed." (Pretty self-explanatory: if you're in a position to help someone, you're obligated to do so, unless it puts you in serious harm's way somehow)
"Do not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling block before the blind" (Also self-explanatory, with additional meanings of prohibitions against deliberately misleading people)
Numerous commandments about charity to the poor (Judaism considers helping a person to become self-sufficient, like giving them a job or teaching them a trade to be the highest form of charity.)
Adidtionally, many of the commandments in the Torah seem to be aimed at encouraging self-discipline while recognizing the needs people have. The laws of the Torah are a way to keep our baser instincts in check, while still acknowledging basic needs. You wanna eat? Go ahead and eat - just don't be a glutton and don't eat just anything that's put in front of you (and don't forget to say thanks for it). You want to make money and become filthy rich? Go for it - just set some of it aside to help others that aren't so fortunate (the Torah perscribes 10%), and give yourself a day off to recharge yourself and enjoy what you've worked for. You wanna fuck a beautiful woman? Fine - just get her to marry you first and join with her spiritually instead of doing something despicable like raping her.
Like I said, religion is a way of offering people with a way of life that shows them how to maintain a certain degree of self-discipline or self-control that encourages you to think of yourself and other people, without depriving yourself of basic needs.
I'm not trying to convert you or anything like that. I'm just tyring to give you a view of religion that may be different than what you apparently perceive it to be. It's less about "G-d wrote a book" and more about "Here's how we should behave towards other people so that we can all live with each other."
And again, this is my personal opinion.
Quote:
Darknight613 said:
As a religious moderate, I'd like to offer some insight regarding your comments here (keep in mind I'm only speaking for myself here).
What's a "religous moderate"?
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
Darknight613 said:
As a religious moderate, I'd like to offer some insight regarding your comments here (keep in mind I'm only speaking for myself here).
What's a "religous moderate"?
Well, I can't speak for other religious moderates, but here's the way I interpret it just for myself.
I take my religion seriously, I'm proud of my Jewish affiliation, and I make an honest attempt to play by the rules as best I can, without being fanatical or overzealous beyond the point of reason. It also means that I question and reason, and really try and think about why Judaism feels right as opposed to giving in to blind faith or indoctrination. I've put a lot of thought about whether Judaism feels right to me, and it does, and therefore I follow it as best I can. I'm also open to various interpretations of Jewish law (of which rabbinic scholars themselves give us a wide variety of, and in Jewish schools we study various POVs on the Torah and Talmud.)
It also refers to my attitude towards people of other faiths - mostly indifferent, somewhat curious as to what they do and why they do it, and not in the least hostile to their faith. I don't consider people who practice other religions to be evil or misguided. I look at it as looking at the same thing in a different way.
(Remember, Judaism itself says that only Jews are required to obey the rules of Judaism. Non-Jews were never obligated to follow the Torah, and whether you're Jewish or not has nothing to do with whether G-d thinks you're a good or bad person. In the "Pirkei Avot," the Ethics Of Our Fathers, it is stated that all the nations of the world have a share in the World To Come. So non-Jews don't bother us, as long as they're not persecuting us, trying to convert us, or trying to ban our faith.)
If you ask other people who consider themselves religious moderates (if they do), you'll probably get a different answer. But this is my interpretation of what it means to be a moderate. And you'll most likely get different attitudes about what I've just written about from other Jews, because we can never agree on anything.
Urm................Wow.
Sooooooooo.......By your definition, who else would you call a religous moderate.
Quote:
Pariah said:
Urm................Wow.
Sooooooooo.......By your definition, who else would you call a religous moderate.
You mean here on the RKMBs? We have a few, I think, but since their definition of a religious moderate may differ from mine, I don't know if I have the right to go around labelling them as such.
And besides, I can't say I know everybody's religious feelings and attitudes well enough to accurately consdier them to be religious moderates.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051218/ap_o...HNlYwN5bmNhdA--Quote:
U.S. Muslims Discuss Combating Extremism
LONG BEACH, Calif. - Muslim leaders and activists from across the United States gathered Saturday to discuss their role in combating extremism within the Islamic community.
"The real battle is for the soul of Islam," said Maher Hathout, founder and senior adviser of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, which organized the one-day conference. "Islam needs to be reclaimed from extremists, but only Muslims can do that."
Hathout said American Muslims needed to actively define their role in society so other groups, including extremists and media organizations, didn't define it for them. Generating strategies to do that was a centerpiece of the conference, titled "Examining our role in America."
"When people speak out on our behalf, our silence just adds to the ignorance," Hathout said. "We are not helping the country win the war on terrorism."
I wonder what Luke Skywalker feels about this extremism.
The above post was found to be thoroughly Ray-Gay™.
http://www.jp.dk/english_news/artikel:aid=3465056/ Muslim organisation calls for boycott of DenmarkAn Islamic cultural organisation warns that 51 Muslim states will boycott Denmark unless an official apology is offered for the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed printed in national newspaper Jyllands-Posten
An Islamic cultural organisation has called upon its 51 member states to boycott Denmark in response to cartoons of the prophet Mohammed printed three months ago in national daily Jyllands-Posten.
The Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (ISESCO) stated on its webpage that it sought a condemnation of 'the aggressive campaign waged against Islam and its Prophet' by Jyllands-Posten.
Abdulaziz Othman al-Twaijri, the organisation's secretary general, reportedly told Arabic TV station Al-Arabiya that member states would impose a boycott until an apology was offered for the drawings.
'We encourage the organisation's members to boycott Denmark both economically and politically until Denmark presents an official apology for the drawings that have offended the world's Muslims,' al-Twaijri said.
Egypt's ambassador to Denmark, Mona Omar Attiah, warned against not taking the boycott seriously.
'The organisation has a broad appeal among the world's Muslims, and if the government doesn't make new efforts, Muslims around the world will follow the boycott and international pressure against Denmark will increase,' she told daily newspaper Information.
Tensions have run high between Muslims and official Denmark since the newspaper Jyllands-Posten published 12 cartoons in September that depicted the prophet Mohammed. The newspaper said printing the cartoons was a way to ensure the freedom of speech in the face of intimidation from radical Islamists.
Trade organisation Danish Industry said that so far, none of its members had reported feeling the effects of a boycott, however.
http://www.jp.dk/english_news/artikel:aid=3468452/ Arabic League criticises governmentArabic foreign ministers express their dissatisfied with the government's reaction to the fallout over Jyllands-Posten's Mohammed cartoons Foreign ministers from the 22 Arabic League nations criticised the Danish government on Thursday for its actions following daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten's decision to publish twelve drawings of the prophet Mohammed.
The foreign ministers also decided that the league's secretary-general, Amr Moussa, and secretary-general for the Islamic Conference, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, would take up the issue with the Danish government.
After Jyllands-Posten printed the drawings of Mohammed this September, raising the ire of the Muslim community in Denmark, ambassadors from 11 Muslim nations protested to the Danish prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, asking him to meet with them to discuss the tone of the debate over Islam in Denmark.
Rasmussen refused to meet with the ambassadors, calling it a matter of freedom of speech, which he had no influence over.
Rasmussen instead told the ambassadors that if they felt Jyllands-Posten had broken Danish laws, they could bring the matter up before the courts.
In their declaration on Thursday, the foreign ministers expressed their 'surprise and indignation over the Danish government's reaction, which was disappointing, despite the political, economic, and cultural bonds with the Muslim world'.
At the same time, the league also criticised 'European human rights organisations for not having distanced themselves from the situation'.
Other Muslim organisations have previously criticised the Danish government in the matter, but the declaration from the Arabic League is seen as the most serious response so far.
Although it takes the matter seriously, the criticism will not cause the government to change its position, according to Troels Lund, foreign affairs spokesman for the prime minister's Liberal Party.
'Now it is important to stand our ground and say that we have a separation of powers in Denmark and something called freedom of expression,' Lund said
http://www.jp.dk/english_news/artikel:aid=3475596/ PM's speech translated into ArabicThe prime minister's New Year's speech was translated into Arabic, earning praise from Egypt's ambassador to Denmark During his New Year's address to the nation, Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen stressed the importance of protecting freedom of expression, but he also stressed the importance of demonstrating 'mutual respect and understanding' for others.
'Let me state it clearly: I condemn any statement that attempts to demonise groups of people on the basis of their religion or ethnic background,' he said.
Strained relations between the Danish government and Muslims led to a decision by the government to translate the speech to Arabic for the first time ever this year.
Normally, the speech has only been translated into English, but overwhelming interest from Arab countries led the prime minister's office to translate the speech to Arabic as well, according to Michael Ulvemann, the head press officer in the prime minister's office.
Egypt's ambassador to Denmark, Mona Omar Attia, praised the decision to translate the speech.
'It's a positive step toward a dialogue, and I hope that my own and other Arabic governments will see it as a positive signal,' Attia told daily newspaper Politiken.
Tensions have run high between Muslims and the government since daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten printed 12 cartoons of the prophet Mohammed last September. Muslim ambassadors led by Attia called upon the prime minister to meet with them so they could voice their protest. The prime minister refused, however, stating that he had no power to restrict the free press in Denmark.
In relation to the above post...
http://www.stm.dk/Index/dokumenter.asp?o=6&n=0&d=2468&s=2 Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s New Year Address 2006Good evening!
One year ago, the World was face to face with a catastrophe of unbelievable magnitude. More than 200,000 people lost their lives when the tsunami struck Southeast Asia.
In October, Pakistan was ravaged by a terrifying earthquake that cost the lives of more than 70,000 people.Many in this country lost family members or close friends in the tsunami or the earthquake. Our thoughts and our compassion go to all those who so tragically lost some of their loved ones.
*
For Denmark, 2005 was a good year. Today, we have one of the strongest economies in Europe. The vast majority of Danes have experienced the benefits of this prosperity in one way or the other.
2005 saw the publication of several international reviews that assigned the highest mark to Denmark. One of them declared that Denmark has the World’s best business climate. Another report proclaimed that Denmark operates the World’s best international assistance when considered as a whole.
These reports tell us two important things about Denmark: we have well-ordered finances, and we have the surplus to think of others than merely ourselves.
This applies to our development assistance to poor countries, first and foremost in Africa. But also in other parts of the World.
This applies when Danish emergency relief workers, through rapid and determined response, help alleviate the harmful impact of natural calamities, like the tsunami one year ago, and most recently after the earthquake in Pakistan.
And when Danish soldiers and police officers participate in peacemaking and peacekeeping missions. In Kosovo. In Afghanistan. In Iraq. In Darfur. And in other flashpoints around the World.
The Danes we have sent out perform their assigned tasks with great skill and commitment. We can be proud of their contribution to moving the World in the right direction.
I would like to express my warm thanks to each and every one of you.
Our soldiers in Iraq make a highly commendable effort to help the Iraqis to live in freedom, peace and prosperity.
This is a difficult job, because groups of fanatics attempt to block the road to democracy with terror and threats.
However, the people of Iraq have demonstrated three times that they reject the terrorists. The first time by turning out to vote in large numbers in the election in January. Then in the referendum on the new constitution in October. And now, most recently, by a high level of participation of voters in the parliamentary election in December.
For the first time, the Iraqis make democratic decisions on the future of their own country. This is encouraging.
We must assist the people of Iraq in building a free and democratic Iraq. We must help the new Iraqi Government to assume its own responsibility for the security in Iraq.
The aim is the withdrawal of the international troops from Iraq. This applies also to the Danish soldiers. We will not remain in Iraq one day longer than is necessary.
However, elected politicians, not terrorists, must make this decision.
*
Here in Denmark we experience growth and prosperity. The employment rate is rising. The unemployment rate is falling. In less than two years, the unemployment rate has been reduced by approximately 35,000. We now have the lowest real unemployment level since 1979.
For a couple of years, there was concern about rising unemployment. Now, there is concern that there will be a shortage of manpower. Let us make a proactive effort to exploit this situation. We now have the opportunity for people who have experienced serious difficulties in finding employment to gain a solid foothold on the labour market.
We have a surplus. On the public sector budgets, and on the balance of payments. The foreign debt is being steadily reduced, and in a couple of years it will have been paid off altogether.
Previously, direct and indirect taxes increased every year. Now we have a tax freeze. And the tax on earned income has been reduced by approximately DKK 10 billion. For a typical family, this has meant an annual gain in excess of DKK 10,000.
And house owners need no longer live in fear that they will see their taxes increase every time the value of their property increases.
So yes, things are going very well in Denmark.
And it is precisely when things are going at their very best that we must make the necessary decisions that are crucial to the future of this country. Because it is in this way that we will be able to sustain the prosperity of the good times. If we make the decisions well in advance, we will be able to achieve considerable impact in the long term by means of carefully considered adjustments. This will benefit not only us, but also the generations to come.
In future, we will have a larger number of elderly people, and we will have fewer people on the labour market.
At the same time we live longer, and this is, of course, a positive thing.
However, this also brings some challenges. Because, at the same time as our life expectancy grows, we spend less time on the labour market.
If this development continues, an increasing number of people will be drawing on public benefits, while there will be fewer and fewer to pay taxes. It goes without saying that this scenario is not sustainable.
For this reason I say: we will have to make a gradual postponement of the point in time at which we normally retire from active employment.
This means that we must take a look at the rules on anticipatory pension and state retirement pension.
Fortunately, we are in a favourable situation. We have no need to introduce hasty interventions forced on us by a crisis. With our current healthy economy, we will be able to implement the necessary changes gradually over an extended number of years. So that the individual will be provided with ample time to make the necessary adjustments to the new situation. Of course we must maintain the possibility for those who are worn down to retire early.
We must protect the security we have today. However, the world around us is changing. Therefore, we must pursue innovation if we are also in the future to remain among the richest and socially most well functioning countries in the World.
Because security in the future requires that we improve our ability to create new knowledge and new ideas. That we become better at translating new ideas into production and jobs. Better at starting new initiatives. Better at providing good education for all young people, and better at updating and innovating our education throughout life, so that we, each of us, become better at adapting to new conditions.
Everyone must be part of this. A good education for all is the most important prerequisite for our ability to maintain a society without large financial and social divides. A society characterised by cohesion.
At the end of February, the Government will introduce its proposals for reform. Reform proposals that involve, among other things, that in the future we will have to stay on the labour market for a few more years and get more immigrants into active employment.
And reforms that make Denmark stronger and better equipped to perform in international competition. Through strong initiatives in the field of research and development. Education for all young people. Adult and supplementary training. An improved environment for entrepreneurs. These are the initiatives that in the future are to improve our ability to generate new jobs. The factors that will provide the foundations for security.
We will invite all the parties of the Folketing to the negotiations. Our aim is a broad political agreement and legislation in 2006.
We must make the necessary decisions now. So that also our children and grandchildren will be able to live in a good, secure and prosperous society.
*
During the past year, we have witnessed a heated debate about freedom of speech, and limits to freedom of speech. There are some who find that the tone of the debate has become too shrill and unpleasant.
I wish to state this very clearly: I condemn any expression, action or indication that attempts to demonise groups of people on the basis of their religion or ethnic background.
It is the sort of thing that does not belong in a society that is based on respect for the individual human being.
We have a long history of extensive freedom of speech in Denmark. We are to speak freely and present our views to each other in a straightforward manner. However, it must be done in mutual respect and understanding. And in a civilised tone of voice.
And fortunately, the tone of the Danish debate is in general both civilized and fair. There have been a few examples of unacceptably offensive expressions. And as a matter of fact, they have come from more than one party to the debate. We must strongly repudiate those expressions.
However, the few instances of offensive behaviour must not be allowed to overshadow the fact that the debate and the general situation in Denmark is much more quiet and peaceful than in many other countries.
In Denmark, we have a healthy tradition of putting critical questions to all authorities, be they of a political or religious nature. We use humour. We use satire. Our approach to authorities is actually rather relaxed.
And to put it bluntly: it is this unorthodox approach to authorities, it is this urge to question the established order, it is this inclination to subject everything to critical debate that has led to progress in our society.
For it is in this process that new horizons open, new discoveries are made, new ideas see the light of day. While old systems and outdated ideas and views fade and disappear.
That is why freedom of speech is so vital. And freedom of speech is absolute. It is not negotiable.
However, we are all responsible for administering freedom of speech in such a manner that we do not incite to hatred and do not cause fragmentation of the community that is one of Denmark’s strengths.
Danish society is very strong in the sense that usually we are rather good at achieving results through dialogue. And the reason is that in general we treat others with consideration and we have confidence in each other, confidence in the institutions of society, confidence in a set of principles that are fundamental to our society.
We have based our society on respect for the individual person’s life and freedom, freedom of speech, equality between men and women, a distinction between politics and religion. Our point of departure is that as human beings we are free, independent, equal and responsible. We must safeguard these principles.
For they are some of the ties that produce cohesion. That is why we find it easy to cooperate, easy to perform common tasks, and that is why we also find it easier to address new challenges.
Let us stand united to protect a society that allows us freedom to differ. And a society in which there is a strong sense of community based on fundamental values.
A Denmark that has not only strong competitive power, but also a strong sense of cohesion.
Happy New Year!
How unusual. A candid politician assessing the needs and accomplishments of the nation. I'm sure Our State of the Union Follies later this month will bare no resemblance to such a statement.
But there's nothing in the quote box.
Oh.
Air Crew Ordered Not To Wear Crucifixes On Flights To Saudi ArabiaAir crew on the only British airline that flies to Saudi Arabia have been told not to wear crucifixes or St Christopher medals on flights there so as not to offend the country's Muslims.
Stewardesses at BMI have also been told to cover themselves in the long abaya robes that Saudi women have to wear in public before they disembark in the capital Riyadh. In some instances, they are also advised to wear a headscarf.
The airline insists that the rules are part of its "obligation" to "respect the customs" of Saudi Arabia, a strictly conservative Muslim kingdom.
However, one unnamed BMI employee told a Sunday newspaper: "It's outrageous that we must respect their beliefs but they're not prepared to respect ours". BMI are asking too much of their staff on this one.
"My gran gave me a crucifix shortly before she died and I wear it at all times. It's got massive sentimental value and I don't see why I have to remove it."
BMI is the only British carrier currently operating flights to Saudi. It began the service last September, offering three flights a week to Riyadh.
Phil Shepherd, the airline's spokesman, said any staff who did not wish to adhere to the requirements could transfer to short haul routes. There was no difference in salary, he added.
Mr Shepherd also denied a report that up to 40 BMI staff had complained and were planning to take the company to an employment tribunal, insisting that only "one or two" had raised it as an issue.
"There are certain sensitivities in operating in a country like Saudi Arabia," he said.
fuck their sensitivities.
I'm sure PJP has some good stuff to add here.
Muslims Clash Over Oakland Liquor StoresThey weren’t your ordinary thugs. Dressed in bow ties and dark suits, nearly a dozen men carrying metal pipes entered a corner store, shattered refrigerator cases and smashed bottles of liquor, wine and beer, terrifying the clerk but stealing nothing.
The just wanted to leave a message: Stop selling alcohol to fellow Muslims. In urban America, friction between poor residents and immigrant store owners is nothing new. Nor are complaints that inner- city neighborhoods are glutted with markets that sell alcohol and contribute to violent crime, vagrancy and other social ills.
But the recent attack at San Pablo Liquor _ and an identical vandalism spree at another West Oakland store later that evening, along with an arson fire there and the kidnapping of the owner a few days later _ have injected religion into the debate.
The two episodes highlighted tensions _ and different interpretations of the Quran _ between black Muslims in this struggling, crime-ridden city of 400,000 and Middle Eastern shop owners, many of them also Muslims.
Hope this doesn't happen to my local liquor store. The guys who run it are Syrian, so there's definitely cause for concern.
http://www.jp.dk/english_news/artikel:aid=3526280/ Quote:
Mid-East crisis deepens
Several Mid-East countries follow Saudi Arabia's lead and take action against Denmark in anger over a newspaper's publication of caricatures of the prophet Mohammed
The diplomatic and commercial storm over twelve caricatures published by daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten continued to rage over the weekend as Kuwait and Libya took action against Denmark.
Saudi Arabia recalled its ambassador from Denmark on Thursday, the same day a boycott against Danish-based international dairy food producer Arla Foods was made public in the Danish press. Libya followed suit on Saturday, recalling its ambassador and closing the country's embassy in Denmark.
The effects of the Saudi Arabian boycott spread over the weekend turning into a blanket ban of Danish goods in serveral Mid-East countries.
Kuwait's largest grocery store chain removed Arla products from its shelves starting on Friday, causing the company to fear for the worst.
'This is serious. The chain is owned by the Kuwaiti government and has a 50 percent market share,' said Finn Hansen of Arla Foods.
In addition, both Kuwait and Jordan have called in the Danish ambassador to explain the Danish government's reaction to Jyllands-Posten's publication of the drawings in September.
After the publication of drawings, Danish Muslims protested over the newspaper's breaking the Islamic taboo of drawing Mohammed. The protests led eleven Muslim ambassadors to request a meeting with the prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, to discuss the matter.
Rasmussen, however, refused to meet with them, saying that he had no control over the press, and that freedom of expression weighed more heavily than personal feelings.
Danish businesses suffering from the boycott against their products were quick to take steps to distance themselves from the drawings, pointing out that Rasmussen had also done so in his New Year's address to the nation.
Arla is currently the hardest hit of Danish companies operating in the Middle East, but also pump producer Danfoss and insulin maker Novo Nordisk said that their operations had been affected.
On Friday, Hans Skov Christensen, director of the Confederation of Danish Industries, sent an open letter to Jyllands-Posten expressing Danish businesses' frustration that they had been caught up in Jyllands-Posten's defence of freedom of expression.
'The time has come for Jyllands-Posten to use its freedom of speech to explain how they feel about the newspaper's Mohammed drawings having hurt the feelings of large groups of people,' Christiansen said.
In response the growing international criticism of Denmark, Jyllands-Posten printed its own letter to the people of Saudi Arabia in Arabic on the front page of its website explaining why they had printed the drawings and expressing regret that the situation had spread so far.
'It was not our intention to offend anyone or their faith. That it happened anyway was unintended. We have apologised for that many times in the past few months - not only in our newspaper, but also on television, the radio, and in international media,' said Carsten Juste, editor-in-chief of Jyllands-Posten.
In addition to the diplomatic and commercial fray between Denmark and Arab states both militant Muslim groups and international Muslim organisations expressed their anger over the drawings over the weekend.
In the city of Nablus in the West Bank, members of the al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade and Fatah burned a Danish flag in protest of the drawings.
In Cario, the OIC announced that it was prepared to use the conflict as grounds for asking the UN General Assembly to pass a resolution forbidding attacks on religious faith.
'Consultations are being carried out at the highest level between Arabic countries, and the OIC will request that the UN pass a binding resolution forbidding disdain for religious belief and opening up for the possibility of sanctions against countries and institutions that violate the ban,' said Ahmed Ben Helli, vice secretary general of the Arab League
I'm becoming more and more attached to the idea that this is a simply an attempt to shout out to the world that the islamic culture is much older than the western civilization. Consequently, this is no longer about religion, this is politics. The governments in the Middle-East demands that the Danish government issues an apology, knowing full well that the responsibility for this apparent transgression against Islam lies solely with Morgen-avisen Jyllands Posten.
If you look to the right of the article in the link above you'll find a videoclip with the primeminister commenting on this matter. The video is in english.
http://www.jp.dk/english_news/artikel:aid=3526412/ Quote:
Afghan president looks beyond drawings
An official visit by Afghan president Hamid Karzai gets caught up in the storm over Jyllands-Posten's Mohammed drawings
Afghanistan's president, Hamid Karzai, meeting with the Danish prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, in Copenhagen this weekend, chose to take a positive view of the increasingly volatile conflict over newspaper Jyllands-Posten's caricatures of the prophet Mohammed.
Karzai, in Europe to attend the World Economic Forum, was visiting Denmark to discuss the country's contribution to the reconstruction of Afghanistan.
During a press conference with Rasmussen on Sunday, Karzai criticised Jyllands-Posten's decision to print the 12 caricatures of Mohammed as a 'mistake'.
Nevertheless, he praised the newspaper for placing an open letter in Arabic on its website, stating that it was never its intention to offend anyone's faith.
'Let's look forward from now on. I hope that the press everywhere - in Denmark, in Afghanistan, in Muslim countries, and in non-Muslim countries - will be more respectful and responsible towards other cultures, religions, and views everywhere in the world,' Karzai said.
Karzai, in Denmark for two days before he travels on to London, said he appreciated the prime minister taking the time to discuss the matter with him.
'The prime minister was so kind as to speak with us about this. He said that the press - as we all know - is totally free in Denmark, and that the drawings in the press are not an expression of the Danish people's attitude. We in the Muslim world need to understand that,' Karzai said.
This man simply is the voice of reason in a culture that, when all cards are on the table, really has slowed down it's own social and political developement.
I've been meaning to ask you folks about something. The last couple of decades it has been the USA which has been the focus of Muslim animosity and anger. Now it's Denmark, are you enjoying the respite?
Aaaaand just to continue my steak...streak!
http://www.jp.dk/english_news/artikel:aid=3528542/ Quote:
Khader confronts fundamentalists
MP Naser Khader spearheads a network of Muslims trying to create a moderate counterweight to extremist groups
Naser Khader's patience with extremist Muslims has expired. The time has come for moderate Muslims to confront extremist groups, the Palesinian-born MP told weekly newspaper Søndagsavisen.
'To be a practicing Muslim is not the same as being an extremist. I'll fight the people who think they can tell me and others how to be a good Muslim. That is a matter between Allah and individual Muslims,' he said.
Together with 120 other Muslims, Khader recently announcd the creation of the Alternative Muslim Network, a group that seeks to provide a voice for moderate Muslims.
Khader hoped the group could provide a historic turning point for a tolerant form of Islam that demonstrated that it is possible to be Muslim, democratic, and Danish.
As one of the country's most prominent Muslims, Khader has found himself in the line of fire from many sides over the years. He is often asked by journalists to act as a spokesperson for the country's 200,000 Muslims, but fundamentalist Muslims have also turned on Khader for what they consider his secular ways.
Despite their criticism, Khader maintains that its possible to be both modern and Muslim.
'The difference between me and the fundamentalists is that I am a Muslim in a dynamic way. Islam should be interpreted based on the contemporary times we live in,' said Khader. 'Fundamentalists say that what is written in the Koran is the truth for all time. That is an opinion we moderate Muslims want to challenge.'
Four in a row....Another thing I find funny is the hypocracy of it all. The muslims says that you cannot depict the Prophet even in respectful ways because it'd encourage idolatry.
And here they are, burning danish and norwegian flags. Y'know the cross in the those flags? those are supposed to depict THE Cross! (Or so I've been told)
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/01/30/denmark.cartoon.ap/index.html
Quote:
Cartoons spark violent protests
Images seen as insulting to Islam published in Norway, Denmark
GAZA CITY (AP) -- Masked gunmen on Monday briefly took over a European Union office to protest a Danish newspaper's publication of cartoons deemed insulting to Islam's Prophet Muhammad, the latest in a wave of violent denunciations of the caricatures across the Islamic world.
The gunmen demanded an apology from Denmark and Norway and said citizens of the two countries would be prevented from entering the Gaza Strip.
"We are calling on the citizens of the two countries to take this threat seriously because our cells are ready to implement this all over Gaza," one militant said.
The 12 drawings -- published in September by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten and republished in a Norwegian paper this month -- included an image of the prophet wearing a turban shaped as a bomb with a burning fuse.
Islamic tradition bars any depiction of the prophet, even respectful ones, out of concern that such images could lead to idolatry.
The cartoons have touched off protests, flag burnings and boycotts of Danish products throughout the Muslim world. On Sunday, Palestinian protesters burned Danish flags in two West Bank towns.
In Monday's violence, the gunmen burst into the EU office, then withdrew several minutes later. A group of about 15 masked men, armed with hand grenades, automatic weapons and anti-tank launchers, remained outside, keeping the offices closed. No shots were fired, and there were no reports of injuries.
The gunmen left the building after about half an hour.
The Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, a violent group linked to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah Party, claimed responsibility. Al Aqsa has been involved in much of the recent chaos plaguing Gaza.
Jyllands-Posten has refused to apologize for the drawings, citing freedom of speech. The drawings were reprinted on January 10 by Norwegian evangelical newspaper Magazinet in the name of defending free expression, renewing Muslim anger
RACK the G-Man.
http://www.jp.dk/english_news/artikel:aid=3533280/ Quote:
Imams accused of doublespeak
Danish imams are blamed for fanning the flames of the on-going conflict over Mohammed caricatures by saying one thing in Danish and something else in Arabic
PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen lashed out at extremist Muslim leaders in Denmark on Thursday for speaking with two tongues in the on-going row between the country and the Muslim world.
Rasmussen said imams' positive comments in Danish about the recent days' thaw in the dispute over newspaper Jyllands-Posten's publication of 12 caricatures of the prophet Mohammed had been undermined by statements made in Arabic to the media from Muslim countries.
'We have clearly noted that in certain situations, some people are speaking with two tongues,' Rasmussen said after meeting the parliament's foreign policy committee. 'The government watches what news and information is circulated in Arabic countries very closely so we can catch false stories and correct them immediately.'
Rasmussen was referring specifically to an incident in which controversial imam Abu Laban said to television station al-Jazeera that he was happy about the Muslim boycott. Later in the day, Laban said to Danish television station TV2 that he would urge Muslims to stop the boycott immediately.
'If Muslim countries decide to boycott, and if Muslims feel that it is their obligation to defend the prophet, then that is something we can be happy about,' Laban said to al-Jazeera.
Other leading imams have also been accused of misleading Muslims outside of Denmark about the situation.
Earlier this week, imam Abu Bashir appeared on BBC World showing a caricature of Mohammed with a pig's snout and ears to representatives of the Arabic League. Bashir falsely claimed that the caricature was one of the 12 Jyllands-Posten drawings.
Neither Laban nor Bashir were available for comment.
Quote:
the G-man said:
That cartoon is actually spot on.
I think that, like Christianity, its the fundamentalists who make the moderates look bad.
So, yes. G-man does deserve a rack point for this.
I'll try to see if I can find the cartoons and post them here, if noone objects that is.
Muslim Countries Lead In "Unfavorable Attitudes" Towards OthersThe Muslim countries averaged 52.2% "Unfavorable Attitudes" towards Christians, while the U.S. and European countries averaged 32.6% "Unfavorable Attitudes" towards Muslims. So, the Muslim countries "Unfavorable Attitudes" towards Christians were 1.6 times as high as the "Unfavorable Attitudes" of the U.S. and European countries towards Muslims.
For Jews, the Muslim countries averaged "Unfavorable Attitudes" of 79.6%, while the U.S. and European countries averaged 12.2%. So, Muslim countries "Unfavorable Attitudes" towards Jews averaged 6.35 times as high as the U.S. and European countries. It should be noted that the survey question referred to Jews, not to Israels.
Western country responses for "Unfavorable Attitudes" towards Muslims were: U.S. 22%; Britain 14%, France 34%; Germany 47%, Netherlands 51%. It is striking that the U.S. and Britain which are under the most severe criticism because of Iraq, are on the low-end of "Unfavorable Attitudes" towards Muslims.
Muslim country responses for "Unfavorable Attitudes" towards Christians were: Turkey 63%; Pakistan 58%; Jordan 41%; Morocco 61%; Indonesia 38%.
Muslim Country responses for "Unfavorable Attitudes" towards Jews were: Turkey 60%; Pakistan 74%; Jordan 100%; Morocco 88%; Indonesia 76%.
For individual Western country responses the "Unfavorable Attitudes" on Jews were: U.S. 7%; Britain 6%; France 16%; Gemany 21%; Netherlands 11%.
I just read an article about muslims in Sweden.
Apparently they are demanding special laws in regards to Muslims.
For instance, they are demanding that muslims can legally take time off for the friday prayer (which apparently is important) and for muslim holidays (That I don't see a problem with to be honest)
They demand that Muslim clerics, or Imams be given the right to teach muslim children in the public schools, and that divorce in a muslim family must be approved by an Imam.
They're also demanding interest free loans from banks to build Mosques and special women nights in swimmingpools.
This, they are demanding, must be made law.
Honestly, I don't see a problem in regards to the muslim holidays. But the rest...
edit: I'll post the article as soon as it gets translated into english
An article about a rape trial, involving four Pakistan muslim immigrants to Sydney, Australia, who were convicted recently, for gang-raping several women.
As I've posted previously (on page 2 of the topic, in January 2004), violence of muslim immigrants is a recurring problem in every part of the western world that muslims immigrate to. Particularly the raping of women, violence toward Jews, and the burning and desecration of Jewish Synagogues and graveyards.
Saudi religious police ban sale of pet dogs and catsSaudi Arabia's religious police, normally tasked with chiding women to cover themselves and ensuring men attend mosque prayers, are turning to a new target: cats and dogs. The police have issued a decree banning the sale of the pets, seen as a sign of Western influence.
The prohibition on dogs may be less of a surprise, since conservative Muslims despise dogs as unclean. But the cat ban befuddled many, since Islamic tradition holds that the Prophet Muhammad loved cats - and even let a cat drink from his ablutions water before washing himself for prayers.
The religious police, known as the Muttawa, have the role of enforcing Saudi Arabia's strict Islamic code. Its members prowl streets and malls, ensuring unmarried men and women do not mix, confronting women they feel are not properly covered or urging men to go to prayers. But the government also gives the Muttawa wide leeway to enforce any rules they deem necessary to uphold the social order.
The decree - which applies to the Red Sea port city of Jiddah and the holy city of Mecca - bans the sale of cats and dogs because ''some youths have been buying them and parading them in public,'' according to a memo from the Municipal Affairs Ministry to Jiddah's city government. The memo, obtained by The Associated Press, urges city authorities to help enforce the ban.
Conservatives decry the [pet ownership] trend as a Western influence, just like the fast food, shorts, jeans and pop music that have become more common in the kingdom, which is ruled by the puritanical Wahhabi interpretation of Islam. They say it should be fought because it is threatening the fabric of Gulf nations.
NY PostRadical Muslims have conjured up one more reason to rage against America - the Fifth Avenue Apple Store.
A message posted Tuesday on the extremist Al-Hesbah Web site ripped Apple for erecting a glass cube - "clearly meant to provoke Muslims" - outside its new outlet on the corner of West 58th Street.
The posting - translated into English by the Middle East Media Research Institute - called the cube "a blatant insult to Muslims" for its supposed likeness to the Kaaba, a cubic masonry structure situated in the center of the world's most sacred mosque in Mecca.
Yigal Carmon, head of Memri.org, said that Al-Hesbah is one of the "five major Islamist Web sites in the world." It often carries videos of al Qaeda heavies such as Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri.
"These are extremist groups," said Carmon, "but they are serious. It is not a marginal site."
The Memri translation elicited instant outrage in the blogosphere.
"You Muslim a- - - - - -s did not invent the cube nor do you maintain an exclusive monopoly on its use," said one blog posting.
Representatives at Apple tried to downplay the controversy.
"We regret that the comments of these independent bloggers have offended anyone," said Apple spokesman Steve Dowling. "The entrance is not an attempt to resemble the Kaaba."
What
doesn't offend these fuckers?
Quote:
the G-man said:
What doesn't offend these fuckers?
People converting to Islam?
basically the only thing I can think of...
Would they be offended by a 10mm law enforcement hollow-point between the eyes?
The world wonders.
I wish we had some place else that we could simply just send all the Muslim Extemists to.... like the surface of the sun!
The next huge Muslim seethe-fest will be over the
2012 London Olympics:
The 2012 London Olympics have been plunged into controversy by the discovery that the Games will clash with Ramadan, the most holy month in the Islamic calendar.
The clash will put Muslim athletes at a disadvantage as they will be expected to fast from sunrise to sunset for the entire duration of the Games.
In 2012, Ramadan will take place from July 21 to August 20, while the Olympics run from July 27 to August 12. An anticipated 3,000 Muslim competitors are expected to be affected. About a quarter of the 11,099 athletes who took part in the 2004 Athens Olympics came from countries with predominantly Muslim populations.
Because the Muslim calendar is based on a lunar cycle, the ninth month of Ramadan - which runs from the appearance of one new crescent moon to the next - gets earlier by around 11 days each year.
Massoud Shadjareh, chairman of the London-based Islamic Human Rights Commission, said: “They would not have organised this at Christmas. It is equally stupid to organise it at Ramadan. It shows a complete lack of awareness and sensitivity.”
“This is going to disadvantage the athletes and alienate the Asian communities by saying they don’t matter.”
And I think we all know what happens when radical Islam feels "alienated."
Any one want to predict how long until the International Olympic Committee caves in to pressure (and the inevitable threats) and reschedules the games?
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/world/africa/index.html
Quote:
A Liberal Brother at Odds With the Muslim Brotherhood
CAIRO
GAMAL AL-BANNA is 85, and for much of his life he has been overshadowed by his famous brother, Sheik Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist political party and antecedent of a host of militant Islamist organizations, from Al Qaeda to Hamas.
That seems to have suited him just fine, though. He liked to write, read and think. His sister left him a lot of money, and so for decades, that is exactly how he spent his days.
His bedroom is at one end of a dusty old apartment on a chaotic street in the center of the city. At the other end is his office, his desk piled high with papers. In between are books — some 30,000 of them — arranged neatly on floor-to-ceiling shelves. One section is devoted to the 100 or so books he has written and translated over the course of his lifetime.
But Mr. Banna is no longer living in his brother’s shadow. And, like the organization his brother founded, the younger Mr. Banna is no friend of the establishment, but for quite a different reason. He is a liberal thinker, a man who would like to see Islamic values and practices interpreted in the context of modern times. Egypt’s gatekeepers of religious values, the government-appointed and self-appointed arbiters of God’s word, condemn, dismiss and dispute what he says. They have also banned at least one of his books.
“Gamal al-Banna has opinions that fall outside the scope of religion,” said Sheik Omar el-Deeb, deputy in charge of Al Azhar, the centuries-old seat of Islamic learning in Cairo. “The people, of course, oppose anybody who talks about things that violate religion.”
Mr. Banna likes to wear a blue collarless suit, buttoned to the very top. He prefers sandals to shoes, and wears his thin, wiry white hair swept back. He is often laughing, a kind of knowing chuckle that seems to say he knows better, by virtue of his age and experience.
He doesn’t press his ideas, does not try to wage a contest with the institution of Al Azhar, but instead takes the long-term view, hoping to plant a few seeds that will, in time, take root and spread. He recognizes that, at the moment, the other side is winning the contest of ideas in Egypt, and the region.
“If religion was correctly understood, it would be a power of liberation,” Mr. Banna said. “But it is misunderstood, and so it is driving us backward.”
The views alleged to fall outside religion include those on women: They are not required to wear a veil, as most do in Egypt, Mr. Banna believes; they should not be forced to undergo genital cutting, as most do now in Egypt; and they should be allowed to lead men in prayer, which is forbidden in Egypt.
“My idea is that man is the aim of religion, and religion only a means,” said Mr. Banna. “What is prevalent today is the opposite.”
Egypt, often looked to as a center of moderate Islam, is, like the rest of the Arab world, becoming more conservative and less tolerant of opposing religious views, according to thinkers like Mr. Banna. Since August there have been at least three high-profile cases here where religious officials condemned, or sought to have criminally charged, people or publications promoting religious ideas they deemed offensive.
“When the Muslims used to disagree, they had different schools of thought,” said Sayed el-Qemni, another reform-minded writer who lives in a small city outside of Cairo. “No one would point to the other and say, ‘This is not Islam.’ But when one school of thought says, ‘I am the correct school of thought and everyone else deserves death,’ then you are starting a new religion.”
Mr. Qemni has received death threats for some of his writings, and sleeps with two police officers guarding his house.
BY contrast, Mr. Banna exudes a sense of impunity. That, he says, is not a result of his name, though it is a powerful force in a society where family ties are deeply respected, but because “I am free.”
He is free because he has been careful not to become involved in political movements — and because of his sister, Fawziyya, who left him the equivalent of about $100,000. That is a huge sum in Egypt, especially considering Mr. Banna has no family and lives and works in the same apartment at a nominal rent.
“I am a completely independent man,” he said with a smile. “I am not an employee, I am not in any party, and I am not affiliated with anything — completely independent.”
Mr. Banna was born Dec. 15, 1920, in Mahmudiya, a village in Egypt’s northern Nile Delta, northwest of the capital. The youngest of five children, he moved with his family to Cairo at age 4. His oldest sibling, Hassan, went on to form the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the largest organized opposition group in Egypt, although banned.
Their father, Ahmad Banna, a self-taught prayer leader and religious teacher, supported the family by repairing watches (his small wooden worktable sits in the hall of Gamal’s apartment). The elder Mr. Banna spent years of his life indexing the many thousands of sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, assembling them in a multivolume set that sits on his youngest son’s shelves and inspires the son to this day.
As a young man, Mr. Banna was kicked out of high school after a dispute with an English teacher. He finished his studies at a technical school and did not pursue college, he said, because he knew he wanted to pursue writing. So he went out and began to write. In 1946, he published a book, “A New Democracy,” which included a chapter titled “Toward a New Understanding of Islam.”
MR. BANNA says one of the fundamental problems with religious leaders in Egypt is that they look to the interpretations of their ancestors and not to the Koran itself. To look directly at the book, and not at the words as interpreted by men living in a different time, would have a liberating effect, he says.
Many of his ideas challenge the core beliefs of the radical Muslims who have been driving the religious agenda in the region. Some Islamists say, for example, that elected governments are un-Islamic because people must follow God’s law, or Shariah, and not that of a parliament.
But Mr. Banna says the radicals are guilty of pursuing the very logic they say is un-Islamic. They would impose what amounts to their interpretation of the Koran onto other Muslims. That, he says, is no different than relying on a parliament to pass laws, as both are a result of man’s intervention, not divine revelation.
Islam, he says, needs to be seen in a modern context. “Because Islam is the last of religions, if it was rigid and closed, it could not stand the changes of the ages,” he said.
Mr. Banna does not deliver his message as a lecture. He speaks casually, slipping between English and Arabic, smiling, waving his hands. He has his own name now, and a philosophy quite different from the Islamist organization his brother founded.
Unlike the Brotherhood, he has stayed far from politics, but that does not mean he is apolitical. On the contrary, Mr. Banna says he believes that the reason his ideas have not gained momentum is that political freedom in Egypt is stifled by the nation’s rulers.
“They want only power,” he said. “They don’t want freedom of thought. Free thought, that will condemn them.”
This is a man I would like to meet. A seemingly intelligent man in the middle of ignorance and prejudice.
He raises an interesting arguement. That Islamic fundamentalism has become more radical as opposed to the past.
The facts are all there, yet I still find it hard to believe that radical muslims can feel so threathened by western beliefs and morals. But the facts are right in front of us.
Anyway, this article was an interesting read because it shows that at least some Muslims dare oppose their own religious leaders
Quote:
the G-man said:
The next huge Muslim seethe-fest will be over the 2012 London Olympics:
The 2012 London Olympics have been plunged into controversy by the discovery that the Games will clash with Ramadan, the most holy month in the Islamic calendar.
The clash will put Muslim athletes at a disadvantage as they will be expected to fast from sunrise to sunset for the entire duration of the Games.
In 2012, Ramadan will take place from July 21 to August 20, while the Olympics run from July 27 to August 12. An anticipated 3,000 Muslim competitors are expected to be affected. About a quarter of the 11,099 athletes who took part in the 2004 Athens Olympics came from countries with predominantly Muslim populations.
Because the Muslim calendar is based on a lunar cycle, the ninth month of Ramadan - which runs from the appearance of one new crescent moon to the next - gets earlier by around 11 days each year.
Massoud Shadjareh, chairman of the London-based Islamic Human Rights Commission, said: “They would not have organised this at Christmas. It is equally stupid to organise it at Ramadan. It shows a complete lack of awareness and sensitivity.”
“This is going to disadvantage the athletes and alienate the Asian communities by saying they don’t matter.”
And I think we all know what happens when radical Islam feels "alienated."
Any one want to predict how long until the International Olympic Committee caves in to pressure (and the inevitable threats) and reschedules the games?
Of course the International Olympic Committee will have to cave in and change the schedule for the games. The damn Islamic extremists will help see to that!
Look for a new mid season tv show due out next January
called " My Terrorist and Me", as a simple midwestern family is besieged by a lone terrorist named Achmed, who controls everything that the family eats, wears, says and does! It's sure to be a hit..but only on Baghdad Tv!
Muslims urged to shun 'unholy' vaccines
A Muslim doctors’ leader has provoked an outcry by urging British Muslims not to vaccinate their children against diseases such as measles, mumps and rubella because it is “un-Islamic”.
Dr Abdul Majid Katme, head of the Islamic Medical Association, is telling Muslims that almost all vaccines contain products derived from animal and human tissue, which make them “haram”, or unlawful for Muslims to take.
Islam permits only the consumption of halal products, where the animal has had its throat cut and bled to death while God’s name is invoked.
Holy Day for ShiitesIranian, Iraqi Shiites beat themselves during rituals in Tehran, Iran
London Prison Changes Direction of Toilets in Respect to Islamic LawToilets in one London prison are getting a face-lift — or rather, a change in direction — to accommodate Muslim inmates who can't use them while facing Mecca
Islamic code prohibits Muslims from facing or turning their backs on the direction of prayer when they use the bathroom. Muslim prisoners complained of having to sit sideways on toilets so as to not break code.
Faith leaders in the government pressured officials to approve turning the toilets 90 degrees at HMP Brixton in London.
A Muslim American rights worker commended the London prison system for their actions, but said the problem, so far, doesn't appear to be an issue in the U.S.
So far = any day now. Watch your taxes go up to retrofit all the prisons, kids.
This is getting so fucking ridiculous, all this attempting to "understand" Islam.
Quote:
the G-man said:
London Prison Changes Direction of Toilets in Respect to Islamic Law
Toilets in one London prison are getting a face-lift — or rather, a change in direction — to accommodate Muslim inmates who can't use them while facing Mecca
Islamic code prohibits Muslims from facing or turning their backs on the direction of prayer when they use the bathroom. Muslim prisoners complained of having to sit sideways on toilets so as to not break code.
Faith leaders in the government pressured officials to approve turning the toilets 90 degrees at HMP Brixton in London.
A Muslim American rights worker commended the London prison system for their actions, but said the problem, so far, doesn't appear to be an issue in the U.S.
So far = any day now. Watch your taxes go up to retrofit all the prisons, kids.
This is getting so fucking ridiculous, all this attempting to "understand" Islam.
What's ridiculous is that our troops can't wear stars or crosses or have a torah or bible..that's bullshit.
What we really need is leadership that will do what General
"Black Jack" Pershing is rumored to have done.
Oyyy, with Bush's Saturday address and the movement of new carrier groups this looks to be shaping up badly..
Russia completes air defense system deliveries to Iran - Ivanov Russia
Russia completes air defense system deliveries to Iran - Ivanov
16:12 | 16/ 01/ 2007
Print version
MOSCOW, January 16 (RIA Novosti) - Russia has completed deliveries of Tor-M1 anti-aircraft missile systems to Iran, the defense minister said Tuesday.
"We have supplied modern anti-aircraft short-range missile systems under a contract. Iran is not under any sanctions," Sergei Ivanov said, adding that Moscow will continue to develop military and technical cooperation with Tehran.
ЗРК "Тор-М1"Russia undertook to supply 29 Tor-M1 missile systems to Iran under a $700 million contract signed at the end of 2005. The United States protested the deal, which it feared could bolster the military capabilities of the Islamic Republic, classified by Washington as a "rogue state" and part of "the axis of evil."
Russia has insisted that the contract for the delivery of the Tor-M1 missiles to Iran was concluded in line with international law, and that the system is intended for defense purposes only.
Last December, the UN Security Council adopted a revised version of a resolution to punish Tehran for its refusal to its halt uranium enrichment, but Russia managed to uphold its economic interests and ensured the implementation of its earlier signed contracts with Iran, including on the construction of a light-water reactor in Bushehr and the delivery of the Tor-M1 and S-300 air defense systems.
The Tor-M1, developed by the Russian company Almaz-Antei, is a high-precision missile system designed to destroy aircraft, manned or unmanned, and cruise missiles flying at an altitude of up to 10 kilometers (6 miles). It was introduced at the Russian aerospace show MAKS in 2005. Each system is equipped with 8 short-range missiles, associating radars, fire control systems and a battery command post.
It's not gonna render them impervious to our airborne assets, don't worry. Nor would it be enough to deter the Israelis, interestingly enough. The IAF would still be able to hit most anything in Iran even with their logistical limitations, which means the USAF - especially with its arsenal of low-observability aircraft - would easily be able to circumvent the system. It's really gonna bolster the Iranians' bravado more than anything else, which many people would almost welcome at this point, since any sort of actual military engagement would be suicidal for Iran.
Quote:
Matt Kennedy said:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Wednesday:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
I find this sweeping statement about Christianity unfounded and insulting. It clearly has a contempt for Christianity, a level of bias and contempt that makes me wonder if the rest of what the writer says could possibly be accurate.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Funny that you would disagree with one of the few points from the original article that I actually agree with.
The idea that the scriptures of Christianity, Islam, and most any other religion share the common potential of misuse has been proven time and time again throughout history. If you don't believe that the teachings of Christianity can be interpreted in many different ways, review this thread.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Islam is far more conquest-oriented and brutal at its root. The early spread of Islam was through conquest for hundreds of years, and putting any in conquered areas who would not convert to Islam "to the sword".
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Muslims ruled Spain for roughly 800 years and during that time, the non-Muslims there were alive and flourishing. Christian and Jewish minorities have survived in the Muslim lands of the Middle East for centuries. Countries such as Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and Jordan all have Christian and/or Jewish populations. If Islam taught that all people are supposed to be killed or forced to become Muslims, how did all of these non-Muslims survive for so long in the middle of the Islamic Empire?
After Christianity gained dominance in the Roman Empire, it became clear that they regarded their God as very authoritarian in nature. Christians then began imitating their God and become exceptionally authoritarian themselves. Controlling society, they ruthlessly exterminated other religious beliefs, with only Judaism being permitted to co-exist with their own One True Faith.
I'm not trying to bash Christianity here, just point out that it's not as innocent as you portray. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well said, Wednesday.
Whatever happened to Matt Kennedy?
Quote:
the G-man said:
London Prison Changes Direction of Toilets in Respect to Islamic Law
Toilets in one London prison are getting a face-lift — or rather, a change in direction — to accommodate Muslim inmates who can't use them while facing Mecca
Islamic code prohibits Muslims from facing or turning their backs on the direction of prayer when they use the bathroom. Muslim prisoners complained of having to sit sideways on toilets so as to not break code.
Faith leaders in the government pressured officials to approve turning the toilets 90 degrees at HMP Brixton in London.
A Muslim American rights worker commended the London prison system for their actions, but said the problem, so far, doesn't appear to be an issue in the U.S.
So far = any day now. Watch your taxes go up to retrofit all the prisons, kids.
This is getting so fucking ridiculous, all this attempting to "understand" Islam.
I'd like to see a ginormous toilet be constructed for the sole purpose of flushing all the muslims down it.
having muslims around means more Bacon for the rest of us!
anyone who believes in a mystical being creating the earth with a wave of his hands and follow the rules written by a schizophrenic 2000+ years ago is crazy.
Quote:
the G-man said:
London Daily Express:
Demands for a ban on 'un-Islamic' activities in schools will be set out by the Muslim Council of Britain today. Targets include playground games, swimming lessons, school plays, parents' evenings and even vaccinations.
Dozens of Taliban killed in Afghanistan: 20 suspected militants drown crossing a river.
ok, that is pretty funny.
Quote:
the G-man said:
London Daily Express:
Demands for a ban on 'un-Islamic' activities in schools will be set out by the Muslim Council of Britain today. Targets include playground games, swimming lessons, school plays, parents' evenings and even vaccinations.
Sounds to me like being a Muslim means being miserable, angry, and very un- fun.
Muslims need to lighten the fuck up!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070605/ap_on_re_mi_ea/arabs1967_warQuote:
Forty years after Israel's stunning victory over three Arab armies, the defeat still lingers in the Arab world — so much so, some blame it for everything from a lack of democracy in the region to the rise of religious extremism.
....
Egyptian columnist Wael Abdel Fattah wrote in the independent weekly Al-Fagr newspaper that Arabs blame the defeat for "everything" — from "price hikes, dictatorship, religious extremism, sectarian strife, even sexual impotence."
"A military defeat, that could have been limited, has been transformed to an overall defeat, represented by regimes ... and societies that fear change," Syrian writer Bakr Sedqi said in the pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat.
Jordanian columnist Faisal al Ref'ou said the defeat has fueled a cycle of violence all over the region.
"Our Arab nation didn't learn from the history lesson," he wrote in Al Rai, Jordan's largest newspaper. "We're still at square one. We still have the spear in our abdomen in Gaza, Baghdad, Darfur, and Mogadishu. And our executioners are the same — they hand us the knives and we stab ourselves."
Many stress that nothing has been resolved for the Palestinians.
"The Palestinian circumstances ... are the worst since the Israeli planes attacked Arab airports," Palestinian columnist Rasem al-Madhoun wrote recently in Al-Hayat.
....
Yet, with or without peace treaties, the majority of Arabs still consider Israel as the arch enemy, and protests against Israel regularly draw huge crowds in Arab and Muslim nations.
"The 1967 war didn't bring just occupation and misery to the Palestinians, but it also brought insecurity to Israelis," wrote Abdel Bari Atwan, editor of the London-based Arab daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi. "Israel will never be secure or comfortable because it is an occupation state."
Father Found Guilty in Honor Killing
By PAISLEY DODDS, Associated Press Writer
5 hours ago
LONDON - A father who ordered his daughter brutally slain for falling in love with the wrong man in a so-called "honor killing" was found guilty of murder on Monday.
Banaz Mahmod, 20, was strangled with a boot lace, stuffed into a suitcase and buried in a back garden.
Her death is the latest in an increasing trend of such killings in Britain, home to some 1.8 million Muslims. More than 100 homicides are under investigation as potential "honor killings."
Mahmod Mahmod, 52, and his brother Ari Mahmod, 51, planned the killing during a family meeting, prosecutors told the court. Two others have pleaded guilty in the case. Two more suspects have fled the country. Sentencing is expected later this month.
The men accused the young woman of shaming her family by ending an abusive arranged marriage, becoming too Westernized and falling in love with a man who didn't come from their Iraqi village. The Kurdish family came to Britain in 1998 when Banaz Mahmod was 11.
"She was my present, my future, my hope," said Rahmat Suleimani, 29, Banaz Mahmod's boyfriend.
During the three-month trial, prosecutors said Mahmod's father beat his daughter for using hairspray and adopting other Western ways. Her uncle once told her she would have been "turned to ashes" if she were his daughter and had shamed the family by becoming involved with the Iranian Kurd, her sister 22-year-old Bekhal Mahmod testified.
Banaz Mahmod ran away from home when she was a teenager but returned when her father sent her an audio tape in which he warned he would kill her sisters, her mother and himself if she did not come home, her sister said.
She was later hospitalized after her brother attacked her, the sister told the court. The brother said he had been paid by their father to finish her off but in the end was unable to do it, said the sister, who testified in a full black burqa. She said she still feared for her own life.
The years of Banaz Mahmod's abuse were compounded by police officers who repeatedly dismissed her cries for help.
She first went to police in December 2005, saying she suspected her uncle was trying to kill her and her boyfriend. She sent police a letter naming the men who she thought would later kill her.
On New Year's Eve, she was lured by her father to her grandmother's home, where she suspected he planned to attack her after he forced her to gulp down brandy and approached her while wearing gloves. She escaped by breaking a window and was treated at a hospital.
Police dismissed her suspicions, and one officer, who is under investigation, considered charging her with damages for breaking her grandmother's window.
Laying in her hospital bed after the escape, Mahmod recorded a dramatic video message saying she was "really scared."
The videotape, taken by her boyfriend at the hospital, was shown to the jury during the trial.
After she was released from the hospital, she returned home and tried to convince her family she had stopped seeing her boyfriend.
But friends told the family they spotted the couple together on Jan. 22, 2006.
Soon after, a group of men allegedly approached her boyfriend and tried to lure him into a car but he refused. It was that event that prompted Banaz Mahmod to go to police again. This time officers tried to persuade her to stay in a safe house. She refused, believing that her mother would protect her.
But her mother and father left her alone in the house the next day. Her boyfriend alerted police after time passed in which she failed to send him text messages.
Her body wasn't discovered until three months later after police tracked phone records.
Britain has seen more than 25 women killed by their Muslim relatives in the past decade for offenses they believed brought shame on the family. More than 100 other homicides are under investigation as potential honor killings.
Some Muslim communities in Britain practice Sharia, or strict Islamic law.
"We're seeing an increase around the world, due in part to the rise in Islamic fundamentalism," said Diana Nammi with the London-based Iranian and Kurdish Women's Rights Organization.
Quote:
Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said:
Quote:
the G-man said:
London Daily Express:
Demands for a ban on 'un-Islamic' activities in schools will be set out by the Muslim Council of Britain today. Targets include playground games, swimming lessons, school plays, parents' evenings and even vaccinations.
Dozens of Taliban killed in Afghanistan: 20 suspected militants drown crossing a river.
ok, that is pretty funny.
That IS rather funny, yes
Zuh? Why is swimming consider un-Islamic?
Because there is a chance it would wash the nasty B.O., most of them seem to love having, off.
U.S. Troops Mistakenly Kill Afghan police
By Associated Press
2 hours ago
KABUL, Afghanistan - Afghan police mistakenly thought U.S. troops on a nighttime mission were Taliban fighters and opened fire on them, prompting U.S. forces to return fire and call in attack aircraft, killing seven Afghan police, officials said Tuesday.
U.S.-led coalition and Afghan troops, meanwhile, killed more than 24 suspected Taliban fighters during an eight-hour battle in southern Afghanistan on Monday, the coalition said.
President Hamid Karzai's spokesman labeled the shooting at a remote police checkpoint in the eastern province of Nangarhar "a tragic incident" caused by a lack of communication.
"The police forces were not aware of the coalition's operation," said spokesman Karim Rahimi. "The police checkpoint in the area thought that they were the enemy, so police opened fire on the coalition, and then the coalition thought that the enemies were firing on them, so they returned fire back."
The commander at the post, Esanullah, who goes by one name, said U.S. gunfire and helicopter rockets killed seven policemen and wounded four.
Maj. Chris Belcher, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition, said a combined coalition-Afghan force was ambushed by small arms fire and rocket propelled grenades from two sides while on the way to conduct an operation against a suspected Taliban safe house.
"Afghan and coalition forces took incoming fire and they responded to it," Belcher said. The forces called in air support, he said.
A policeman at the remote checkpoint said police called out for the U.S. forces to cease their attack.
"I thought they were Taliban, and we shouted at them to stop, but they came closer and they opened fire," said Khan Mohammad, one of the policemen at the post. "I'm very angry. We are here to protect the Afghan government and help serve the Afghan government, but the Americans have come to kill us."
Rahimi said the incident showed why Karzai has repeatedly called for increased cooperation and communication between Afghan and international troops. He said an investigation into the incident had been opened.
The killings of civilians by international troops has been an ongoing problem in Afghanistan, and several recent civilian shootings prompted the upper house of parliament to pass a bill last month that would prohibit international forces from launching military operations unless they are attacked or have first consulted with the Afghan army, government or police.
In Nangarhar province in March _ the same province of Tuesday's police shootings _ 19 civilians were killed and 50 wounded by Marines Special Operations Forces who fired on civilians while speeding away from the site of a suicide bomb attack, casualties that sparked angry protests and denunciations of the U.S. presence there.
The International Committee of the Red Cross on Tuesday said the impact of violence on civilians in Afghanistan is worse now than a year ago.
Pierre Kraehenbuehl, the ICRC's director of operations, said fighting between armed opposition groups and the Afghan army supported by international forces had intensified significantly in the south and east of the country since 2006 and was spreading to the north and west.
"Civilians suffer horribly from mounting threats to their security, such as increasing numbers of roadside bombs and suicide attacks, and regular aerial bombing raids," he said in a statement.
In the southern province of Kandahar, U.S.-led coalition and Afghan troops killed more than 24 suspected Taliban fighters during an eight-hour battle in southern Afghanistan, the coalition said Tuesday.
The troops were initially ambushed by militants in Shah Wali Kot in Kandahar province Monday, but retreated after several of their fighters were killed.
A force of some 30 Taliban later attacked the same coalition convoy, and Western forces called in airstrikes on a compound and a vehicle. "During the eight-hour battle, over two dozen enemy fighters were killed," the coalition said.
Meanwhile, three Afghan civilians were killed and two wounded in the eastern province of Kunar on Monday after a car drove through a NATO checkpoint and soldiers opened fire on it, said NATO's International Security Assistance Force. The car drove through the checkpoint despite the use of hand gestures and flashing lights, ISAF said.
Gen. Abdul Jalal Jalal, Kunar's provincial police chief, said one of the wounded civilians later died.
A roadside bomb attack 25 miles north of Kandahar city on Monday killed a Canadian soldier. The soldier, identified as Trooper Darryl Caswell of the Royal Canadian Dragoons, was the 57th Canadian soldier killed in Afghanistan, the Canadian military said.
The death brings to at least 78 the number of soldiers killed in Afghanistan this year, including at least 39 Americans.
Violence has spiked in Afghanistan in recent weeks. More than 2,300 people have died in insurgency-related violence this year, according to an Associated Press count based on U.S., NATO and Afghan figures.
In Paktika province a roadside bomb hit a police vehicle in Gomal district on Monday, killing one policeman and wounding six, said Ghamai Khan, the governor's spokesman. Police later saw a Taliban militant planting another roadside bomb and killed him, he said.
In the eastern province of Paktia, Afghan police and U.S.-led coalition troops acting on a tip discovered rocket-propelled grenades, mortar rounds and bomb-making materials hidden under two animal pens in an Afghan home. Militants fired machine guns and RPGS at the troops when they first entered the home, the coalition said in a statement.
The coalition said that local elders "vowed to track down" the bomb maker.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When shit like this happens, the terrorists win.
The concept "separation of Church and State" is in no U.S. document of government. It is a creation in the 20th century, from a phrase Jefferson wrote in a personal letter.
It is NOT in any of Jefferson's books. But technically, it is in one of his writings. It is one phrase by Jefferson, not something he repeatedly or strenuously argued for.
But in any case, the role of Christianity in forming the principles of American democracy is clear.
And equally clear, the desire of its creators that Christian principles would continue to be an enduring part of that democracy, as long as American democracy continues to exist.
Again, I consider Christian concepts to be vastly different from those of Islam.
The ideas of a personal God (-vs- an unknowable God in Islam), of free will (-vs- a more fatalist mindset of Islam), and other ideas of human rights and dignity. That arguably have largely not reached the Islamic world even 200 years after the birth of democracy in the U.S. and Europe.
Article 11 of
The Treaty of Tripoli (1796)
Article 11 reads:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
The concept "separation of Church and State" is in no U.S. document of government. It is a creation in the 20th century, from a phrase Jefferson wrote in a personal letter.
It is NOT in any of Jefferson's books. But technically, it is in one of his writings. It is one phrase by Jefferson, not something he repeatedly or strenuously argued for.
As whomod already pointed out, it is in an official treaty. Second, Jefferson had more right than you do to intrepret the intention of the founders and of the constitution.
But in any case, the role of Christianity in forming the principles of American democracy is clear.
yes, it is a very minor part. "American Democracy" is basically just following in tradition of the British system put in place shortly before America's founding. It is also the culmination of many different cultures and ideas over the years. None of which was really christian. In fact looking at some of the christian actions in America around that time (Salem witch trials for one) it's a good thing the christians didn't have a lot of influence.
And equally clear, the desire of its creators that Christian principles would continue to be an enduring part of that democracy, as long as American democracy continues to exist.
then why doesn't it say that in the constitution. It makes a vague reference to god and then says clearly there is no official church. There is no reference to jesus or a trinity.
Again, I consider Christian concepts to be vastly different from those of Islam.
then you're very ignorant of your own faith. i'm not surprised. you've already demonstrated that you prefer the myths to thefact. i bet you sincerely believe George Washington chopped down a cherry tree.
The ideas of a personal God (-vs- an unknowable God in Islam), of free will (-vs- a more fatalist mindset of Islam), and other ideas of human rights and dignity. That arguably have largely not reached the Islamic world even 200 years after the birth of democracy in the U.S. and Europe.
it's the same damn god. The Jews spawned the christians and the muslims. While the christians are the only one with the trinity concept (and there are christians who don't believe in that) the idea of a trinity was conceived during the time of the ancient greeks. In fact many of the core concepts of modern abrahamic faiths were constructed slowly during ancient times. The Jewish faith evolved slowly. Then the christians evolved from them over disagreement regarding jesus' divinity. And then muhammed came along awhile later and wrote the scriptures for the muslims.
But really it's all the same faith just with different branches, some branches diverge more than others but really it is all the same.
And most of the "evil" beliefs you put on them is just the same type of shit you go for just twisted around. technically islam forbids harming of innocents. so people like bin laden twist what they consider the definition of innocent (not unlike the christian bush changing the definition of torture).
christians put just as much into their "holy wars" as muslims do. in fact anyone who is really religious has the capacity for great violence and evil as long as they believe god wants them to kill and that it is justified (see abortion doctor murders, witch trials, inquisition, KKK, etc).
The reason for terrorism is much more complex than "they hate us for our freedom." If that were the case they would attack the closer countries that have way more freedom than we have (see: Netherlands with drugs and prostitution and less crime). They attack us because we have a history of fucking about in their homes. We basically empowered Saddam with support and weapons, trained bin Laden's people, sold weapons to Iran, mucked about with Iran's political system and allowed oppressive governments to remain as long as they were loyal to us, became buddies with the Saudis who are the worst power in the region, and have generally been a source of their chaos. When we bomb their village, innocent little kids who lose their dad grow up hating us (like Batman but with more sand). They see us as evil, they see us as killers who threaten their families. And the problem is that we keep doing the things that help that view of us. We don't do things diplomatically there, we just bomb them. So when someone like Bush says "I won't debate Saddam i'm just going to attack" and then his invasion kills several hundred thousand Iraqis, then the people start to really hate us. Not for our freedom but for our actions. John Kerry wanted to run the war on terror as a police action, which is what it really is. he understood that this wasn't some enemy that can be attacked with an army in nice flashy fox news graphic sequences. but bush likes those nice photo-ops. standing on a battle carrier or on some 9/11 rubble.
So anyway, the point is that they're human and we're human and we all pretty much want the same thing out of life. They see us like we see them and often judge each other based on the worst elements of our respective societies.
of course i'd be willing to bet money that you'll respond how my typical liberal mindset is destroying america and i hate christians and blah blah blah.
Wasn't the american constitution inspired and somewhat based on the Magna Carta?
the G-man said:London Daily
Express:
- Demands for a ban on 'un-Islamic' activities in schools will be set out by the Muslim Council of Britain today. Targets include playground games, swimming lessons, school plays, parents' evenings and even vaccinations.
Sounds to me like being a Muslim means being miserable, angry, and very un- fun.
Muslims need to lighten the fuck up!
Muslims need to lighten up. So do also some Christians, Jews, Communists, Libertarians etc. There are liberal, moderate, conservative and dogmatic Muslims, as well as fundamentalist Muslims. I bet some of them are even gay, in or out of the closet. The same goes with Christians and Jews.
I thought you were above of this kind of generalization, Jerry.
the G-man said:London Daily
Express:
- Demands for a ban on 'un-Islamic' activities in schools will be set out by the Muslim Council of Britain today. Targets include playground games, swimming lessons, school plays, parents' evenings and even vaccinations.
Sounds to me like being a Muslim means being miserable, angry, and very un- fun.
Muslims need to lighten the fuck up!
Muslims need to lighten up. So do also some Christians, Jews, Communists, Libertarians etc. There are liberal, moderate, conservative and dogmatic Muslims, as well as fundamentalist Muslims. I bet some of them are even gay, in or out of the closet. The same goes with Christians and Jews.
I thought you were above of this kind of generalization, Jerry.
Okay so I goofed.
The Muslims who want to kill and blow up people and buildings and shit like that need to lighten the fuck up.
[quote=Beardguy57]
the G-man said:London Daily
Express:
- Demands for a ban on 'un-Islamic' activities in schools will be set out by the Muslim Council of Britain today. Targets include playground games, swimming lessons, school plays, parents' evenings and even vaccinations.
Sounds to me like being a Muslim means being miserable, angry, and very un- fun.
Muslims need to lighten the fuck up!
Muslims need to lighten up. So do also some Christians, Jews, Communists, Libertarians etc. There are liberal, moderate, conservative and dogmatic Muslims, as well as fundamentalist Muslims. I bet some of them are even gay, in or out of the closet. The same goes with Christians and Jews.
I thought you were above of this kind of generalization, Jerry. [/qu
ote]
Okay so I goofed.
The Muslims who want to kill and blow up people and buildings and shit like that need to lighten the fuck up.
"Apology accepted, Captain Needa."
Poor old Captain Needa!
Y'know, I never noticed before that Darth has a codpiece...
Wasn't the american constitution inspired and somewhat based on the Magna Carta?
according to historians the American Constitution had many inspirations, including the recent British Constitution.
According to wondy, Jesus flew down and wrote it for Jefferson.
the G-man said:London Daily
Express:
- Demands for a ban on 'un-Islamic' activities in schools will be set out by the Muslim Council of Britain today. Targets include playground games, swimming lessons, school plays, parents' evenings and even vaccinations.
Sounds to me like being a Muslim means being miserable, angry, and very un- fun.
Muslims need to lighten the fuck up!
Muslims need to lighten up. So do also some Christians, Jews, Communists, Libertarians etc. There are liberal, moderate, conservative and dogmatic Muslims, as well as fundamentalist Muslims. I bet some of them are even gay, in or out of the closet. The same goes with Christians and Jews.
I thought you were above of this kind of generalization, Jerry.
yeah. people who point out all these muslim complaints seem to overlook the christian complaints about harry potter being a tool of evil and sex education being a tool of evil and teaching science and not the bible being a tool of evil.
it's really sad how wimpy the abrahamic god is that all these lowly humans need to defend the poor guy from all these books and swimming pools.
Let's see:
When Salman Rushdie wrote a book that offended Muslims the leaders of Islam openly ordered his death and he had to go in hiding for years to avoid being murdered.
When J.K. Rowling wrote a book that offended Christians the leaders of Christianity whined a little, said they (gasp) wouldn't buy her books and she kept on living a public life and raking in millions.
Yeah, Adler, both religions are exactly the same.
Idiot
yeah. people who point out all these muslim complaints seem to overlook the christian complaints about harry potter being a tool of evil and sex education being a tool of evil and teaching science and not the bible being a tool of evil.
it's really sad how wimpy the abrahamic god is that all these lowly humans need to defend the poor guy from all these books and swimming pools
The difference is:
Christians don't go out and kill and threaten those who don't ascribe to their views. They may hold picket signs or launch mail campaigns or write their congressman, or donate money to help starving people, but they don't kill, intimidate or fund terrorist groups.(I myself don't see the harm in Harry Potter, any more than I do the latest issue of DOCTOR STRANGE, or movies like
Rosemary's Baby or the
Exorcist. None of these are the Satanic Bible or the Necronomicon, they're just lowbrow/middlebrow entertainment. )
Actually, what Christians teach is science that's not in denial that there's a God. The complaint of Christians is the suppression in our schools of any scientific evidence that there's a God, that's deemed too politically correct or "offensive" to discuss.
The theory of "intelligent design" is that the complexity of nature suggests an ordered pattern, too ordered to have randomly occured, that the very order of the universe suggests there is a Designer.
And I'll just ignore the more blasphemous and pointlessly inflammatory parts of what you said.
why should delusional thinking be taught in a science class? and christians can be very violent people. every group of people can be very violent under stress, especially when their stress is fueled by a religious sense of certainty.
Yeah, remember that time a group of pissed off Christians hijacked a bunch of airplanes and flew them into buildings, killing thousands?
Yeah, remember that time a group of pissed off Christians hijacked a bunch of airplanes and flew them into buildings, killing thousands?
i remember when a pissed off christian started an illegal war killing hundreds of thousands and ruining his country's reputation.
i remember when a pissed off christian started an illegal war killing hundreds of thousands and ruining his country's reputation.
See. This is the kind of thing I mean about extremist liberals. You would think that, given their own claimed belief in gay rights, feminism, etc., liberals would be the people most worried about radical Islam. But instead they conjure up this fiction that Christians are worse and use essentially made-up examples ("illegal war")("killing hundreds of thousands") to do so.
And, as near as I can tell, half the reason they do this is because they hate President Bush so much that they'd rather be on the side of fundamentalist Muslims than a President who just happens to be from a different political party.
i remember when a pissed off christian started an illegal war killing hundreds of thousands and ruining his country's reputation.
See. This is the kind of thing I mean about extremist liberals. You would think that, given their own claimed belief in gay rights, feminism, etc., liberals would be the people most worried about radical Islam. But instead they conjure up this fiction that Christians are worse and use essentially made-up examples ("illegal war")("killing hundreds of thousands") to do so.
And, as near as I can tell, half the reason they do this is because they hate President Bush so much that they'd rather be on the side of fundamentalist Muslims than a President who just happens to be from a different political party.
the same old "you hate the president and support terrorist" argument? it's very childish.
bush has made the situation worse, he has created a stronger draw towards terrorism in the region. and he uses fear mongering to rile people up and justify his shady dealings. dealings which undermine the constitution that the terrorists supposedly hate. and you want to pin an entire race/religion/region of people as evil, which is the first step towards concentration camps and the punishment of innocent people for crimes or offenses of their entire race/religion/region.
Ray:
You're the one who brought Bush into the argument. It's not my fault you can't debate any topic without eventually falling back on "Bush is Just Evil."
Contrary to your Rayfacts(TM), Islam is neither a race, an ethnicity nor a regional trait. It is a belief system.
You need to stop defending beliefs that you would otherwise find objectionable simply because the people holding them in this instance are, in your mind "oppressed minorities" threatened by the "evil" George W. Bush.
If you want to say that Bush has bungled the war on terror, fine. That's a reasonable position.
If you want to say that Christians should try to be more tolerant, lest they turn into people like the radical Muslims, I could respect that.
But for you, or anyone else, to be so caught in political correctness, and fuzzy-headed moral relativism that you stick your head in the stand and pretend that radical Islam isn't an ongoing threat, or is no worse than any other religion, well, that's just dangerous as hell. Not just for people like yourself (gay Jewish liberals), but the rest of the world too.
the problems are caused by people in your party. the ones who start wars and cause discontent and hatred of America around the world and then pointing to that anti-American sentiment that they caused and say "see, this is what we need to fight with more wars."
The problem is caused by the many hu- mans on this planet who are assholes, whether they be republican, democratic, christian, muslim, or followers of Mr. Potato Head.
The problem is caused by the many hu- mans on this planet who are assholes, whether they be republican, democratic, christian, muslim, or followers of Mr. Potato Head.
How DARE you drag Mr. Potato Head into this!
You're evil, EVIL I SAY!!!
oh, and I think that both G-man and adler have both just made some fine points
Mr Potato Head died in the frying pan for our sins...
Mr Potato Head died in the frying pan for our sins...
Damn you, Mr. Potato Head is too good for politics!
bad Beardguy57, BAD BEARDGUY57
Let's see... Pro:
Most proponents of Christian influence in Government cite quotes from the founding fathers, Supreme Court Judges and Presidents among other dignitaries and use legal texts such as the Declaration of Independence and it’s reference to a “creator” to promote their view that this country has always been intended to be a “Christian nation”.
There are varying degrees as to the belief on how much influence the church is to have over government. But the unifying belief among most Christians is that the United States was founded on Biblical principles basic to Christianity and to Judaism from which it flowed.”, therefore any attempts by what they describe as “secularists” to remove God from government are to be challenged. The main argument is that any omission of God in our Constitution is simply an oversight that can be explained away by the fact that everyone who founded this country accepted the fact that God was the source of civic authority as proven by the aforementioned quotes and documents.
Most polarizing issues such as the ban on prayer in school, the abortion debate, gay marriage, even the posting of the Ten Commandments in government courthouses can all be traced by the pro religion in government advocates to a country that has lost its moral compass due to God being systematically removed from our lives by the secularists. The push to fight back over this perceived attack is strong and the chosen avenue the fundamentalist right has chosen is the courts. Either by attacking sitting judges or electing judges with a predetermined agenda to overturn rulings or vote against decisions unfavorable to their perception of what is moral and right.
Con:
The main argument used for the separation of church and state is Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut in 1808:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinion, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.
Another important document that makes clear the intent of the founding fathers is Article 11 of the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli which clearly and unequivocally states “The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.” “[The treaty’s] authorship is ascribed variously to George Washington, under whom the treaty was negotiated, or to John Adams, under whom it took effect, or sometimes to Joel Barlow, U.S. consul to Algiers, friend of Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, and himself no stranger to the religious ferment of the era, having served as a chaplain in the Revolutionary Army. But the validity of the document transcends its authorship for a simple reason: it was ratified. It was debated in the U.S. Senate and signed into law by President Adams without a breath of controversy or complaint concerning its secular language, and so stands today as an official description of the founders’ intent.” . The fact that this was an official document signed and ratified by the United States Government and can be traced directly to the founding fathers shows irrefutable proof that while the founding fathers may or may not have been devout Christians at various times in their life and in their papers, their official positions clearly show a desire to keep religion and government separate.
The misperceptions and the wide chasm between those who seek to impose their brand of Christianity on the entire nation and those who see any reference to God as a threat to reason and the Constitution is vast and in my opinion completely unnecessary. In a sense, both sides are right and wrong. It is wrong to think that the belief in God played no role in the founding of our country but it is also wrong to assume that the founding fathers were devout men who created a “Christian nation”. Christians espousing this political agenda should know better than to try to create the kingdom of heaven on earth by forcing people to act righteous thru the law. Jesus Christ himself railed against the legalistic dictates of the Pharisees partly on account of the fact that it forces people to act righteous rather than it coming from their own heart.
Forcing people to condemn others for their lifestyle or for their differing beliefs is so completely opposite of the character of the founder of their religion that I wonder if they ever step back enough from their hatred and misguided sense of oppression to see this.
The secular left too misses the boat when it seeks to remove the oldest and most potent reminder that this country and civilization itself needs moral guidelines to ensure that anarchy and lawlessness don’t run amok. The Ten Commandments, prayer, ethics, and the golden rule had long been standard tradition in this country because this nation was founded primarily by people of the Christian faith. This should be a matter of fact and not something to scoff or ridicule or seek to erase from memory or tradition.
If both sides could just let go of their prejudices and misconceptions of this country and of each other, there is much common ground that can be found. Some denominations such as Southern Baptists do achieve this middle ground where there is belief in the separation of Church and State. And contrary to popular misinformation, many Christians are liberals, Democrats and for church state separation. Mostly on account of the fact that historically, the alignment of the church and state has never bode well for Christianity.
Seeing as how i'd already written an assignment on this, i thought it easier to just copy it over.
the problems are caused by people in your party.
Considering that at least two of the major acts of Islamic terrorism against the US were accomplished during Democrat administrations (the 1979 hostage crisis and the 1993 world trade center attacks), that's a pretty silly statement to make. In fact, I would submit that it only proves my point that this is about nothing so much as hatred of republicans and Bush on your part
No, what's silly is that after discussing ad naseum that there is no such thing as a "Democrat" Administration or party, you're just so single minded partisan enough to continue using it.
It's "Democratic Administration" or "Democratic Party", Not "Democrat Party". As I've said, knowing that no such thing exists but continuing to use it because the fringe right in your party wants to rename the DEMOCRATIC Party in the worst way, just makes you look small, (willfully) ignorant and petty.
Ands yes yes, there are Democrats. that doesn't mean that they belong to the "Democrat Party" as much as you right wingers would love to think so. And yeah, it may chap your hide to have something as noble sounding as "Democratic" attached to the Democrats and not something that sounds vile, like "Rat" for instance , but too bad.
The concept "separation of Church and State" is in no U.S. document of government. It is a creation in the 20th century, from a phrase Jefferson wrote in a personal letter.
um.. oookay? Who told you that nonsense?
Here's a refresher on the issue of Sunday mail service which raged around the early 1800's.
The degree to which a secular approach to government was accepted in early 19th-century America was demonstrated by Congress' refusal to abandon Sunday mail service, which it had mandated in 1810. The 1844 invention of the telegraph would eventually put an end to the commercial need for daily mail, but in the 1820s and '30s, business still depended on the government to keep the mails moving seven days a week. Nevertheless, powerful right-wing religious leaders waged an unceasing campaign against the sacrilege of Sunday mail, which some considered a more important moral issue than slavery. But evangelical Christians and freethinkers, who had joined together to write and ratify the secular Constitution, wanted no part of government sanction for a religious Sabbath.
In 1828, Congress referred the godly mess to the powerful Senate Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads. Its chairman was
Kentucky Senator Richard M. Johnson—a general, a hero of the War of 1812, and a devout Baptist. Johnson's report to Congress uncompromisingly declared that any federal attempt to give preference to the Christian Sabbath would be unconstitutional. He reminded his fellow legislators of the religious persecutions and intolerance that had impelled their revolutionary predecessors to draw a firm line—
"the line cannot be too strongly drawn"—between church and state.
So much for separation of church and state being a recently invented lie of the left.
Wonder Boy, really.... Right there plain as day you assert with all certainty that the separation of church and state is a creation of the 20th century. And it took me all of 2 minutes to show you that it was used way back in the early 1800's.
It helps having to actually research this for a paper in my political science class rather than going on the word of some right wingers book you may have read that assertion in..
And equally clear, the desire of its creators that Christian principles would continue to be an enduring part of that democracy, as long as American democracy continues to exist.
then why doesn't it say that in the constitution. It makes a vague reference to god and then says clearly there is no official church. There is no reference to jesus or a trinity. Here the right-wing script goes awry, for it cannot explain why, if the founders intended to base the government on Christianity or monotheism, they failed to spell out their intentions in the Constitution itself. There was certainly ample precedent for doing so, not only in the Articles of Confederation but in nearly every state constitution.
When the Constitutional Convention opened in 1787, with George Washington as its president, legally entrenched privileges for Protestant Christianity were the rule. The Massachusetts Constitution extended equal protection of the law, and the right to hold office, only to Protestant Christians (restrictions that infuriated Adams, the state's favorite son). New York granted political equality to Jews but not to Roman Catholics. Maryland, the home state of the only Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence, gave full civic rights to Protestants and Catholics but not to Jews, freethinkers, and deists. In Delaware, officeholders had to attest to their belief in the Holy Trinity. Those were the good old days.
Thanks to the strong influence of Jefferson and Madison, Virginia stood alone among the states in guaranteeing complete civic equality and religious freedom to all citizens. In 1786, Virginians rejected a proposal by Patrick Henry to provide public financing for the teaching of Christianity in schools and instead passed an Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, which ruled out tax support for religious instruction and religious tests for public office. Significantly, the new law was supported by a coalition of evangelicals, who—as a minority in a state dominated by Episcopalians—feared government interference with religion, and freethinking Enlightenment rationalists, who feared religious interference with government.
The influence of Virginia's law, enacted less than a year before the writing of the federal Constitution, cannot be overstated. The delegates in Philadelphia could have looked for guidance to a crazy quilt of conflicting state laws, rooted in religious prejudice and incestuous Old World church-state entanglements. Instead they chose the Virginia model, which, as Jefferson proudly stated in his autobiography, "meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination."
Now, confronted with the Constitution's silence on divine authority, revisionists like Wonder Boy repeatedly fall back on the specious argument that since everyone took God's omnipotence for granted in the 18th century, there was no need for the framers to make a special point of mentioning the deity. If that were true, there would have been no bitter debates in the states about the nonreligious language of the Constitution. Moreover, this line of reasoning is self-contradictory, coming as it does from a political/religious ideology that backs the appointment of "originalist" judges—those who insist that the Constitution can only mean exactly what it said at the time it was written. It is ludicrous to suggest that men as precise in their use of words as Adams and Madison would, perhaps in their haste to get home to their wives, have simply forgotten to mention God.
the problems are caused by people in your party.
Considering that at least two of the major acts of Islamic terrorism against the US were accomplished during Democrat administrations (the 1979 hostage crisis and the 1993 world trade center attacks), that's a pretty silly statement to make. In fact, I would submit that it only proves my point that this is about nothing so much as hatred of republicans and Bush on your part
well the hostages were taken outside the US. Reagan's dealings with the hostages (October Surprise) combined with the whole Iran Contra dealings financed a lot of death.
Reagan gave a lot of aid to Saddam and bin Laden during the 80's.
Yes the 1993 attack was on Clinton's watch but, unlike 9/11 and Bush's fuck ups, I've never heard any charges that Clinton was negligent. And with the Arkansas Project blaming him for murder and drug dealing and every other crime under the sun I figure that might have come out if there was even the slightest charges.
Clinton did the rational thing and put a lot of CIA power into tracking down bin Laden, meanwhile Republicans were bitching that bin Laden was a waste of time and he was just trying to distract from Lewinsky.
Bush ignored the bin laden warnings, focused on missile defense in his 80's retro phase. And then Bush invaded the wrong country over false evidence which resulted in more terrorists and more hatred of America and also squandered the trust the world had in America.
G-man, you like to bitch whenever Bush is brought up but the fact is that as the current president pushing more and more warfare and violence he is very much central to the issue of terrorism. and he is central to many of the other issues in the world.
I for one am curious as to why Wonder Boy and his kind are so single minded in heir belief and desire to have the United States be thought of as being founded as a "Christian Nation". Of, by, and for, Christians, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary??
I have my suspicions (which have nothing to do with God or Religion) but I ask it openly first.
Yes the 1993 attack was on Clinton's watch but, unlike 9/11 and Bush's fuck ups, I've never heard any charges that Clinton was negligent. And with the Arkansas Project blaming him for murder and drug dealing and every other crime under the sun I figure that might have come out if there was even the slightest charges.[/b]
Well.. the fact that the people directly responsible for the attack were quickly caught, tried, and imprisoned might have a lot to do with that.
Clinton did the rational thing and put a lot of CIA power into tracking down bin Laden, meanwhile Republicans were bitching that bin Laden was a waste of time and he was just trying to distract from Lewinsky.
yes. Wag the dog. Clinton did nothing about terror. And many other baseless accusations, coming soon to a theatre near you.
Bush ignored the bin laden warnings, focused on missile defense in his 80's retro phase. And then Bush invaded the wrong country over false evidence which resulted in more terrorists and more hatred of America and also squandered the trust the world had in America.
Oh, and don't forget " no one could have imagined airplanes being used as missles".
Oh, and don't forget " no one could have imagined airplanes being used as missles".
this line has always bugged me. there was a tv show that may that had terrorists trying to crash a plane into the world trade center to start a foreign war for oil.
the military had a scenario involving hijacked planes crashing into buildings.
so the idea was out there. had the military followed procedure and not been told to stand down they would've been on those planes within a few minutes of them going off course. they were able to get Payne Stewart's plane that summer after going only a few miles off course.
I still maintain that there is much about 9-11 that we, the public, will never know.
I still feel that it was allowed to happen so that Bush could gain support for his planned war.
And so possibly was Pearl Harbor, to encourage US citizens to go to war, which they might not have done until the Axis powers had already gained too much of a stranglehold on the world.. which they just about had, at that point in late 1941.
Indeed, there are a lot of facts about 911 that doesn't add up. A lot of events that need further investigation and explanations.
But that the allegations that the Bush administration caused is too far a stretch if you ask me.
And yes, it could have been an inside job, and yes, Osama Bin Laden is the perfect scapegoat, but I doubt it.
And about Pearl Harbour, didn't some of the Japanese generals object to it because it would not be in their interests to provoke an enemy they knew they had no hope of defeating?
If I had been the Japanese Prime Minister, I would have ordered an invasion of Australia instead.
Or I would have made Japan a democratic republic before having to seek asylum elsewhere, being hunted down by right-wing nationalists.
Indeed, there are a lot of facts about 911 that doesn't add up. A lot of events that need further investigation and explanations.
But that the allegations that the Bush administration caused is too far a stretch if you ask me.
And yes, it could have been an inside job, and yes, Osama Bin Laden is the perfect scapegoat, but I doubt it.
And about Pearl Harbour, didn't some of the Japanese generals object to it because it would not be in their interests to provoke an enemy they knew they had no hope of defeating?
Yeah, I had heard that, too.
I think near the end of " Tora! Tora! Tora! " one of the Japanese generals
says something like, "We have awakened a sleeping giant. "
Hi, my name is Chant and I would like to ask a serious question regarding muslims, Islam and pigs.
Earlier this week a company here in Denmark announced that they were developing a new type of bio-fuel.
To be more precise, a fuel made from dead animals mixed with diesel oil. This is of particuliar interest to farmers whose livestock have been inflicted with various diseases that disqualifies the meat for food.
Now, here comes the actual question. Among these dead animals are dead pigs. And as we all know, to muslims the pig is a "dirty" or "unclean" animal and they are not allowed to eat it.
But are they allowed to use it as fuel for their cars?
No they are not allowed to use such a fuel.
Pork is like Krytponite to Radical Muslims.
It makes them weak and sick.
Next time you are somewhere and a radical Muslim has a gun and is about to do horrible things to Americans,just throw a package of bacon at him!
He'll go down like a sack of potatoes!
Remember - eat and carry pork products with you at all times, or you'll be letting the terrorists win!
Next time you are somewhere and a radical Muslim has a gun and is about to do horrible things to Americans,just throw a package of bacon at him!
What does that have to do with me?
Would training pigs as suicide bombers against terrorists be considered using "Dirty Bombs"?
No, that would be considered a damnned good strategy!
No they are not allowed to use such a fuel.
Pork is like Krytponite to Radical Muslims.
It makes them weak and sick.
Next time you are somewhere and a radical Muslim has a gun and is about to do horrible things to Americans,just throw a package of bacon at him!
Remember the (possibly apocryphal) Blackjack Pershing story! I always thought we should blanket all terrorist sites/nations with pork rinds before be blow them up so they know that they aren't going to heaven.
No they are not allowed to use such a fuel.
Pork is like Krytponite to Radical Muslims.
It makes them weak and sick.
Next time you are somewhere and a radical Muslim has a gun and is about to do horrible things to Americans,just throw a package of bacon at him!
Remember the (possibly apocryphal) Blackjack Pershing story! I always thought we should blanket all terrorist sites/nations with pork rinds before be blow them up so they know that they aren't going to heaven.
maybe Animal Farm will come true as pigs are elected to fight terrorism.
No they are not allowed to use such a fuel.
Pork is like Krytponite to Radical Muslims.
It makes them weak and sick.
Next time you are somewhere and a radical Muslim has a gun and is about to do horrible things to Americans,just throw a package of bacon at him!
Remember the (possibly apocryphal) Blackjack Pershing story! I always thought we should blanket all terrorist sites/nations with pork rinds before be blow them up so they know that they aren't going to heaven.
The new secret weapon in the war against Terror!
An angry pig dude!
Now I'm gonna have "War Pigs" stuck in my head the rest of the day.
Thanks, Jerry!
Now I'm gonna have "War Pigs" stuck in my head the rest of the day.
You say that like it's a
bad thing, Sammitch...
I for one am curious as to why Wonder Boy and his kind are so single minded in heir belief and desire to have the United States be thought of as being founded as a "Christian Nation". Of, by, and for, Christians, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary??
I have my suspicions (which have nothing to do with God or Religion) but I ask it openly first.
You know what you can do with your slanderous suspicions.
It was only by quoting me in excerpts out of context that what you quoted from me loses its clarity.
The "separation of church and state" simply is that no sect of Christianity will be imposed on the entire people of the United States, as the Anglican Church was in England, and as the Roman Catholic church was in Italy and other large sections of Europe.
But God is referred to
four times in the Declaration of Independence.
And the Constitution is not simply dated, but also inscribed "in the year of our Lord..."
Further, the clear role intended of the Bible and Christian principles in American democracy is clear in the writings of virtually all our founding fathers.
As I said before, Christianity was intended to be taught in schools, and God was frequently referenced in our courts and government up until the 1960s. Even the Supreme Court, Senate and Congress still open in prayer, as do our Presidential inaugurations, and chaplains are provided in all branches of the U.S. military as well.
You seem to feel "separation of church and state" means the total separation of Christianity from any branch of government or education. Clearly
Jefferson did not see it that way, and none of the other founding fathers even use that phrase.
Jefferson did no major writings on the subject, and his only use of the
"wall of separation between church and state" phrase is in an obscure 1802 letter Jefferson wrote in response to an inquiry by the Danbury Baptists.
Jefferson simply meant that religious leaders should not control U.S. government. Not that all mention of the Bible or Christianity, or even prayer, should be banned from our schools and government, as has been increasingly occurring over the last 40-plus years.
What you suggest simply insures that Christians will be marginalized and isolated from having any representation or political voice in establishing the morals and government of the United States.
That is absolutely
not what our founders intended:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
And here is
further expansion on the political manipulation of the
wall of separation of church and state phrase, as explained by Christian history scholar David Barton.
The concept "separation of Church and State" is in no U.S. document of government. It is a creation in the 20th century, from a phrase Jefferson wrote in a personal letter.
um.. oookay? Who told you that nonsense?
Here's a refresher on the issue of Sunday mail service which raged around the early 1800's.
The degree to which a secular approach to government was accepted in early 19th-century America was demonstrated by Congress' refusal to abandon Sunday mail service, which it had mandated in 1810. The 1844 invention of the telegraph would eventually put an end to the commercial need for daily mail, but in the 1820s and '30s, business still depended on the government to keep the mails moving seven days a week. Nevertheless, powerful right-wing religious leaders waged an unceasing campaign against the sacrilege of Sunday mail, which some considered a more important moral issue than slavery. But evangelical Christians and freethinkers, who had joined together to write and ratify the secular Constitution, wanted no part of government sanction for a religious Sabbath.
In 1828, Congress referred the godly mess to the powerful Senate Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads. Its chairman was
Kentucky Senator Richard M. Johnson—a general, a hero of the War of 1812, and a devout Baptist. Johnson's report to Congress uncompromisingly declared that any federal attempt to give preference to the Christian Sabbath would be unconstitutional. He reminded his fellow legislators of the religious persecutions and intolerance that had impelled their revolutionary predecessors to draw a firm line—
"the line cannot be too strongly drawn"—between church and state.
So much for separation of church and state being a recently invented lie of the left.
Wonder Boy, really.... Right there plain as day you assert with all certainty that the separation of church and state is a creation of the 20th century. And it took me all of 2 minutes to show you that it was used way back in the early 1800's.
It helps having to actually research this for a paper in my political science class rather than going on the word of some right wingers book you may have read that assertion in..
Um... you forgot to comment on this part.
I for one am curious as to why Wonder Boy and his kind are so single minded in heir belief and desire to have the United States be thought of as being founded as a "Christian Nation". Of, by, and for, Christians, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary??
I have my suspicions (which have nothing to do with God or Religion) but I ask it openly first.
You know what you can do with your slanderous suspicions.[/b]
You don't even know what they are and yet you call them slanderous.
It was only by quoting me in excerpts out of context that what you quoted from me loses its clarity.
I see you omitted the parts where you were completely obliterated in you assertions, such as "separation of Church-State" being a 20th century creation. So please dn't speak to me of quoting you in excerpts. It's your bread and butter, dude.
The "separation of church and state" simply is that no sect of Christianity will be imposed on the entire people of the United States, as the Anglican Church was in England, and as the Roman Catholic church was in Italy and other large sections of Europe.
[quote]But God is referred to four times in the Declaration of Independence.
And the Constitution is not simply dated, but also inscribed "in the year of our Lord..."
That's your "proof"??!!! Falling back on a once-common manner of dating important papers as unrevealing of religious intent as the use of B.C. and A.D. is today.
Again, what about the Constitution ITSELF? Nothing. You'd place more weight on the dating on the top of the document than on it's content.
As for The Declaration, I already pointed out that the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence and many state Constitutions at the time had references to Go inside them and religious restrictions and tests.
When the Constitutional Convention opened in 1787, with George Washington as its president, legally entrenched privileges for Protestant Christianity were the rule. The Massachusetts Constitution extended equal protection of the law, and the right to hold office, only to Protestant Christians (restrictions that infuriated Adams, the state's favorite son). New York granted political equality to Jews but not to Roman Catholics. Maryland, the home state of the only Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence, gave full civic rights to Protestants and Catholics but not to Jews, freethinkers, and deists. In Delaware, officeholders had to attest to their belief in the Holy Trinity. Those were the good old days.
Thanks to the strong influence of Jefferson and Madison, Virginia stood alone among the states in guaranteeing complete civic equality and religious freedom to all citizens. In 1786, Virginians rejected a proposal by Patrick Henry to provide public financing for the teaching of Christianity in schools and instead passed an Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, which ruled out tax support for religious instruction and religious tests for public office. Significantly, the new law was supported by a coalition of evangelicals, who—as a minority in a state dominated by Episcopalians—feared government interference with religion, and freethinking Enlightenment rationalists, who feared religious interference with government.
The influence of Virginia's law, enacted less than a year before the writing of the federal Constitution, cannot be overstated. The delegates in Philadelphia could have looked for guidance to a crazy quilt of conflicting state laws, rooted in religious prejudice and incestuous Old World church-state entanglements. Instead they chose the Virginia model, which, as Jefferson proudly stated in his autobiography, "meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination."
I think that's what gets your goat. That it extends protection to EVERYONE by not favoring just one religion.
Religious reactionaries of the 18th century, by contrast, were honest in their attacks on the secularism of the new Constitution. One North Carolina minister observed with forthright disgust, during his state's ratification debate, that the abolition of religious tests for officeholders amounted to nothing less than
"an invitation for Jews and pagans of every kind to come among us." The Reverend John M. Mason, a fire-breathing New York minister, declared the absence of God in the Constitution "an omission which no pretext whatever can palliate" and warned that Americans would "have every reason to tremble, lest the Governor of the universe, who will not be treated with indignity by a people more than by individuals, overturn from its foundation the fabric we have been rearing, and crush us to atoms in the wreck."
The marvel of America's founders, even though nearly all of the new nation's citizens were not only Christian but Protestant, was that they possessed the foresight to avoid establishing a Christian or religious government and instead chose to create the first secular government in the world. That the new Constitution failed to acknowledge God's power and instead ceded governmental authority to "We the People…in order to form a more perfect Union" was a break not only with historically distant European precedents but with recent American precedents, most notably the 1781 Articles of Confederation, which did pay homage to "the Great Governor of the World," and the Declaration of Independence, with its majestic statement that "all men…are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." It is worth noting here that the Declaration was a bold and impassioned proclamation of liberty, while the Constitution was a blueprint for a real government, with all the caution about practical consequences (such as divisive squabbles about the precise nature of divine authority over earthly affairs) required of any blueprint.
Further, the clear role intended of the Bible and Christian principles in American democracy is clear in the writings of virtually all our founding fathers.
John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, to name only a few, were prolific writers who contradicted themselves (and one another) frequently. They certainly believed in some form of God or Providence, as Enlightenment rationalists preferred to call the deity, but that is all we can conclude with reasonable certainty. Jefferson's political opponents in the early 1800s were as mistaken to call him an atheist as you are are to claim him as a committed Christian. (For one thing, Jefferson emphatically rejected the idea that Jesus was divine and instead regarded him as a great but wholly human teacher of morality.) Adams' critics and admirers, then and now, have been equally misguided in their attempts to portray him as a man of orthodox faith.
What did distinguish the most important revolutionary leaders was a particularly adaptable combination of political and religious beliefs that included strong hostility toward all ecclesiastical hierarchies. The Enlightenment conviction that if God existed, he expected humans to rely on their own reason to conduct earthly affairs; and the assignment of faith to the sphere of private conscience rather than public duty. These convictions carried the day when the former revolutionaries gathered in Philadelphia to write the Constitution.
As I said before, Christianity was intended to be taught in schools, and God was frequently referenced in our courts and government up until the 1960s. Even the Supreme Court, Senate and Congress still open in prayer, as do our Presidential inaugurations, and chaplains are provided in all branches of the U.S. military as well.
You seem to feel "separation of church and state" means the total separation of Christianity from any branch of government or education. Clearly Jefferson did not see it that way, and none of the other founding fathers even use that phrase.
Jefferson did no major writings on the subject, and his only use of the "wall of separation between church and state" phrase is in an obscure 1802 letter Jefferson wrote in response to an inquiry by the Danbury Baptists.
Jefferson simply meant that religious leaders should not control U.S. government. Not that all mention of the Bible or Christianity, or even prayer, should be banned from our schools and government, as has been increasingly occurring over the last 40-plus years. I already addressed this point. You asserted that Separation of church-state was a 20th Century invention and now after being proven wrong you're backpedaling and minimizing Jefferson's thoughts on the subject.
The founders themselves had varying ideas about how much distance to place between their own beliefs and their public roles. Washington saw nothing wrong with issuing presidential proclamations of thanks- giving to God; Jefferson considered such proclamations unconstitutional. Justice Scalia predictably cites Washington's thanksgiving proclamations in support of Ten Commandments displays and dismisses Jefferson's position. In an amusing 1814 letter to his friend Thomas Cooper, Jefferson noted that even Connecticut—which had still not dropped religious restrictions in its state constitution—declared that "the laws of God shall be the laws of their land, except where their own contradict them."
What you suggest simply insures that Christians will be marginalized and isolated from having any representation or political voice in establishing the morals and government of the United States.
That is absolutely not what our founders intended:
You seem to place Christianity, which is the majority religion in this country as somehow being the minority religion and in peril of being marginalized by the atheist majority. Odd for someone who rails against the claims of victimhood from REAL minorities.
someone goofed on their bold tags.
But God is referred to four times in the Declaration of Independence.
"God" is a generic term used by many, if not all, religions in some form or another. so is "creator."
In fact back then it was an accepted "fact" that there was a god and it was risky to even hint that there wasn't or that the bible was wrong. which is why Jefferson wrote his own bible that took the fairy tale and stripped away the magic and sci-fi to make it more of a generic morality tale. but Jefferson was afraid of the backlash from it so it was hidden away until one of his decendants uncovered it.
No they are not allowed to use such a fuel.
Pork is like Krytponite to Radical Muslims.
It makes them weak and sick.
Next time you are somewhere and a radical Muslim has a gun and is about to do horrible things to Americans,just throw a package of bacon at him!
Remember the (possibly apocryphal) Blackjack Pershing story! I always thought we should blanket all terrorist sites/nations with pork rinds before be blow them up so they know that they aren't going to heaven.
maybe Animal Farm will come true as pigs are elected to fight terrorism.
It was only by quoting me in excerpts out of context that what you quoted from me loses its clarity.
I see you omitted the parts where you were completely obliterated in you assertions, such as "separation of Church-State" being a 20th century creation. So please dn't speak to me of quoting you in excerpts.
I omitted a lengthy bit of filler material on your part, that bypasses my point with interpretations and rulings decades later. The 1962 U.S. Supreme Court ruling removing prayer from schools could be listed by you also, but it does not,
in the slightest represent the intent of those who signed the Constitution and Declaration.
It was a completely arbitrary ruling, with no prior precedent, and with no intent to rule based on what our founders actually intended.
My concern is not with 200 years of rulings, but with the beliefs and intent of the original framers of our government.
Again:
Their original intent was for the Bible to be a part of education and government, and the ONLY restriction on that was to not allow one denomination of Christianity (such as Anglicanism or Roman Catholicism, as I already said above) to be imposed on all citizens as an obligatory state religion. The rest of what you post, while law that may apply to specifics of other cases, is just diversionary fluff on your part here.
The "separation of church and state" simply is that no sect of Christianity will be imposed on the entire people of the United States, as the Anglican Church was in England, and as the Roman Catholic church was in Italy and other large sections of Europe.
But God is referred to four times in the Declaration of Independence.
And the Constitution is not simply dated, but also inscribed "in the year of our Lord..."
That's your "proof"??!!! Falling back on a once-common manner of dating important papers as unrevealing of religious intent as the use of B.C. and A.D. is today.
Again, what about the Constitution ITSELF? Nothing. You'd place more weight on the dating on the top of the document than on it's content.
As for The Declaration, I already pointed out that the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence and many state Constitutions at the time had references to Go inside them and religious restrictions and tests.
Again, I already said that the private writings of Washington, Jefferson, Morris, etc., that I've quoted several times elsewhere, make clear their belief in Christianity and its essential role in Americvan government and education, and that its absence in Greek and Roman attempts at Democracy is what doomed those states to failure. That in the absence of Christian principles, American democracy would be doomed to failure as well.
When the Constitutional Convention opened in 1787, with George Washington as its president, legally entrenched privileges for Protestant Christianity were the rule. The Massachusetts Constitution extended equal protection of the law, and the right to hold office, only to Protestant Christians (restrictions that infuriated Adams, the state's favorite son). New York granted political equality to Jews but not to Roman Catholics. Maryland, the home state of the only Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence, gave full civic rights to Protestants and Catholics but not to Jews, freethinkers, and deists. In Delaware, officeholders had to attest to their belief in the Holy Trinity. Those were the good old days.
Thanks to the strong influence of Jefferson and Madison, Virginia stood alone among the states in guaranteeing complete civic equality and religious freedom to all citizens. In 1786, Virginians rejected a proposal by Patrick Henry to provide public financing for the teaching of Christianity in schools and instead passed an Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, which ruled out tax support for religious instruction and religious tests for public office. Significantly, the new law was supported by a coalition of evangelicals, who—as a minority in a state dominated by Episcopalians—feared government interference with religion, and freethinking Enlightenment rationalists, who feared religious interference with government.
The influence of Virginia's law, enacted less than a year before the writing of the federal Constitution, cannot be overstated. The delegates in Philadelphia could have looked for guidance to a crazy quilt of conflicting state laws, rooted in religious prejudice and incestuous Old World church-state entanglements. Instead they chose the Virginia model, which, as Jefferson proudly stated in his autobiography, "meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination."
I think that's what gets your goat. That it extends protection to EVERYONE by not favoring just one religion.
It doesn't bother me in any way.
So what?
The Framers allowed for all religions to be tolerated, but they intended for Christian principles to be the guiding moral influence.
The education bill (unclear in what you quoted, without source) was possibly rejected because it was feared one sect of Christian ideas could be imposed through that particular state-funded program. Or that it was redundant and a waste of tax dollars, in such an already strongly Christian and literate community.
Religious reactionaries of the 18th century, by contrast, were honest in their attacks on the secularism of the new Constitution. One North Carolina minister observed with forthright disgust, during his state's ratification debate, that the abolition of religious tests for officeholders amounted to nothing less than
"an invitation for Jews and pagans of every kind to come among us." The Reverend John M. Mason, a fire-breathing New York minister, declared the absence of God in the Constitution "an omission which no pretext whatever can palliate" and warned that Americans would "have every reason to tremble, lest the Governor of the universe, who will not be treated with indignity by a people more than by individuals, overturn from its foundation the fabric we have been rearing, and crush us to atoms in the wreck."
Your source seems more focused on proving the bigotry and anti-semitism of the founders, rather than the intent of the founders. Even in the way it described those quoted.
These were founders who had left a Europe that had state-imposed religions, and there was heated debate, I'm sure, on how to safeguard religious freedom in the U.S., from falling under the same state-imposed sectarian hegemony.
The marvel of America's founders, even though nearly all of the new nation's citizens were not only Christian but Protestant, was that they possessed the foresight to avoid establishing a Christian or religious government and instead chose to create the first secular government in the world. That the new Constitution failed to acknowledge God's power and instead ceded governmental authority to "We the People…in order to form a more perfect Union" was a break not only with historically distant European precedents but with recent American precedents, most notably the 1781 Articles of Confederation, which did pay homage to "the Great Governor of the World," and the Declaration of Independence, with its majestic statement that "all men…are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." It is worth noting here that the Declaration was a bold and impassioned proclamation of liberty, while the Constitution was a blueprint for a real government, with all the caution about practical consequences (such as divisive squabbles about the precise nature of divine authority over earthly affairs) required of any blueprint.
Again, if the framers wanted a total secular break in the Constitution, they would not have included the phrase
"In the year of our Lord..."
They would have simply written the date.
Clearly, they wished to include some degree of Christian reverence, as is evident in their other personal histories and writings.
Further, the clear role intended of the Bible and Christian principles in American democracy is clear in the writings of virtually all our founding fathers.
John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, to name only a few, were prolific writers who contradicted themselves (and one another) frequently. They certainly believed in some form of God or Providence, as Enlightenment rationalists preferred to call the deity, but that is all we can conclude with reasonable certainty. Jefferson's political opponents in the early 1800s were as mistaken to call him an atheist as you are are to claim him as a committed Christian. (For one thing, Jefferson emphatically rejected the idea that Jesus was divine and instead regarded him as a great but wholly human teacher of morality.) Adams' critics and admirers, then and now, have been equally misguided in their attempts to portray him as a man of orthodox faith.
There are a lot of liberal revisionists out there who allege all these guys were Deists, etc., or otherwise try to historically water down their clear beliefs.
What did distinguish the most important revolutionary leaders was a particularly adaptable combination of political and religious beliefs that included strong hostility toward all ecclesiastical hierarchies. The Enlightenment conviction that if God existed, he expected humans to rely on their own reason to conduct earthly affairs; and the assignment of faith to the sphere of private conscience rather than public duty. These convictions carried the day when the former revolutionaries gathered in Philadelphia to write the Constitution.
That they believed in the Bible itself, and not the external church doctrine of any denomination.
That makes them neither Deist nor non-Christian.
As I said before, Christianity was intended to be taught in schools, and God was frequently referenced in our courts and government up until the 1960s. Even the Supreme Court, Senate and Congress still open in prayer, as do our Presidential inaugurations, and chaplains are provided in all branches of the U.S. military as well.
You seem to feel "separation of church and state" means the total separation of Christianity from any branch of government or education. Clearly Jefferson did not see it that way, and none of the other founding fathers even use that phrase.
Jefferson did no major writings on the subject, and his only use of the "wall of separation between church and state" phrase is in an obscure 1802 letter Jefferson wrote in response to an inquiry by the Danbury Baptists.
Jefferson simply meant that religious leaders should not control U.S. government. Not that all mention of the Bible or Christianity, or even prayer, should be banned from our schools and government, as has been increasingly occurring over the last 40-plus years. I already addressed this point. You asserted that Separation of church-state was a 20th Century invention and now after being proven wrong you're backpedaling and minimizing Jefferson's thoughts on the subject.
As I said, my concern is not with arbitrary court writings interpreting, and often discarding, the Framers' original intent regarding the role of Christianity in American government.
My concern is with what the original framers themselves intended, as evidenced in their own actions and writings.
I fail to see that you've made a convincing case for exclusion of Christianity from government. I'm at this point utterly lost in just what it is you
are trying to prove.
The founders themselves had varying ideas about how much distance to place between their own beliefs and their public roles. Washington saw nothing wrong with issuing presidential proclamations of thanks- giving to God; Jefferson considered such proclamations unconstitutional. Justice Scalia predictably cites Washington's thanksgiving proclamations in support of Ten Commandments displays and dismisses Jefferson's position. In an amusing 1814 letter to his friend Thomas Cooper, Jefferson noted that even Connecticut—which had still not dropped religious restrictions in its state constitution—declared that "the laws of God shall be the laws of their land, except where their own contradict them."
There's nothing to disagree with here. There was some controversy among the founders. They all seem Christian, and again seem to just debate to what level Christianity should be included in government institutions, law, education, etc.
The only question is to what degree it should be included or limited.
Any of their debate is a far cry from not even being able to pray in school or bring a bible, or to even display the 10 Commandments in a state courthouse.
Again, what is your point?
What you suggest simply insures that Christians will be marginalized and isolated from having any representation or political voice in establishing the morals and government of the United States.
That is absolutely not what our founders intended:
You seem to place Christianity, which is the majority religion in this country as somehow being the minority religion and in peril of being marginalized by the atheist majority. Odd for someone who rails against the claims of victimhood from REAL minorities.
There can be no question that, despite Christians being the majority in this country (about 33% of churchgoers, but over 90% of Americans polled describe themselves as "Christian", although clearly not all of them are Bible readers) that despite this, there is a clear and stated intent by any number of radical groups to marginalize and silence Christians from having a voice in our government.
It's not paranoia when these groups state that as their intent, and with elite liberal judges on their side, leverage court rulings that are in complete opposition to the beliefs and values of a majority of Americans.
Again, I already said that the private writings of Washington, Jefferson, Morris, etc., that I've quoted several times elsewhere, make clear their belief in Christianity and its essential role in Americvan government and education, and that its absence in Greek and Roman attempts at Democracy is what doomed those states to failure. That in the absence of Christian principles, American democracy would be doomed to failure as well.
I seriously doubt it. Was this some history book sold in a christian bookstore?
Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.
Thomas Jefferson
Washington appeared to be a sincere Christian. Read his declaration of the first
Thanksgiving Jefferson appeared to believe in God but his writings show he was the type of man that needed concrete evidence. As previously mentioned the Jeffersonian bible removed all miracles and concetrated on moral logic. It is said he later recounted this action on his death bed, but that's a bit suspect.
Look, Ive got more than one degree in American history and I even teach it to this countries youth and what I've learned is this: This country was started for a hundred different reasons by thousands of different people. To some it was meant to be a Christian nation from the begining (The puritans called thier settlement "a city on the hill" , a beacon for others to see true Christian charity.) To some it was all about making money and bettering their lives (even at the cost of others), and to many it was meant to be a fresh start. Georgia was started by James Oglethorp to be a place for English debters in prison to get a second chance, while at the same time King George just wanted a buffer zone of poor people between the profitable Carolinas and Spanish Florida.
I think that's one of things that makes this country amazing is that we can all do, feel, and think what ever we want and we can lead the lives that we choose.
God I love living here!
Amen.
I completely agree.
I think I mentioned in my paper that I pasted here that both sides are essentially right and wrong. Which is pretty much what you said. It was a secular government started by mostly Christian men. when either side tries to negate the other is when we run into problems. Or when people try to rewrite history altogether to CONFORM to their particular biases.
i don't deny they had religious views and beliefs, just that they created a "christian government" as wondy insists. I have nothing but respect for the founders because they didn't try and impose those religious beliefs on the government they created.
Well I think Wonder Boy has more in common with the Mullah's than he'd like to admit.
I also think that he likes the idea not of a "Christian Government" but of a White Anglo Saxon Protestant Government. By, of and for WASP's. Therefore anyone else is an outsider that has to conform to WASP ways. HIS ways.
It's pretty much everywhere in his opinions from immigration on down.
Hmmm....
I don't know wonderboy and I haven't read all his post....but I think there is a significant difference between having strong opinions you display on a message board and oh say...blowing up kids and 6 parliament members outside of a new power plant because of your strong opinions.
only different in your mind. you must un-learn what you have learned.
-[who]Moda
only different in your mind. you must un-learn what you have learned.
-[who]Moda
That pun was worthy of Dick Grayson!
Holy backhanded compliments, Who-Man!
The Daily
Mail:
- A Muslim store worker at Marks & Spencer refused to serve a customer buying a children’s book on biblical stories because she said it was “unclean”.
Sally Friday, a customer at a branch of one of the famous stores, felt publicly humiliated when she tried to pay for First Bible Stories as a gift for her young grandson.
When the grandmother put the book on the counter, the assistant refused to touch it, declared it was unclean.
... Conservative MP Philip Davies said the refusal to serve Mrs. Friday, 69, was “unacceptable” and “damaging” to community relations.
... Mrs. Friday said “Had this been a copy of the Koran I am confident any Christian person would be happy to do her job, and for this to happen in a Marks & Spencer of all places beggars belief.”
Yet another sign of creeping Islamicization in Britain?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901769_pf.html- THIS IS A SAUDI TEXTBOOK. (After the intolerance was removed.)
By Nina Shea
Sunday, May 21, 2006; B01
Saudi Arabia's public schools have long been cited for demonizing the West as well as Christians, Jews and other "unbelievers." But after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 -- in which 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis -- that was all supposed to change.
A 2004 Saudi royal study group recognized the need for reform after finding that the kingdom's religious studies curriculum "encourages violence toward others, and misguides the pupils into believing that in order to safeguard their own religion, they must violently repress and even physically eliminate the 'other.' " Since then, the Saudi government has claimed repeatedly that it has revised its educational texts.
Prince Turki al-Faisal, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, has worked aggressively to spread this message. "The kingdom has reviewed all of its education practices and materials, and has removed any element that is inconsistent with the needs of a modern education," he said on a recent speaking tour to several U.S. cities. "Not only have we eliminated what might be perceived as intolerance from old textbooks that were in our system, we have implemented a comprehensive internal revision and modernization plan." The Saudi government even took out a full-page ad in the New Republic last December to tout its success at "having modernized our school curricula to better prepare our children for the challenges of tomorrow." A year ago, an embassy spokesman declared: "We have reviewed our educational curriculums. We have removed materials that are inciteful or intolerant towards people of other faiths." The embassy is also distributing a 74-page review on curriculum reform to show that the textbooks have been moderated.
The problem is: These claims are not true.
A review of a sample of official Saudi textbooks for Islamic studies used during the current academic year reveals that, despite the Saudi government's statements to the contrary, an ideology of hatred toward Christians and Jews and Muslims who do not follow Wahhabi doctrine remains in this area of the public school system. The texts teach a dualistic vision, dividing the world into true believers of Islam (the "monotheists") and unbelievers (the "polytheists" and "infidels").
This indoctrination begins in a first-grade text and is reinforced and expanded each year, culminating in a 12th-grade text instructing students that their religious obligation includes waging jihad against the infidel to "spread the faith."
Freedom House knows this because Ali al-Ahmed, a Saudi dissident who runs the Washington-based Institute for Gulf Affairs , gave us a dozen of the current, purportedly cleaned-up Saudi Ministry of Education religion textbooks. The copies he obtained were not provided by the government, but by teachers, administrators and families with children in Saudi schools, who slipped them out one by one.
Some of our sources are Shiites and Sunnis from non-Wahhabi traditions -- people condemned as "polytheistic" or "deviant" or "bad" in these texts -- others are simply frustrated that these books do so little to prepare young students for the modern world.
We then had the texts translated separately by two independent, fluent Arabic speakers.
Religion is the foundation of the Saudi state's political ideology; it is also a key area of Saudi education in which students are taught the interpretation of Islam known as Wahhabism (a movement founded 250 years ago by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab) that is reflected in these textbooks.
Scholars estimate that within the Saudi public school curriculum, Islamic studies make up a quarter to a third of students' weekly classroom hours in lower and middle school, plus several hours each week in high school. Educators who question or dissent from the official interpretation of Islam can face severe reprisals. In November 2005, a Saudi teacher who made positive statements about Jews and the New Testament was fired and sentenced to 750 lashes and a prison term. (He was eventually pardoned after public and international protests.)
The Saudi public school system totals 25,000 schools, educating about 5 million students. In addition, Saudi Arabia runs academies in 19 world capitals, including one outside Washington in Fairfax County, that use some of these same religious texts.
Saudi Arabia also distributes its religion texts worldwide to numerous Islamic schools and madrassas that it does not directly operate. Undeterred by Wahhabism's historically fringe status, Saudi Arabia is trying to assert itself as the world's authoritative voice on Islam -- a sort of "Vatican" for Islam, as several Saudi officials have stated-- and these textbooks are integral to this effort. As the report of the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks observed, "Even in affluent countries, Saudi-funded Wahhabi schools are often the only Islamic schools" available.
Education is at the core of the debate over freedom in the Muslim world. Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden understands this well; in a recent audiotape he railed against those who would "interfere with school curricula."
The passages below -- drawn from the same set of Saudi texts proudly cited in the new 74-page review of curriculum reform now being distributed by the Saudi Embassy -- are shaping the views of the next generation of Saudis and Muslims worldwide. Unchanged, they will only harden and deepen hatred, intolerance and violence toward other faiths and cultures. Is this what Riyadh calls reform?
religion@freedomhouse.org
FIRST GRADE
" Every religion other than Islam is false."
"Fill in the blanks with the appropriate words (Islam, hellfire): Every religion other than ______________ is false. Whoever dies outside of Islam enters ____________."
FOURTH GRADE
"True belief means . . . that you hate the polytheists and infidels but do not treat them unjustly."
FIFTH GRADE
"Whoever obeys the Prophet and accepts the oneness of God cannot maintain a loyal friendship with those who oppose God and His Prophet, even if they are his closest relatives."
"It is forbidden for a Muslim to be a loyal friend to someone who does not believe in God and His Prophet, or someone who fights the religion of Islam."
"A Muslim, even if he lives far away, is your brother in religion. Someone who opposes God, even if he is your brother by family tie, is your enemy in religion."
SIXTH GRADE
"Just as Muslims were successful in the past when they came together in a sincere endeavor to evict the Christian crusaders from Palestine, so will the Arabs and Muslims emerge victorious, God willing, against the Jews and their allies if they stand together and fight a true jihad for God, for this is within God's power."
EIGHTH GRADE
"As cited in Ibn Abbas: The apes are Jews, the people of the Sabbath; while the swine are the Christians, the infidels of the communion of Jesus."
"God told His Prophet, Muhammad, about the Jews, who learned from parts of God's book [the Torah and the Gospels] that God alone is worthy of worship. Despite this, they espouse falsehood through idol-worship, soothsaying, and sorcery. In doing so, they obey the devil. They prefer the people of falsehood to the people of the truth out of envy and hostility. This earns them condemnation and is a warning to us not to do as they did."
"They are the Jews, whom God has cursed and with whom He is so angry that He will never again be satisfied [with them]."
"Some of the people of the Sabbath were punished by being turned into apes and swine. Some of them were made to worship the devil, and not God, through consecration, sacrifice, prayer, appeals for help, and other types of worship. Some of the Jews worship the devil. Likewise, some members of this nation worship the devil, and not God."
"Activity: The student writes a composition on the danger of imitating the infidels."
NINTH GRADE
"The clash between this [Muslim] community (umma) and the Jews and Christians has endured, and it will continue as long as God wills."
"It is part of God's wisdom that the struggle between the Muslim and the Jews should continue until the hour [of judgment]."
"Muslims will triumph because they are right. He who is right is always victorious, even if most people are against him."
TENTH GRADE
The 10th-grade text on jurisprudence teaches that life for non-Muslims (as well as women, and, by implication, slaves) is worth a fraction of that of a "free Muslim male." Blood money is retribution paid to the victim or the victim's heirs for murder or injury:
"Blood money for a free infidel. [Its quantity] is half of the blood money for a male Muslim, whether or not he is 'of the book' or not 'of the book' (such as a pagan, Zoroastrian, etc.).
"Blood money for a woman: Half of the blood money for a man, in accordance with his religion. The blood money for a Muslim woman is half of the blood money for a male Muslim, and the blood money for an infidel woman is half of the blood money for a male infidel."
ELEVENTH GRADE
"The greeting 'Peace be upon you' is specifically for believers. It cannot be said to others."
"If one comes to a place where there is a mixture of Muslims and infidels, one should offer a greeting intended for the Muslims."
"Do not yield to them [Christians and Jews] on a narrow road out of honor and respect."
TWELFTH GRADE
"Jihad in the path of God -- which consists of battling against unbelief, oppression, injustice, and those who perpetrate it -- is the summit of Islam. This religion arose through jihad and through jihad was its banner raised high. It is one of the noblest acts, which brings one closer to God, and one of the most magnificent acts of obedience to God."
___________________________________
Nina Shea is director of the Center for Religious Freedom at Freedom House.
I'm actually participating in a discussion with several muslims on Facebook right now. Very interesting, we see both the educated and moderate muslim and the ignorant extremist.
you should take a gander at it at some point.
Though I gotta say, a lot of my fellow danes have received several death threats (I haven't though, pansy-ass muslims haven't sent me any, I feel kinda left out) So if that's something you'd rather live without, you probably should just stay away. But if you don't care, come join the discussion, it's rather interesting
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=8832907735
