Poll: 1 in 4 Hold Anti-Muslim Views

[ethics]

About one in four Americans holds anti-Muslim views, such as a belief that the religion teaches violence and hatred, according to a survey an Islamic advocacy group released Monday.

Now, please PLEASE take this with grain of salt because the poll was conducted by CAIR. They have a shady past of conducting polls in order to present an idea that Muslims are being discriminated against.

I am not discounting that there are instances, but 25% of Americans?

I love this blurb in their study about who they view those with the most negative attitudes tend to be:

Male
White
Less educated (HS or less)
Politically conservative
Republican Party members
Living in the Southern region

If that doesn't scream VOTE KERRY, I don't know what does.

Here's another question I find dubious:

When asked what comes to mind when they hear “Muslim,” 32% made negative comments; only 2% had a positive response: But then you break up that 32% and you get:

War, hatred, violence 10%
Terrorists, enemies,
Osama bin Laden 7%
Negative/hostile descriptors 2%
Oppressed women 1%
Other negative comments 12%

Hell, if someone tells me, "what's the first thing that comes to your mind when I say Muslim" why would I not say "war" and "terrorism"? It's the topic of the day since 2001. Does that mean I view ALL Muslims in a negative light? That leap of logic is a bit offensive.

See the rest of their great and biased poll via this powerpoint presentation. (http://www.cair-net.org/downloads/pollresults.ppt)

[Steve]

Actually, I'm surprised it's that low a figure.

[RRedline]

LOL...Leon, you live in NYC. Come visit central PA, and you'll wonder why that figure is so LOW!

Trust me, there is an overwhelming amount of disdain and ignorance toward Muslims in rural Pennsylvania. If I were Muslim, I would definitely not be living where I do now.

I feel that I am in a minority group that is not liked or wanted (here mind you), but at least I can go out for dinner or walk down the street or whatever, and nobody knows I am gay. I don't know that I would fear for my safetly, but I would definitely feel unwelcome around here if I 'looked' Muslim.

[jfcjrus]

I question this poll.
(I think it's much more than 1 in 4.)

Even in casual conversation, I've not conversed with anyone that indicates they would trust a Muslim further than they can throw them.

WHY?
I can only speculate that many citizens hold Muslims solely responsible for what happened on 9/11/01.
PERIOD!
Sure, WE, that have debated the issue, realize that not ALL muslims are responsible; but, I don't think most folks in the USA have taken the time to come to that conclusion.
But, to many folks, Muslims (of the Middle East) simply brought their 'Middle East War' to our soil, so all bets are now off.
Before, many thought the plight of those in the Middle East was sad, and yes, we should try to help out .....
But THEN, THEY (the Muslims) attacked us, on our own soil!
Then is was .... Sonofabitch .... they want a war, we'll give them a war.

So, simplistically, it boiles down to....
Them, they .... Middle East Muslims.
Us, we ... a previously somewhat tolerant hodgepodge of religious beliefs.
Now at war.

Unreasonable, perhaps; but that is what I see from those I know.

A sad state of affairs.

Regards,

[Sierra Mike]

3 out of 4 Muslims Hold Anti-American Views (and that was before 9/11!)

The shoe fits on both feet.

SM

[archidante]

Actually, I'm surprised it's that low a figure.
Perhaps they know it is higher, and by focusing on the mythical 25% the unspoken message is that 75% are nuetral or positive in their outlook. I would say 80% of the Americans I've spoken with have a completely negative view, which is only natural because Islamofascism opposes every core value of Western civilization, period.
Religion remains completely in the realm of personal opinion, and always will until some figure with supernatural powers actually apears and demonstrates that the scientific world as we observe it is superceded. Centuries roll on, and other religions have evolved to tolerate and coexist. Islam, apparently, has not.

[joseftu]

"Negative comments" is pretty vague, and the methodology of that survey seems pretty flawed...

I wonder how it could be phrased more meaningfully. Attitudes are notoriously difficult to survey or quantify.

My own perception is that (as has been said above) the general feeling, nationwide, is that (phrased simplistically) Islam is bad and Muslims are the enemy.

And I think that's a very dangerous and uninformed attitude. It makes all of us less safe, and endangers our core values far more than any external threat.

[Misu]

Leon, take a road trip to some of the Southern states. I'm surprised that it's only 25%. Around here, it's more like 50-75%. I'm not exaggerating, either.

[ethics]

Leon, take a road trip to some of the Southern states. I'm surprised that it's only 25%. Around here, it's more like 50-75%. I'm not exaggerating, either.


Well, why should I come down to the ignorant neck of the woods? Why don't you come up here to North East to see that it's no where near 25%?

[ShinyTop]

Well, why should I come down to the ignorant neck of the woods? Why don't you come up here to North East to see that it's no where near 25%?

Ethics, your labeling as the "ignorant neck of the words" is short sighted and offensive although I do not believe you meant it that way. The key point in parts of the country having different beliefs in this matter is their exposure to Muslims who are not on the news threatening the lives of our citizens. I know that the more you are exposed to the Muslims who live and work in this country the more somebody would understand. I do not think it qualifies as ignorant as much as underexposed to the peaceful variety.

[ethics]

People keep telling me to come down to their neck of the woods to see more ignorance. Well, shouldn't your disparaging remark be towards them, not me?

[ShinyTop]

1. I never used the term "redneck" you did.

2. People keep telling me to come down to their neck of the woods to see more ignorance. Well, shouldn't your disparaging remark be towards them, not me?

I did not say Redneck and did not say you did, Ethics. I quoted you exactly and I did not see that term, ignorant, used anywhere referring to the south until you said it.

In the meantime, was my post about exposure to peaceful Muslims entirely wrong? Do you believe it is just ignorance?

[ethics]

I did not say Redneck and did not say you did, Ethics. I quoted you exactly and I did not see that term, ignorant, used anywhere referring to the south until you said it.

In the meantime, was my post about exposure to peaceful Muslims entirely wrong? Do you believe it is just ignorance?


If a person is hateful towards a Muslim, he or she, are ignorant. Do we dispute that? If someone tells me that "come down to the Southern states" what are we to deduce?

I don't appreciate being labeled "offensive" by politiical correctness police, especially when I don't deserve it.

[ravital]

Hell, if someone tells me, "what's the first thing that comes to your mind when I say Muslim" why would I not say "war" and "terrorism"? It's the topic of the day since 2001. Does that mean I view ALL Muslims in a negative light? That leap of logic is a bit offensive.

See the rest of their great and biased poll via this powerpoint presentation. (http://www.cair-net.org/downloads/pollresults.ppt)
What do you expect of polls?

A learned pollster will try to cross a river, armed with data showing that on average it's only knee-deep, and drown. The illiterate lumberjack living nearby, knows where and when to cross it and come out dry above the ankles.

[LissaKay]

C'mon down to Tennessee .... I gotcher ign'runce. It runs rampant 'round these here parts. Ya'll'ud feel downright smart here .. where in certain areas, the average IQ is just above room temperature.

I'm here ... I live with it. I grit my teeth because of it. But, by God, I feel like a freakin' genius!

[ShinyTop]

If a person is hateful towards a Muslim, he or she, are ignorant. Do we dispute that? If someone tells me that "come down to the Southern states" what are we to deduce?

I don't appreciate being labeled "offensive" by politiical correctness police, especially when I don't deserve it.

Yes sir, there is nothing offensive about calling an entire region ignorant. It was entirely my mistake.

And no, I guess you do not have to answer any questions trying to defuse your inoffensive remark.

[MorWired]

My own perception is that (as has been said above) the general feeling, nationwide, is that (phrased simplistically) Islam is bad and Muslims are the enemy.

And I think that's a very dangerous and uninformed attitude. It makes all of us less safe, and endangers our core values far more than any external threat.Agreed. If we waste our collective time and energy hating "all" Muslims then we're not focused on the actual problem. Not only are we not being discerning in determining those who would harm us, but we run the risk of alienating and disenfranchising people who before would never have thought to be against "us," who, in fact, WERE "us" up until 3 years ago, when we started to look strangely at them and started to push them around and away.

Blind hatred gets its own in return, it's a self-fulfilling prophesy.

[ethics]

Yes sir, there is nothing offensive about calling an entire region ignorant. It was entirely my mistake.

You don't read my posts very well, Shiny. Until you start doing that, that's when I will answer your questions.

[AmeritecTech]

If a person is hateful towards a Muslim, he or she, are ignorant. Do we dispute that?
Almost correct. If a person is hateful towards a Muslim BECAUSE the person is a Muslim, the person is ignorant. Merely hating a Muslim certainly isn't ignorant if you had a legitimate reason to hate that Muslim.

[ethics]

Almost correct. If a person is hateful towards a Muslim BECAUSE the person is a Muslim, the person is ignorant.


That's the theme of this topic.

[Coot]

Odd, they didn't even mention the numbers for apostates born into the muslim religion who hold negative views of practicing muslims. I know several, and I seem to meet a few more every week :)

[archidante]

Almost correct. If a person is hateful towards a Muslim BECAUSE the person is a Muslim, the person is ignorant. Merely hating a Muslim certainly isn't ignorant if you had a legitimate reason to hate that Muslim. Islam clearly defines humanity into two camps; muslims, who de deserve to live, all others who are:
a.)Property (ie slaves)
or b.) to be killed at will.

That's pretty much it. Camel salesman Mohamed heard it all direct from heaven.

Hate? Yeah, I really hate people who want to kill me and my countrymen. Wether they temper that desire to kill because the of the civil authorities who will jail them ( or in the case of Bush, kick a little tail) or not, that's what "Muslim" means.

The utter dehuminization of non Muslims is pretty clear in the Koran. So, staying true to the thread (not wandering off in namby pamby wuv everyone no matter what) yeah, most Americans are reasonable and justified in having a negative view of Muslims.

[joseftu]

See, maybe it's one in four nationally, but it's also one in (how many?) even here at GA :(!
Islam clearly defines humanity into two camps; muslims, who de deserve to live, all others who are:
a.)Property (ie slaves)
or b.) to be killed at will.

That's pretty much it. Camel salesman Mohamed heard it all direct from heaven.

Hate? Yeah, I really hate people who want to kill me and my countrymen. Wether they temper that desire to kill because the of the civil authorities who will jail them ( or in the case of Bush, kick a little tail) or not, that's what "Muslim" means.

The utter dehuminization of non Muslims is pretty clear in the Koran. So, staying true to the thread (not wandering off in namby pamby wuv everyone no matter what) yeah, most Americans are reasonable and justified in having a negative view of Muslims.
<b>I think that's a very dangerous and uninformed attitude. It makes all of us less safe, and endangers our core values far more than any external threat.</b>

[MorWired]

Islam clearly defines humanity into two camps; muslims, who de deserve to live, all others who are:
a.)Property (ie slaves)
or b.) to be killed at will.

That's pretty much it. Camel salesman Mohamed heard it all direct from heaven.

Hate? Yeah, I really hate people who want to kill me and my countrymen. Wether they temper that desire to kill because the of the civil authorities who will jail them ( or in the case of Bush, kick a little tail) or not, that's what "Muslim" means.

The utter dehuminization of non Muslims is pretty clear in the Koran. So, staying true to the thread (not wandering off in namby pamby wuv everyone no matter what) yeah, most Americans are reasonable and justified in having a negative view of Muslims.
So you've personally read the Qur'an? You've read it, understand it, and studied it so that you can offer such definitive declarations of its contents?

[archidante]

So you've personally read the Qur'an? You've read it, understand it, and studied it so that you can offer such definitive declarations of its contents?
Yes I've read it. It's bad literature, terrible religion, and destructive to the future of this planet.

[archidante]

See, maybe it's one in four nationally, but it's also one in (how many?) even here at GA :(!


WHY? TELL ME WHY? You think. Tell it to the Russian school kids.

[joseftu]

We don't really have to rehash this, do we?

You want to lump all Muslims together as being the same as terrorists. The vast, overwhelming majority of Muslims are not. The vast, overwhelming majority of Muslims are ordinary, law-abiding, mind-you-own-business, normal people. Just like you and me.

So you're blaming and condemning the innocent, law-abiding majority, slandering their religion and threatening their safety.

That's wrong. It's a denial the principles and beliefs that make America what it is--and it is an exact echo of the principles and beliefs of the terrorists.

[archidante]

See, maybe it's one in four nationally, but it's also one in (how many?) even here at GA :(!


If your core values mean empathizing with psychopathic 7th century death cults and their twisted adherents, trying to love people who want to kill you, and embellishing the incoherent scribblings of a sociopathic murderous Arab as a world relgion simply because it could covert people under fear of death, well you go girl.
I'd rather introduce them to an M-1 tank and the 82nd airborne. And yes, I've studied Islam. It's caligraphy, it's Architecture, it's valid poets (before they get crushed and marginalized by the pycho mullahs) it's gardens from the Bazaars at Isfahan to the the Lions fountains at Alhambra. I have seven years of college, am a published Artist, Author, and Architectural Designer, have held three professional licenses and own a business that deals with more money than you'll probobly earn in three lifetimes. I was also an anti-tank gunner in the United States Army.
Islam has failed to qualify as a religion as it advocates the murder of innocents on the grounds that they are non Islamic. You didn't make a reasonable reply to ANY of my points. You immediatly questioned (attacked) my credibility without addressing my points.
The absolutely purest indication of an unreasonable person.
Who are you?

[archidante]

We don't really have to rehash this, do we?

You want to lump all Muslims together as being the same as terrorists. The vast, overwhelming majority of Muslims are not. The vast, overwhelming majority of Muslims are ordinary, law-abiding, mind-you-own-business, normal people. Just like you and me.

So you're blaming and condemning the innocent, law-abiding majority, slandering their religion and threatening their safety.

That's wrong. It's a denial the principles and beliefs that make America what it is--and it is an exact echo of the principles and beliefs of the terrorists. Uhh, no. If you had to de a real breakdown on Muslims it would probobly go something like this: 50% Marginalized subjugated borderline slaves (ie women) 25% hopless young boys in an autocratic, theocratic, aristocratic, society that will soon semi-marginalize them to either unemployemnt, suicide bombers, civil servants or struggling merchants. 20% Semi-sucessful businessmen who have to hide their true feeling of utter hate and contempt for the west because they need to deal with us to survive since we are the only ones that have produced technology and wealth in the last thousand years, and 5% super rich oil overlords and powerfull religious mullahs whose long term agenda is to use namby pamby bleading heart liberals and the civil rights legislation of a superior society to infiltrate it and bring it down so they can continue their murderous rampage our soilder ancestors stopped in Vienna in 1683. God bless Queen Isabella for 1492.

[cdw]

About one in four Americans holds anti-Muslim views, such as a belief that the religion teaches violence and hatred, according to a survey an Islamic advocacy group released Monday.

Now, please PLEASE take this with grain of salt because the poll was conducted by CAIR. They have a shady past of conducting polls in order to present an idea that Muslims are being discriminated against.

I am not discounting that there are instances, but 25% of Americans?

I love this blurb in their study about who they view those with the most negative attitudes tend to be:

Male
White
Less educated (HS or less)
Politically conservative
Republican Party members
Living in the Southern region

If that doesn't scream VOTE KERRY, I don't know what does.

Here's another question I find dubious:

When asked what comes to mind when they hear “Muslim,” 32% made negative comments; only 2% had a positive response: But then you break up that 32% and you get:

War, hatred, violence 10%
Terrorists, enemies,
Osama bin Laden 7%
Negative/hostile descriptors 2%
Oppressed women 1%
Other negative comments 12%

Hell, if someone tells me, "what's the first thing that comes to your mind when I say Muslim" why would I not say "war" and "terrorism"? It's the topic of the day since 2001. Does that mean I view ALL Muslims in a negative light? That leap of logic is a bit offensive.

See the rest of their great and biased poll via this powerpoint presentation. (http://www.cair-net.org/downloads/pollresults.ppt)


Yes the poll is biased and CAIR is biased, we all know that. I read it in their emails daily. It's no different than other groups that are advocating for 'their own kind', so I would expect nothing different.
They were initially pushing their readers towards Kerry but have recently pointing out Kerry views and proposed policies that aren't exactly pro-muslim. They aren't anti-muslim either, but they perceive it that way.
I also agree with your point that negative thoughts would be the initial ones to spring to mind because of 9/11 and the war and all the talk in the elections and such.
I have no clue as to the demographics...if southerners are more anti-muslim than northerners or westerners or midwesterners are more so than anyone else. I would expect for men to be more so than women because of the 'protective' factors though.
I got the poll via email and didn't read it. Still haven't read it. Perhaps I should?

[Steve]

Personal sniping moved elsewhere. You know who you are ;)

[archidante]

If a person is hateful towards a Muslim, he or she, are ignorant. Do we dispute that? If someone tells me that "come down to the Southern states" what are we to deduce?

I don't appreciate being labeled "offensive" by politiical correctness police, especially when I don't deserve it.
Well, as I read it it was more about "negative attitudes" toward a religion pretty much engaged in a war against us. See "JihadWatch" if my second rate publishing and Art won't convince you, or my intolerant stance against people killing my countrymen and schoolchildren continues strike you as "hateful". The Koran clearly states over and over and over to "kill the infidels" and possess their women. What amazes me is people who will go to great lengths to promote the unthinking acceptance of any culture simple because it is there. You can't fight Islamic extremism with tolerance, and it's pretty clear Islam has become the greatest cover for a murderous psychopathic group of people.
Meanwhile, American soilders stand in the line of fire so gentle folk back home can preach tolerance for thos who use our religious freedoms as a place to plot our deaths.
I've got to get back to work. But someone PLEASE provide me with one reason I should respect Islam as a religion.
Just one.

[el scorcho]

Extremeists do not define a religion. Next?

[Steve]

Would you say the same applies to the Catholic Church during the time of the Crusades and the Inquisition?

[archidante]

Extremeists do not define a religion. Next? You're right. But it's texts clearly do. And they advocate the murder of innocents. Next?

[Kangaroo]

I find much of the Islamic religion to be silly and backward. A fart in the hurricane of human social evolution. I don't hate Muslims. I also don't respect their religion or their culture. I do accept their right to practice their religion and culture within the context of the over-arching laws of the United States.

[archidante]

Would you say the same applies to the Catholic Church during the time of the Crusades and the Inquisition?
You bet. Buddism and perhaps Shintoism are like the only religions I can think of that haven't had a bloodfest. I think it's all smoke and mirrors, and if Islam had contained its extremists and the Christians where running around the globe looking for WMD to drop into schoolroom and commuter trains I'd be railing them a new poop-chute too.
I guess I've given myself a bad rep because I go off the chain a lot.
Well, that's pretty much because I'm convinced a lot of us are liable to die horrible deaths any moment with Islamic terrorists trying smuggle loose nukes into our civilian populations. I value tolerance and human life as much as anyone, and do believe in the freedom of religion (hey if you think Kachoobu is going to come down from the dog star and give cheeze snacks too everyone, have fun-just don't pass any laws says I have to go, and don't blow up buildings).
But I feel like I'm watching the nerd at school getting his face kicked in and he keeps saying, "I want to uderstand you" to the bully. What's to understand? Sometimes you need to stand up for yourself. Sitting around worrying about "negative opinions" on one hand while they blow up cafes on the other is like, well, WTF? A friend of mine is retired IDF. We were in a club the other night full of Arabs and he's telling what they think American girls are good for. Negative opinions? Who's polling them?

[LissaKay]

Would you say the same applies to the Catholic Church during the time of the Crusades and the Inquisition?
Where in the Christian Bible is the killing of non-Christians mandated, advocated or even tolerated? Where does Christ tell his followers to either enslave or kill the non-believers?

[Steve]

Shh! I'm going somewhere with this, don't derail it ;)

[LissaKay]

I've been there. It ain't pretty. In fact, its downright scary how in denial many people are of teachings of the Koran and Muhammed. PC over self-preservation! Imagine!

[Misu]

Which version of the bible are we talking about here? There are like 45 different versions.

Also, is the Koran like the Christian Bible, where there are 57 different versions and who knows how many translations?

[RRedline]

Where in the Christian Bible is the killing of non-Christians mandated, advocated or even tolerated? Where does Christ tell his followers to either enslave or kill the non-believers?It's in Deuteronomy somewhere, but that was pre-Jesus. Jesus never said to kill anyone that I am aware of. He also never said anything about abortion, homosexuality or masturbation, but most Christian churches don't seem to care, and they continue to cherry-pick out of the Old Testament. I am not familiar with the Koran, but I certainly hope that the referencs to killing infidels are being taken out of context.

[Misu]

Where in the Christian Bible is the killing of non-Christians mandated, advocated or even tolerated? Where does Christ tell his followers to either enslave or kill the non-believers?

I'm not sure about Christ telling followers to kill non-believers, but weren't the crusades all about converting by force or killing them? And what about the European invasion of the Americas, when they forced natives to convert to Christianity or they killed them? Same with the slaves from tribal Africa - they were forced to convert, forced to abandon their tribal names and take on Christian names.

I really think we should stop picking on religions, because every single religion has it's negatives, and no one religion is above the rest. It makes for circular debating and no one comes out any smarter than when they came into the conversations.

Please people, I beg you. I'm on my hands and knees here ! (and I really want to use this smiley) :
:dead:

[LissaKay]

It doesn't matter which "version" ... although I suppose some really sick mind could twist "Love thy neighbor" to mean something else, or "Turn the other cheek" .... perhaps the Good Samaritan didn't really help the man on the road, but killed him instead ...

However, the Koran could hardly be interpreted differently ...


Surah II:191 "And kill them wherever you find them, and drive
them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer
than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until
they fight with you in it, but if they do fight with you, then slay
them, such is the recompense of unbelievers."

[Steve]

That was then...this is now. I wasn't alive then....I am now.

And I'll leave it at that.....

[joseftu]

Lissa, you can make the argument that the New Testament does not call specifically for the death of enemies, but you can certainly not argue that it hasn't been interpreted and used that way, repeatedly. And you can certainly not make the argument that the Old Testament (what we call the Torah) does not call specifically for the death of enemies.

So in your "Christianity is OK, but Islam is not" you're simultaneously condemning Judaism (at least in a literal reading).

And I should add that you picked a bad example, as it clearly, directly and explicitly discusses the slaying of those who attack Islam and Moslems, not those who simply do not believe.

[LissaKay]

The point I am trying to make, Misu, is this ...

When Islamists kill in the name of Islam ... their actions are justified by the words of the Koran and Muhammed. They are taking the Koran literally when they kill.

Christians have killed in the name of Christianity ... but their actions are NOT justified by anything, anywhere in the Christian Bible or in the Word of Christ. Saying they are killing in the name of Christ or Christianity is a perversion of the Bible.


See the difference?

[LissaKay]

Gosh Joe ... when was the last time a group of radical Jews slammed airliners into buildings? Beheaded innocent people? Shot and killed dozens of fleeing children in a school?

I must have missed that ... cause if they had done those things, I'd be slamming them just as hard as I am Muslims who refuse to reject the teachings of the Koran. (Note I did not say deny, make excuses for, or apologize ... I said reject)

Christians who pervert the teachings of Christ and the Bible to excuse or justify violence, I condemn equally, plus I call them liars, because the Bible does NOT justify any sort of violence in the name of Christ.

It. Is. Only. Islam. .... only Islam whose religious text directs its followers to kill and has followers that obey that directive.

[joseftu]

Lissa, you could talk to some Jews, today, who would use the Torah to justify killing all Arabs. Some of them are my own relatives. But it's not Judaism (just like it's not Islam, or Christianity) that's the problem. It's hate and bigotry, and it's using the religion to justify acting on that hate and bigotry. That's been a huge problem, throughout history, and no religion is to blame.

[ethics]

Talking is one thing, doing is another, objection overruled. :P

[joseftu]

Oh, you can find some extremists (Jewish) who have done a lot more than talk! Baruch Goldstein, your honor?

EDIT--I should add that I certainly recognize that the numbers don't balance, and that Goldstein and his ilk are soundly (and loudly) condemned by the vast majority of Jews, as well as the Israeli government.

But that's a separate issue. The point is that we can't blame Judaism or all Jews for Goldstein's actions--just as we can't blame Islam or all Muslims.

I know that Lissa doesn't blame all Muslims. But I don't think that condemning Islam is fair or accurate--and I don't think it makes us any safer.

[LissaKay]

... we can't blame Islam or all Muslims.

I know that Lissa doesn't blame all Muslims. But I don't think that condemning Islam is fair or accurate--and I don't think it makes us any safer.
Oh yes we can ... the word of the Koran says kill the infidel, take over the world, subjugate everyone to the will of Allah and Sharia law. There are extremists that are taking that word literally. In the meantime, what do we have from the rest of the Muslim populace? At best, we have denial, excuses, and mumbled words of condemnation.

Muslims, as a religion, need to stand up and say, "Yes, the Koran says this, but we reject it and choose to live in peace with all people, no matter their religion or culture." And then they not only need to say that, they need to live it.The mullahs need to be screaming that from the minarets and in the mosques. Only when that happens will the rest of the world be able to take Muslims seriously ... and the Muslims will be able to live in a secure peace.

[Advocat]

Again, there's no arguing there are passages which seem to exhort the Muslim to violence. On the other hand, to paraphrase the old quote about real estate, there's the issue of "context, context, context". ;)

Taking a line from the Koran, without the surround text for context, and considering how the Hadith suggests it be interpeted, can lead to fairly large mistaken meanings. Like much of the Old Testament, sections of the Koran were written to reflect what was going on at the time, thus statements and rules that sound vicious often are in a historical context (except when misquoted by people with various agendas).

An interesting short article on parts of the Koran which seem to get ignored is here (http://www.daar-ul-ehsaan.org/peaceful~islam.htm)

<blockquote>When the Prophet Muhammad brought the inspired scripture known as the Koran to the Arabs in the early 7th century A.D., a major part of his mission was devoted precisely to bringing an end to the kind of mass slaughter we witnessed in New York City and Washington. Pre-Islamic Arabia was caught up in a vicious cycle of warfare, in which tribe-fought tribe in a pattern of vendetta and counter vendetta. Muhammad himself survived several assassination attempts, and the early Muslim community narrowly escaped extermination by the powerful city of Mecca. The Prophet had to fight a deadly war in order to survive, but as soon as he felt his people were probably safe, he devoted his attention to building up a peaceful coalition of tribes and achieved victory by an ingenious and inspiring campaign of nonviolence. When he died in 632, he had almost single-handedly brought peace to war-torn Arabia.

Because the Koran was revealed in the context of an all-out war, several passages deal with the conduct of armed struggle. Warfare was a desperate business on the Arabian Peninsula. A chieftain was not expected to spare survivors after a battle, and some of the Koranic injunctions seem to share this spirit. Muslims are ordered by God to 'slay (enemies] wherever you find them!" (4: 89). Extremists such as Osama bin Laden like to quote such verses but do so selectively. They do not include the exhortations to peace, which in almost every case follow these more ferocious passages: "Thus, if they let you be, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, God does not allow you to harm them' (4: 90).

In the Koran, therefore, the only permissible war is one of self-defense. Muslims may not begin hostilities (2:190). Warfare is always evil, but sometimes you have to fight in order to avoid the kind of persecution that Mecca inflicted on the Muslims (2:191; 2: 217) or to preserve decent values (4: 75; 22: 40). The Koran quotes the Torah, the Jewish scriptures, which permits people to retaliate eye for eye, tooth for tooth, but like the Gospels, the Koran suggests that it is meritorious to forgo revenge in a spirit of charity (5: 45). Hostilities must be brought to an end as quickly as possible and must cease the minute the enemy sues for peace (2: 192-3).</blockquote>

[AmeritecTech]

Where in the Christian Bible is the killing of non-Christians mandated, advocated or even tolerated? Where does Christ tell his followers to either enslave or kill the non-believers?
The Good Book directs parents to take disrespectful children to the town elders who will order them to be stoned. Elsewhere the Bible directs parents to dash the heads of naughty children against the rocks.

[Steve]

And that answers the question LissaKay asked...how?

[AmeritecTech]

Gosh Joe ... when was the last time a group of radical Jews slammed airliners into buildings? Beheaded innocent people? Shot and killed dozens of fleeing children in a school?

I must have missed that ... cause if they had done those things, I'd be slamming them just as hard as I am Muslims who refuse to reject the teachings of the Koran. (Note I did not say deny, make excuses for, or apologize ... I said reject)
Well, I'm sure Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson don't approve of extremist Christian abortion clinic bombers, but they need to be screaming condemnation from the pulpits, and I'm just not seeing that.

[AmeritecTech]

And that answers the question LissaKay asked...how?
The Christian Holy Book is the Bible, not just the New Testament. The Ten Commandments are a large part of Christianity and were around long before Christ himself. Any religion can be perverted, as the Inquisition, the policy of selling indulgences, and the Crusades have shown us.

[LissaKay]

Chapter? Verse?

OLD Testament, right?

I asked for Christian Bible references ...

Or, lacking that ... give me some examples of where Christian parents are doing that.

You are grasping at moral relativism here ... it isn't working. Christ never advocated violence against anyone for any reason ... remember him? The "turn the cheek" dude?

[LissaKay]

In the Crusades, the Bible was perverted.

The Islamic terrorists are taking the Koran literally

You don't see the difference???

FYI ... Christ set aside all previous covenants (aka The Old Testament) and forged a new covenant between God and His people. The Christian Bible is the New Testament. The Old Testment is our history.

[Steve]

The Christian Holy Book is the Bible, not just the New Testament. The Ten Commandments are a large part of Christianity and were around long before Christ himself. Any religion can be perverted, as the Inquisition, the policy of selling indulgences, and the Crusades have shown us.Still doesn't answer the question she asked.

[joseftu]

No, it doesn't. And she hasn't answered my question about her condemnation of our Bible.

Lissa, your contention that the New Testament completely supercedes the Old is highly debatable in Christian theology, but in any case, even if we accept that the commandments in the Torah are meaningless and irrelevant to Christians, we Jews have certainly not discarded our Torah. If you're going to go condemning people's holy books, you'd better be aware that you're casting stones at just about all non-Christians. If we extend your argument that taking ancient texts literally (and out of context, as Advocat rightly points out) is a valid cause for condemning the religion itself, we Jews are absolutely not off your hook.

Yes, I saw your point about Jews not acting on what the Torah commands (if taken literally), but that's quite simply not true. There are Jews who do act on these brutal commandments (both historically, and currently). They're wrong, and they're rightfully condemned. But nobody should condemn Judaism because of them. Surely you see the parallel?

[AmeritecTech]

Chapter? Verse?

OLD Testament, right?

I asked for Christian Bible references ...
My Christian church gave me a Bible with 2 Testaments. Of course the verses are out of context. This is my point.

[ravital]

The Koran quotes the Torah, the Jewish scriptures, which permits people to retaliate eye for eye, tooth for tooth, but like the Gospels, the Koran suggests that it is meritorious to forgo revenge in a spirit of charity
Thank you. Excellent post, and you have my vote.

And now, I will take issue with the above, for two reasons:

1. I am sick to my stomach of this 3,000 year old distortion and lie (I don't blame you for a thing, we all know what we are taught).
2. Though I couldn't blame the mods for calling it OT and moving it elsewhere, if I may be accorded the courtesy of a hearing - as in hearing me out, and reading through the following - I will gladly demonstrate that it goes to the core of what we're talking about.

First, the full quote:

Exodus 21:23-25:
And if [any] mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

That is the first time the quote appears in the Old Testament.

Second, as Advocat correctly and so insistently repeated, "context, context, context." What is the historical context of this quote?

This, and the rest of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament, Genesis through Deuteronomy, which comprise the "Torah"), was penned by Moses himself, presumably by Divine inspiration. He had his work cut out for him: Take a collection of people who had been slaves for centuries, and bring them up to a level where they would be capable of taking their "Promised Land" by force, eradicate idol-worship from it, and build a country, a culture, a nation, a civlilization.

[Aside: Why does anyone think they spent 40 years in a desert, that a healthy person can cross on foot in a week or less? The official Biblical explanation is "punishment for the Golden Calf." Bull. It was intentional: People who have been slaves for 400 years do not establish a civilization and take a country occupied by others. Everyone born a slave had to die of old age, and only the new generation, born free, would enter the Promised Land. No, Mr. DeMille, Joshua was never a slave stone-cutter, he was born in the Sinai desert and lived his entire life as a free man.]

The quote "eye for eye" etc. is not an open-ended license for vendettas, and not judicial grounds for applying rigorously proportional punishment for crime. It is the first statement in human history of the principle of equality under the law.

In the First Millennium B.C. when this was written and when these people lived, crime and punishment were strictly a matter of power, wealth and social status. If you were powerful, you could "take someone's eye out" or even someone's life, and it would cost you nothing. If you were a nobody, and by sheer accident you broke a rich man's tooth when he carelessly walked too close to the scaffolding you were perched on when you dropped your trowel or hammer on him, you could have lost your eye, your arm or your life. Moses was making it clear that in this nation, everyone is equal under the law.

Similar passages in the Torah go into excruciating detail about punishment and compensation, always upholding the principle of equality under the law. My ox kills your goat? I owe you a goat, nothing more, nothing less, and we're allowed to agree that I'll pay you in chickens instead, but I do owe you exactly that, regardless of which one of us is richer or more powerful. My ox kills your husband? My ox must then be destroyed, and there's still the question of whether I was careless and let my ox run loose, or whether I tethered him and he broke loose, which affects what form and amount of compensation I owe you.

Does any of this sound like "Carte Blanche" for revenge?

There you have it, a clear example of what happens when scriptures are taken out of context. This has got to be the most misrepresented, misinterpreted, maligned Scripture of all times, FooBarred for 3,000 years.

Since this is so much fun, how about another one?
Isaiah 49:23
And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with [their] face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet;

Sure sounds like the superiority complex that Dr. Baruch Goldstein - M.D. mind you - that Joe mentioned above, was suffering from when he gunned down barefoot Moslems kneeling in prayer, doesn't it?

When I presented this in another thread, I was admonished against it, with the argument that History does not bear out the notion of oppressive Jewery committing atrocities around the world.

And that's exactly the point (Albert Einstein liked to reason through problems with "What ifs" so that's good enough for me):

What if Jews did seek to convert others, at the point of a sword, exactly like Christianity and Islam have? What if the world were filled with 1 or 2 Billion angry, poor, disenfranchised Jews today? The reason this hasn't happened, besides the obvious fact that Jews do not seek to convert anyone, is that a history of swinging between gentile benevolence and gentile oppression has forced Jews to put forth leaders who, albeit spiritual rather than political or military, were of the same caliber as the leaders of Revolutionary America, to name one example. Leaders who put the welfare of their people first. Not leaders who marry a virgin every Thursday night and divorce the same every Friday morning.

And if the question still lingers as to why Islam has not evolved while Christianity has, consider that Christianity had a 7-Century advantage. Where was Christianity 600 years ago? Burning heretics at the stake. Where was it 400 years ago? Carrying out a massacre of Protestants throughout France. Considering what Islam had already accomplished and contributed to the world, there are good reasons for a benefit of the doubt that it may yet produce better outcomes than what we expect of it now.

That, I hope, should put to rest arguments about literal, out-of-context Koran verses, particularly suspicious when offered by non-Moslems on extremist web-sites professing to tell us "THE" truth, and the broad-brush conclusions drawn from them on the intentions, hearts and minds of more than a Billion human beings.

[el scorcho]

I find much of the Islamic religion to be silly and backward. A fart in the hurricane of human social evolution. I don't hate Muslims. I also don't respect their religion or their culture. I do accept their right to practice their religion and culture within the context of the over-arching laws of the United States.


Before that comes there has to be a modicrum of stabilization economically and socially. Christianity didn't moderate itself in the blink of the eye. It took an amazing amount of years before such concepts of democracy and human rights took root. The industrial revolution did speed up the process a little bit, but for the most part this has passed the Middle East (as well as Africa and other third world/global south countries).

[joseftu]

FYI ... Christ set aside all previous covenants (aka The Old Testament) and forged a new covenant between God and His people. The Christian Bible is the New Testament. The Old Testment is our history.To take this a little farther--this idea is known as "supersessionism." It comes mainly from reading Paul (remember that we don't really know what Jesus said--only what the Gospels say he said, many years later).

For a very thorough study of this subject, I recommend (as I have been recommending), Carroll's Constantine's Sword. But there's a neat little article about by Brad Young (Brad Young is Professor of Biblical Literature at Oral Roberts University and the founder of the Gospel Research Foundation) on Beliefnet (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/143/story_14388_1.html).
We know from many scriptural sources that Paul valued his Jewish heritage. When writing of the Torah, Paul used the metaphor of an olive tree, symbolizing the Jewish people and their way of faithfully serving God, as providing nourishment for an engrafted branch, the non-Jews who had come to faith in God through Jesus the Messiah. This means that the root nourishes the branch. It certainly does not render Judaism invalid, and is therefore not "replacement theology," also called supercessionism--the theology that Christianity has superceded Judaism, making it invalid. This 'replacement theology'--a now-discredited idea that dominated church teaching through the centuries and spawned anti-Semitism--maintains that the Israel of the Hebrew scriptures has been replaced by the new Israel. God has revoked his covenants and promises to the Jewish people, and transferred them to the church.

[el scorcho]

Amazing post, and you have my vote.

[joseftu]

Great post, Rav. Too bad I've already voted today!

[LissaKay]

You equate lone whackos with the organized (albeit loosely) Islamic movement? They publicly state over and over that it is their duty to create a world ruled by Islam .. in the streets, from the mosques ... their clerics, their leaders preach this daily. If it means killing innocent people to achieve that aim, that's part of the plan.

Where are the Rabbis that are advocating the murder of all non-Jews? Which Bible verses are they using to justify terrorism? What's the name of the Jewish terrorist group that seeks to take over the world? There isn't one, is there? If there was, I would condemn them just as strongly as I do the Islamists. Just as I condemn the parts of the Bible that condone violence ... I reject those teachings. I feel it is my duty as a Christian to do so. If you are offended by that ... well, what can I say?

WHY can the Muslims not do the same? And I mean their clerics ... the common man/woman on the street cannot do much to change the Muslim mindset, even banded together with hundreds of others. Muslims look to their spiritual leaders for theological guidance ... and what are those leaders saying??? They quote the Koran and say, "Kill the infidel!"

BTW ... the moral relativism between the Crusades (which happened many centuries ago) and the Islamic terrorism that is happening today is completely ridiculous ...

[Steve]

The people you cite fought back. Should we not as well?

[joseftu]

BTW ... the moral relativism between the Crusades (which happened many centuries ago) and the Islamic terrorism that is happening today is completely ridiculous ...Or some might say that the moral relativism which excuses the horrors of the Crusades because they happened in the past is ridiculous.

[joseftu]

The people you cite fought back. Should we not as well?We should certainly fight back against terrorists. Including Moslem terrorists (obviously).

But not against Islam.

[el scorcho]

BTW ... the moral relativism between the Crusades (which happened many centuries ago) and the Islamic terrorism that is happening today is completely ridiculous ...Not necessarily. The Middle East, for whatever reason, stood by as Europe invented the industrial democracy. Without a clear definition on the relationship between the 'church' and the state a stable democracy can never take hold, as the tumultuous history of both France and Germany illustrate.

There is no reason that Muslim cannot moderate universally, but a proper set of conditions need to occur for that to happen.

[Steve]

That's not moral relativism, it's an acknowledgement that the past is, um, past, over, done with, finished, unchangeable.

What disturbs me the most about these discussions is the complete unwillingness of some to even admit that there may be a problem. This defense of religion simply because it's a religion contributes nothing toward exploring whether or not there may be problems. "Well, it's a religion, you can't condemn a religion so your opinion is baseless and worthless." Deny that, but it's the message being conveyed.

Racism exists because too many people are willing to make excuses. There is a strong parallel, here. Perhaps practitioners of Islam don't need to refute the actions of terrorists who act in their name and putatatively on their behalf but you know what? Someone had better start doing so because whether or not some segments of the population choose to dismiss such opinions, a large majority of this country holds a deep antipathy toward Islam right now.

There may not be any mosque burnings yet but if things keep the way they've been going, with denial from those defending Islam that a problem even exists, then it's just a matter of time.

A problem exists and it needs to be addressed, not dismissed.

[el scorcho]

Oh, there is a problem. How to deal with it outside of making the Middle East into a vast parking lot or removing completely from the region needs to be figured out. Modernization needs to occur, education needs to spread. Democracy has to come too, although whether it needs to arrive first or last is hard to guage.

[MorWired]

You're right. But it's texts clearly do. And they advocate the murder of innocents. Next?The Old Testament is chock full of killing anyone who violates this law or that. Not only them but their wives, children, servants, and even their animals. That's the way things were written then. Reasonable adherents of Judaism and Christianity don't take that literally as commands, same with Islam. Sure, every once in a while you get a nutcase wanting to kill because God told him to (abortion clinic bombings, anyone), it happens in the best of families.

To dismiss the belief of billions on the basis of extreme fanaticism of a few is no different from what "they" are doing to us. Is it?

[MorWired]

In the Crusades, the Bible was perverted.

The Islamic terrorists are taking the Koran literally

You don't see the difference???

FYI ... Christ set aside all previous covenants (aka The Old Testament) and forged a new covenant between God and His people. The Christian Bible is the New Testament. The Old Testment is our history.Fundamentalist Christians like Baptists and various evangelical denominations also take the Bible literally. I'm not sure I see your point.

[joseftu]

What disturbs me the most about these discussions is the complete unwillingness of some to even admit that there may be a problem. I completely admit that there is a problem. But the problem is not Islam, it's fundamentalism, along with poverty, postcolonialism, and, yes, history--which is never done, or over--it may be unchangeable, but you know very well what Santayana said about forgetting it. Looking at a little tiny part of the problem, out of context, and taking the easy route of blaming the multitude and blaming the religion, will always be a distraction and a mistake.

Blaming Islam, rather than fundamentalism, doesn't help solve the problem. In fact, it exacerbates the problem, and creates new problems.

[Steve]

Islam is the face of fundamentalism today, though, that's what needs to be acknowledged before anything can be done to address the issues.

[joseftu]

I don't get it. You're saying Islam has bad PR, and that needs to be acknowledged? What does the face mean in this context?

[LissaKay]

You still don't see the difference ... unreal.

During the Crusades, they killed and said it was in the name of Christianity. However, there is NO basis for that anywhere in the Bible.

Today, Islamist are terrorizing the world and they are saying it is in the name of Islam. The Koran DOES offer a basis and a justification for that.

Mohammed said to kill the unfaithful. Christ did not.

When Muslims kill in the name of Islam, they CAN justify it by Mohammed's words.

When Christians kill in the name of Christ, they CANNOT justify it by Christ's words.

Even in the Torah, as Rav pointed out so eloquently, the violent edicts touted by Islam apologists were actually describing rule of law and equality .. which, by the way, is something that Islam soundly rejects.

There is a BIG problem with Islam and it lies at the feet of its leaders. Those mullahs who preach death and destruction from the mosque and incite their followers to kill the infidel are responsible for the coming end of Islam.

It could be a Religion of Peace™ but it is up to the clerics to reject the violent teachings of the Koran and guide their people in a different direction.

[joseftu]

Even in the Torah, as Rav pointed out so eloquently, the violent edicts touted by Islam apologists were actually describing rule of law and equality .. which, by the way, is something that Islam soundly rejects. {emphasis added by me}Yes, Ravital was eloquent, wasn't he? Let's have a little listen to him again, shall we?
That, I hope, should put to rest arguments about literal, out-of-context Koran verses, particularly suspicious when offered by non-Moslems on extremist web-sites professing to tell us "THE" truth, and the broad-brush conclusions drawn from them on the intentions, hearts and minds of more than a Billion human beings.

[cdw]

their clerics, their leaders preach this daily

See, this is where you lose me. Not all of the clerics and leaders preach this daily. And it would depend on where you are in the world also, would it not?
I have a real problem getting to the point where I can lump all of these people into one basket, just as I would have lumping men into one basket, women into one basket, priests into one basket.
Yes, I acknowledge there is a problem. But I have a real problem with putting 'them' all into one category.

[LissaKay]

Did I say all?

No, I did not.

[Misu]

Lissa, I love you, but you're taking what Mohammed said out of context, just like the terrorists and their clerics (who are nothing but power hungry warlords, and power corrupts, no one is immune to that).

The clerics are taking an extremely uneducated population (for the most part) and convincing them that this is what their faith tells them to do, that this is what it's all about. They teach them that our way of life is a direct assault on them. That is how they justify instructing these young ignorant kids to do what they do.

I think Rav and Joe both said pretty much the same thing regarding context, just like the bible can be totally taken out of context to justify anything. It's about using these texts as tools to manipulate other people. It's very easy to convince people when they are ignorant, young, angery because of their situation, hungry, and poor. And people like Bin Laden, who is very wealthy, are power-hungry. Notice the ones who preach are not the ones who fight and die.

Yay I love this smilie

:dead:

[Misu]

Did I say all?

No, I did not.

Ok now you lost me. You said Islam, you said the Koran.

Those who are Muslim follow the rules of Islam as layed out in the Koran. All Muslims must follow those rules, to some extent.

So if it's not all Muslims, then who is it?

[Misu]

slightly ot, but not really - in looking up the crusades, I read a little bit about the first crusade, and was shocked to read it basically started because the Pope at the time responded to rumors of Muslim atrocities committed against Christian pilgrims visiting the holy land. The pope appealled to french soldiers to travel and fight those Muslims. But it turned out the rumors were mostly false.

Perhaps what's happening today is just another chapter in the Crusades?

[ethics]

If anyone wants a great(free) read on the Crusades (and many other crazes of our short history, may I recommend Charles Mackay's, Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowd (http://www.econlib.org/library/Mackay/macExContents.html)s?

I read this book about 15 years ago and it taught me much, not just what was described in history but sociology, politics, psychology, terrorism, and ignorance. I can't think of a better book on the Crusades (it's two chapters in his book).

I am afraid, religion was a tool, but I never saw the Crusades as something that all Christians agreed with, or even the most.

[LissaKay]

The 9/11 19 were not poor and uneducated. Islamofascism is not limited to the ignorant and down-trodden. Islamofascists exist in every walk of life, in nearly every country of the world. And for every killer or killer-to-be Islamofascist out there, there are many more who are working in a non-violent way towards Islamic domination of the world.

Here's some reading for you all ...

Tarik Ramadan was granted a tenured post at Notre Dame University. At the last minute his visa was revoked. We should be so grateful ... but it appears that he is going to be allowed to enter the US anyway.
Mole or Savior? (http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20040906-095859-7069r)
Danger: Tariq Ramadan is coming to the US (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3523)

This man will be teaching college students ...

And a response from Robert Spencer on the CAIR survey ...
Anti-Muslim? Not me (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/003478.php)

Bottom line ... Islam is a mess. It is up to its leaders, the clerics, to set it aright. If the Koran has been grossly misinterpreted, it is up to them to set things straight. Problem is, they are the ones perpetuating the "kill the infidel" theme.

[LissaKay]

Ok now you lost me. You said Islam, you said the Koran.

Those who are Muslim follow the rules of Islam as layed out in the Koran. All Muslims must follow those rules, to some extent.

So if it's not all Muslims, then who is it?
I was responding to Cyd.

[archidante]

The Old Testament is chock full of killing anyone who violates this law or that. Not only them but their wives, children, servants, and even their animals. That's the way things were written then. Reasonable adherents of Judaism and Christianity don't take that literally as commands, same with Islam. Sure, every once in a while you get a nutcase wanting to kill because God told him to (abortion clinic bombings, anyone), it happens in the best of families.

To dismiss the belief of billions on the basis of extreme fanaticism of a few is no different from what "they" are doing to us. Is it? Old Testament. Koran. New testament. Catholic, Protestant. Religion religion religion: None of it's provable till a diety appears. Meanwhile, people kill over it. I really don't buy any of it, and I'm perfectly convinced the Almighty, if there, is perfectly capable of swatting anyone without our help. I'm not "Anti-Islam". I'm anti baloney. And even though Christianity and Judaism have got plenty of verses and chapters and histories of their own that you can quote or interpret as violent, the only world religion going on a rampage right now is Islam.
Fundamentalist Christians might beleive a lot of people are going straight to hell, but they're not hastening the process by blowing people up. Orthodox Jewish people mighht believe this or that, but mostly I see them walking peacefully to temple with their wives and children. That pretty much why I don't say much about these groups-not because I think their religions are more or less true than any other, but the proof is in the pudding so to speak.
Someone pm'd me today making me aware just how strident I've been sounding. For the record, Muslims are human beings and their lives are as sacred to me as any. Religions that advocate killing people, and the terrorists who act on it, need to be fought. The enemy of humanity here is fanatacism. If I'm coming off as one, well shame on me for high drama in a chat room, and for maybe blowing off a little too much fear an frustration on this key board. I guess my beggest fear is we'll all take the high road to tolerance and end up in the grave for it. Sometimes I feel like Cassandra.
Europe had centuries of relgious wars and the Enlightenment. Fortunately nuclear and biological weapons didn't exist at the time.

[ravital]

There may not be any mosque burnings yet but if things keep the way they've been going, with denial from those defending Islam that a problem even exists, then it's just a matter of time.

A problem exists and it needs to be addressed, not dismissed.
This is serious, I couldn't agree more. I'd like to correct however, that (speaking for myself only) I'm not defending a religion. It's not mine, I'm not a Moslem, I'm not a Christian. I'll let Moslems worry about their crisis, and Christians worry about theirs. I don't condemn all Christianity for pedophile Preists, or Islam for the atrocities committed in its name (and yes, I do appreciate that there's a universe of differences here). I want to see those Priests in jail, and I want to see the terrorists and the clerics that recruit and inflame them - well, I won't mince words about it - dead.

I don't believe (again speaking for myself) that I'm denying the existence of a problem, I just don't see the problem as rooted in the faith or its scriptures. If you ventured (and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth) that there is too much of a PC drive to grant Moslems a free pass, I would agree completely, but that's based on the ignorance - for lack of a better word - of decent people motivated by an overdeveloped sense of fair-play and justice (you know the type, the ones who "invented" decency and compassion and tolerance and "buy the world a Coke and keep it company" etc.) In that case, yes, there is a very real danger of a reactionary rage, eventually hitting back with full force, and woe to all of us if that happens. As always, the vast peaceful majority (of Moslems, in this case) will pay the price for the actions of the extremists. But our problem is not with Islam itself. I do hear many Moslems say it is, and if they feel that way, that's their prerogative, because it's their faith. Your prerogative and mine is to worry about the criminal scum that are out to harm us (and I'm sure you know that has never been limited to Moslems, either.) I don't know what tactical or other advantage we gain by assailing the faith itself. That's the distinction I wanted to make.

[MorWired]

The 9/11 19 were not poor and uneducated. Islamofascism is not limited to the ignorant and down-trodden. Islamofascists exist in every walk of life, in nearly every country of the world. And for every killer or killer-to-be Islamofascist out there, there are many more who are working in a non-violent way towards Islamic domination of the world.And pretty much every Christian denomination tries to convert and "save" people as they are working in a non-violent way towards Christian domination of the world.

Again, except for the very visible and dangerous extremist few, what's the difference? Missionary operations, proselytizing, witnessing -- the goal is the same, get as many as possible to play on your team.

[LissaKay]

You obviously did not read the linked material above ...

Christians want to recruit more Christians. They do not aim to take over any governments or rule any countries. The same cannot be said of Islam.

[MorWired]

Christians want to recruit more Christians. They do not aim to take over any governments or rule any countries. The same cannot be said of Islam.You're saying Christians aren't doing their damnest right this minute to take over the government of the United States and rule this country in "their" way? I don't mean that in any partisan way, right now it appears to be something the Republicans are working toward, used to be it was the Democrats. It's nothing new, and it's certainly not limited to Islam.

[LissaKay]

Yep.

There is no concerted movement going on to take over the government. Not that I am aware of. Perhaps I should put on a tin foil hat so that I can see it?

[el scorcho]

You obviously did not read the linked material above ...

Christians want to recruit more Christians. They do not aim to take over any governments or rule any countries. The same cannot be said of Islam.You're putting the cart before the horse here. The trend in stable democracies has been a clear definition/seperation of the relationship between the church and state. England avoided the Pope's influence, the Reformation and removed religion as a divisive issue by establishing the Church of England. The US had the luxury of starting a clean government with a definite abstraction between the two. France went through a litany of Republics because they in part were never able to establish a public consensus between cleric/anticlerical factions in her citizenry. Germany wasn't even established into a functioning nation-state until the late 1800s because of the Reformation and the divide between Protestants/Catholics/Clerics/Anticlerics. Even then the consolidation only occurred under an authoritarian regime.

Islam could be argued to be a 'backwards' religion in the Middle East in the same way that third world/global south countries can be said to have 'backwards' economies that rely on agricultural and/or crafts to support it. The issue shouldn't be to denounce or erradicate it, but how to condense what took Europeans hundreds of years to accomplish in a 'reasonable' timeframe.

[MorWired]

Yep.

There is no concerted movement going on to take over the government. Not that I am aware of. Perhaps I should put on a tin foil hat so that I can see it?I don't want to derail the thread, so I'll keep this short. Here's something you might want to look at, PBS Frontline: The Jesus Factor (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/president/religion.html) -- the tin-foil beanie is optional.

[el scorcho]

You're also forgetting the "White Man's Burden" imperialism, where whites had a mandate to rule and colonize the less fortunate non-whites who didn't believe in 'our' God.

[LissaKay]

That's supposed to prove a point that is somehow different from what I said?

[LissaKay]

And you're equating evangalism with Islamic terrorism???

Please ... spare me.

[el scorcho]

And you're comparing a religion that's modernized along with a thriving economy to one that has been perpetually mired in colonization, non-democratic regimes and a non-effective middle class. Spare me as well.

[ravital]

I don't want to derail the thread, so I'll keep this short. Here's something you might want to look at, PBS Frontline: The Jesus Factor (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/president/religion.html) -- the tin-foil beanie is optional. No. There is no concerted effort on the part of Christians to take over the U.S. government. On this one (and this only) I agree with Lissa.

Not that there couldn't be, but the Constitutional protections we have in place would preempt that long before it became a problem. And admittedly there is a lot of maneuvering and jockeying and posturing for votes, but that's all it is.

Seriously, a page with "Frontline" at the top and "E.J.Dionne" as the first quoted personality is proof of nothing more than the well-known slant of PBS. With the exception of Anchorman Jim Lehrer and Master-Carpenter Norm Abrams (and possibly a few others), they are a perfectly transparent anti-Bush PAC, only publicly-funded.

[MorWired]

And you're equating evangalism with Islamic terrorism???

Please ... spare me.Wow, nice spin. Let's try this again, shall we?
.Christians want to recruit more Christians. They do not aim to take over any governments or rule any countries. The same cannot be said of Islam.
.You're saying Christians aren't doing their damnest right this minute to take over the government of the United States and rule this country in "their" way? I don't mean that in any partisan way, right now it appears to be something the Republicans are working toward, used to be it was the Democrats. It's nothing new, and it's certainly not limited to Islam.
.There is no concerted movement going on to take over the government. Not that I am aware of.
.Richard Cizik
National Association of Evangelicals

This president somehow -- and I think his staff -- have the heartbeat of evangelicals. So we don't need to be constantly calling up the White House, or whatever, lobbying them on behalf of our agenda. I think that we see eye to eye. They understand how we think. …

So you think he really actually understands the community? President Bush really has the heartbeat?

There was always this objection in prior administrations -- and I've been through seven, since coming to this town when Jimmy Carter was in office. There was all this idea -- "Oh, if we can only get a staff person in the White House who would carry our concerns to the president." Well, a private joke inside the Beltway nowadays is, "We don't need a staff person. We've got one in the Oval Office." What do you want, a staff person, or do you want the president who understands you? I'll take the president. …
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Richard Land
Southern Baptist Convention

There's no question this is the most receptive White House to our concerns and to our perspective of any White House that I've dealt with, and I've dealt with every White House from Reagan on.

In the Reagan administration, they would usually return our phone calls. In the Bush 41 administration, they often would return our phone calls, but not quite as quickly, and sometimes not quite as receptively. In the Clinton administration, they quit accepting our phone calls after a while.

In this administration, they call us, and they say, "What is your take on this? How does your group feel about this?" I don't know if there's any question that this administration understands that Southern Baptists and other evangelicals are a very significant part of their coalition. By some estimates, 40 percent of their raw vote came from evangelicals. Mr. Bush carried every state in which there was a significant Southern Baptist presence.

So see, we're not equating evangelism with Islamic terrorism, we're discussing the fact that the current president doesn't appear to have boundaries between his duty to his country and to his god, and uses his political position to achieve his religious goals.

Now I said I don't want to derail this thread, so if you want discuss this further I can start another thead for that. You stated that Christians aren't aiming at governing any countries, and I offered proof of my reasoning for disagreeing with your assertion. If you recall, this tangent this started about your statement that: "many more [Muslims] who are working in a non-violent way towards Islamic domination of the world." We're talking about the peaceful ones, not the terrorists.

[LissaKay]

See Rav's post above yours for my response to that bit of disengenuousness.

You offer proof that is a joke ... and having a Christian in the White House is nothing new at all. Bush is just more open about his faith than recent presidents have been.

Take a look at what's happening in Sweden for an example of how Muslims are taking over in western cities and countries. Then tell me that it compares in any way with any kind of Christian evangelism ... which, BTW, annoys the crap out of me ... but doesn't concern me like the Muslim take-over that IS happening all around the world.

[el scorcho]

See Rav's post above yours for my response to that bit of disengenuousness.

You offer proof that is a joke ... and having a Christian in the White House is nothing new at all. Bush is just more open about his faith than recent presidents have been.

Take a look at what's happening in Sweden for an example of how Muslims are taking over in western cities and countries. Then tell me that it compares in any way with any kind of Christian evangelism ... which, BTW, annoys the crap out of me ... but doesn't concern me like the Muslim take-over that IS happening all around the world.
Is anyone else replacing 'Muslim' with 'Jewish' in this statement, throwing time back around 100 years and having a field day with the comparisons? I am. In fact, I get all tingly thinking of the implications.

At least I know now what camp this argument is coming from.

[Coot]

I think you're off the mark a tad Morwired. All presidents and other elected officials have institutions, be they secular or otherwise, that are part of their agenda. Christianity cannot usurp the Constitution, there are far too many protections in place. About the best it can do is influence policy and direction...no matter who is in office. It's a bit disingenuous to suggest that any political party is in bed with Christianity in an attempt to 'takeover' government. That's about on par with certain elements stating that the Democrats are being controlled by Jews in an attempt take over the government and the world.

Islam, on the otherhand, scarcely recognizes the authority of non-muslim governments (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/politics/khalifa.html). While this page lists the duties and requirements for a Muslim dictator (Caliph), it is important to note some of the responsibilities of said dictator:

1. Safeguard Islam in its original form, and to protect against the introduction of new things (bid'a) into Islam.
2. Establish justice (including punishments for crimes) among the people.
3. Ensure the protection of the ummah. People within the boundaries of the Muslim state (regardless of whether they are Muslims or not) should feel secure enough to be productive.
4. Protect the physical boundaries of the state through the use of arms and other methods.
5. Defend the rights of Muslims abroad, and to see to it that Islam can spread freely in non-Muslim lands (including the use of force).

This isn't some 1000 year old teachings from the Koran...okay, so it is, but it still comes from a modern day lecture to the Muslim Student Union as USC (bold is mine).

The school atrocities in Russia last month, weren't carried out by freedom fighters, they were carried out by people with designs on far more than Chechnya, they intend to establish a Muslim Caliphate across the entire Cacausas.

I would invite you to find out from a woman born as Muslim and who fled the religion, just what it means to be a non-muslim living in a muslim state (http://www.dhimmi.org/).

It borders on the absurd to attempt to equate, even by inference, the religous right in this country with the objectives of CAIR. I could be wrong, but then again I'm just another atheist Republican.

[LissaKay]

That statement makes no sense at all. Please explain.

When and where did Jews take over entire cities, forcing school children out of their schools, raping and pillaging, keeping even the police force at bay??? That is what is happening in places in Europe with the Muslims.

Oh ... I suppose you are referring to the Jews returning en masse to their homeland??? Please ... there's already a "Palestinian" apologist thread going on ... take it there.

[MorWired]

See Rav's post above yours for my response to that bit of disengenuousness.

You offer proof that is a joke ... and having a Christian in the White House is nothing new at all. Bush is just more open about his faith than recent presidents have been.

Take a look at what's happening in Sweden for an example of how Muslims are taking over in western cities and countries. Then tell me that it compares in any way with any kind of Christian evangelism ... which, BTW, annoys the crap out of me ... but doesn't concern me like the Muslim take-over that IS happening all around the world."Disingenuousness" ... nice. It's not "having a "Christian" in the White House -- when have we NOT? when WILL we not? (yet further "proof" in my eyes, but I digress), it's having an evangelical Christian who considers it his god-given right and duty to do "god's will" with this country, the expressed will of the citizens be damned.

I didn't say I offered "proof" of this as fact (if I could I'd be on the news), I said I offered "proof of my reasoning." You might want to read a bit more closely before casting aspersions.

And Sweden is NOT in fact being overrun be evil hordes of Muslims, you are referring to stories from a website with a very clear anti-Muslim agenda. This was discussed at length in "the other forum" where a Scandinavian native laughed at the incredibly slanted an erroneous reporting, said he'd, in fact, just returned from the the area in question, and, while there are some basic problems one finds with uneployed youth in urban environments, he dismissed the whole thing as mostly hateful and inaccurate rubbish. This is a member of long standing, not someone who just showed up to make a questionable point.

[ravital]

You're saying Christians aren't doing their damnest right this minute to take over the government of the United States and rule this country in "their" way? I don't mean that in any partisan way, right now it appears to be something the Republicans are working toward, used to be it was the Democrats. It's nothing new, and it's certainly not limited to Islam.
What exactly is the point of this back-and-forth?

Lissa claims that peaceful Moslems have a goal to dominate the world (I disagree, but that's beside the point).

You offer in return that Christians have the same ambitions.

Let's assume for a minute you prove it. What will you have proven? That two wrongs make a right?

I would insist on evidence that peaceful Moslems have such ambitions, or try to disprove it. That would be much closer to the topic of the thread, and much more productive, since it's not the usual "he started it" or "they do it too" rhetoric.

But that's just me. Just a suggestion.

[MorWired]

What exactly is the point of this back-and-forth?

Lissa claims that peaceful Moslems have a goal to dominate the world (I disagree, but that's beside the point).

You offer in return that Christians have the same ambitions.

Let's assume for a minute you prove it. What will you have proven? That two wrongs make a right?

I would insist on evidence that peaceful Moslems have such ambitions, or try to disprove it. That would be much closer to the topic of the thread, and much more productive, since it's not the usual "he started it" or "they do it too" rhetoric.

But that's just me. Just a suggestion.
My point, which I've made before, possibly even in this thread, although not in this particular exchange, is that we continue to demonize Muslims for behavior in which we engage ourselves. We also demonize them for not doing things we do not expect of ourselves.

I don't believe there's a "conspiracy" to take over the White House, although this administration's attitude is most inappropriate when it comes to the separation of church and state, but proclaiming Islam as "dangerous" for wanting what every other group wants is, at best, myopic, and at worst, "disingenuous."

[AmeritecTech]

You obviously did not read the linked material above ...

Christians want to recruit more Christians. They do not aim to take over any governments or rule any countries. The same cannot be said of Islam.

America was founded as a Christian Theocracy, not a secular nation.[6] The ACLU and the U.S. Supreme Court are not telling us the truth, "the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Those who left Europe did so in obedience to God, in order to further His Kingdom. The establishment of civil government was seen as a tool in the process of establishing the Christian religion in the New World.

Most Christians do not understand this point. Most Christians are ignorant of history, and they believe that in the here-and-now Christianity should be an essentially "private" matter, and should not have too much influence in politics or "public" life. They believe this even if they deny the doctrine of the ACLU known as the "separation of church and state." Even politically active pro-life people will deny that the Bible is an infallible standard for all of culture, not just "religion" or "moral" issues.

There is no neutrality. If the State is not actively promoting the Christian faith, then it is actively destroying it. We must come to grips with this fact.
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/08theocracy.htm

Certainly there are Christians who favor theocracy.

[AmeritecTech]

You're putting the cart before the horse here. The trend in stable democracies has been a clear definition/seperation of the relationship between the church and state. England avoided the Pope's influence, the Reformation and removed religion as a divisive issue by establishing the Church of England.
Well, to be more accurate, King Henry wanted a divorce and the church wouldn't authorize it, so he founded the Church of England because he had grown tired of beheading his wives. There's more than one way to skin a cat!

[AmeritecTech]

What exactly is the point of this back-and-forth?

Lissa claims that peaceful Moslems have a goal to dominate the world (I disagree, but that's beside the point).

You offer in return that Christians have the same ambitions.

Let's assume for a minute you prove it. What will you have proven? That two wrongs make a right?
Lissakay is using the fact that SOME Muslims want a theocracy to critique Islam as a whole. As I see it, MorWired is challenging her with the assertion that some Christians want a theocracy as well. Its not so much that two wrongs make a right so much as you can't judge a religion in whole on the basis of some members of that religion.

[RRedline]

Lissakay is using the fact that SOME Muslims want a theocracy to critique Islam as a whole. As I see it, MorWired is challenging her with the assertion that some Christians want a theocracy as well. Its not so much that two wrongs make a right so much as you can't judge a religion in whole on the basis of some members of that religion.Well said. And for the record, I think both sides of this debate have made excellent points.

My biggest fear (for my country and for the world) is religious fundamentalism. I make no distinction between any particular flavor of it, whether it be Islam or Christianity or the one that believes in space monkeys.

[archidante]

Lissakay is using the fact that SOME Muslims want a theocracy to critique Islam as a whole. As I see it, MorWired is challenging her with the assertion that some Christians want a theocracy as well. Its not so much that two wrongs make a right so much as you can't judge a religion in whole on the basis of some members of that religion.
Lissakay is pointing out a difference that has huge implications. Al queda have been killed and captured in 102 countries. Belsam was about an attempt to provoke a war and create a Caliphate. These are active, violent, extensive global operations effecting the whole world. Any Christians hoping to rule in anything more than talk radio and pulpits pretty much will have to wait till Christ returns with Legions of Angels because in the West secularism is firmly established since the Enlightenment.
Westerners would like to see more Muslims speak out for tolerance; well, they can't-somebody might behead them.

[jfcjrus]

Lissakay is using the fact that SOME Muslims want a theocracy to critique Islam as a whole. As I see it, MorWired is challenging her with the assertion that some Christians want a theocracy as well. Its not so much that two wrongs make a right so much as you can't judge a religion in whole on the basis of some members of that religion.
Ok.
I can see where <i>some</i> Muslims would prefer that everyone believe as they do.
Same for <i>some</i> Christians.
Same for <i>some</i> that have no use for <i>any</i> organized religion.

And then there are those of us that don't care what anyone believes.
Those of us that think it's perfectly allright to believe anything you want, <i>as long as you don't mess with anyone's quest to do the same!</i>

Those of us that think it's quite unacceptable if someone, for whatever belief, were to end our life while we were riding a bus, or having dinner in a restaurant, or going to work in a skyscraper in NYC.

No folks, I am not tolerant of those that are not tolerant towards me.
My belief in live and let live may be simplistic, but those that wish to upset my applecart are fools if they think I'm not going to resist their attempts, and respond with everything I've got, until they stop even thinking of messing with me.

But, if we all can't live and let live, then I guess the strongest will survive?
A sad state of affairs, after all these thousands of years of 'civilization'.
One would think we'd be beyond all this crap by now.
So, to me, it isn't Muslims, or Christians, etc.
It's any group of folks that attempts to force their will upon others.
To me, freedom of the individual is the only quest worth dying for.

And that's why I think 1 in 4 don't trust Muslims (or Christians?)

Just my opinion.
Regards,

[MorWired]

Any Christians hoping to rule in anything more than talk radio and pulpits pretty much will have to wait till Christ returns with Legions of Angels because in the West secularism is firmly established since the Enlightenment.There is one right this minute in the Oval Office, doing his best to change our Constitution to suit his religious beliefs, and hoping to appoint a Supreme Court Justice to carry on his views into future administrations. You were saying?

Look, I'm not saying it's some conspiracy. This president's time is finite, whether by months or by years, he's not going to proclaim himself a god/king and stay on for life. If a Muslim were ever elected president (yeah, right, think about if, we can't even elect a Jew or a Christian woman, but whatever) and so much as thought about a constitutional amendment to further the principles if Islam you all would be jumping up and down so hard and so loud he'd hear it all the way in DC. Either we fear religions usurping our governments or we don't. To fear this from only one religion is supremely biased.

[archidante]

There is one right this minute in the Oval Office, doing his best to change our Constitution to suit his religious beliefs, and hoping to appoint a Supreme Court Justice to carry on his views into future administrations. You were saying?

Look, I'm not saying it's some conspiracy. This president's time is finite, whether by months or by years, he's not going to proclaim himself a god/king and stay on for life. If a Muslim were ever elected president (yeah, right, think about if, we can't even elect a Jew or a Christian woman, but whatever) and so much as thought about a constitutional amendment to further the principles if Islam you all would be jumping up and down so hard and so loud he'd hear it all the way in DC. Either we fear religions usurping our governments or we don't. To fear this from only one religion is supremely biased.
We all know the Chinese curse of living in interesting times. I've had the (+-?) fortune of having like four different religions in my nuclear family due to divorce, remairage, and an older brother that went through a full conversion to Judaism. My stepfather went into a deep Evangelical Christian cultlike group that made my early teenage years very Kafkaesque. He believed the world was created in six days-literally. Science fiction was forbidden in our home. We went to church four times a week for three hour sevices. The antichrist's plot were everywhere. Eventually my sister and I (the only ones living with them at the time) got on the bus, Gus, and Made a new Plan, Stan, and got the flock out of there. There was nothing more liberating than escaping the ancient dogmas of religious texts written thousands of years before the enlightenment, stepping into the secular world of objective reason and escaping the mind bending tyranny where every thought and idea and action was subject to, well, some stuff somebody wrote down and said was from GOD.
In my humble opinion we should fear religion. It sets no objective standards. It's unverifiable. It can dehumanize in ways most secular governments would be ashamed to. Boil and burn people for eternity? Fallible tempoary beings face eternal punishment from an infallible (but invisible and silent) Diety. Talk about a mind screw. It's amazing Medieval Scientists gathered up the courage to stare that one down at all. Think of that next time you turn on a light or a TV.
At the end of the day here, it's all really about that contest again isn't it? Medieval thinking (fundamentalist relgion) vs Science and Secular humanism (which my Stepfather and the Evangelicals spoke of "Secular Humanism" like a plague, or a piece of dung).:rolleyes:

[el scorcho]

Well, to be more accurate, King Henry wanted a divorce and the church wouldn't authorize it, so he founded the Church of England because he had grown tired of beheading his wives. There's more than one way to skin a cat!oh, i wasn't trying to romanticize <b>why</b> King Henry founded the Church of England, just stating that the distance he placed between Rome and the monarchy/parliament had the effect of removing religion as a divisive issue (protestants/catholics/clerics/anticlerics) in his state by the end of the 17th century.

[ravital]

There is one right this minute in the Oval Office, doing his best to change our Constitution to suit his religious beliefs, and hoping to appoint a Supreme Court Justice to carry on his views into future administrations. You were saying?

For heaven's sake. No sense of proportion.

1. There is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to change the Constitution one way or the other. Nothing. It's a perfectly legitimate legal device, no different from the despicable filibusters initiated by his nominee's opponents and for much more contemptible reasons. Besides, it's one man in an oval office, far short of the thousands of people that need to be persuaded in order to begin to even worry about it.

2. All presidents have an agenda. And that always means a small measure of preferential treatment and access to the White House for one group or another, that is largely symbolic and very little else. Personally, as much as I dislike the Jerry Falwells of the world, better them than some chinese general with shopping bags full of cash renting the Lincoln Bedroom.

Please, enough with the exaggerations, Bush is no Khomeini, not by a long shot.

[MorWired]

Please, enough with the exaggerations, Bush is no Khomeini, not by a long shot.I can only imagine you missed reading my second paragraph.

[ravital]

I can only imagine you missed reading my second paragraph.
I take it you didn't hear any part of my post.

But to show that I've read all of yours, I'll paraphrase, and maybe you'll understand:

You're talking, among other things, about a president appointing a "religious" (whatever that means this week) judge to the supreme court. That's a hypotesis.

What has already happened is, that he has nominated a perfectly qualified candidate for the Federal Bench, who happens to be a practicing Catholic, and both wrong coasts were "jumping up and down so hard and so loud that they were heard all the way to DC." The man has already proven that he can carry out his job when it contradicts his faith - he prosecuted Roy Moore and had the Ten Commandments monument removed from the lobby of the AL Supreme Court. He has prosecuted a State Supreme Court Justice. And against his faith. And that's not good enough for the likes of slimeball Chuck Schumer and his ilk - no, the only thing that will satisfy them is if he renounces his faith completely, and even then it won't be good enough.

There was a time when it might have seemed strange, for the ultra-liberal who so passionately hate and despise religion, and all public officials who have the nerve to practice one, to come out so vehemently in the defense of Islam. But it makes perfect sense: It's only the religions of Good-ol' white Christian Americans they despise; It's perfectly ok for Joe Lieberman to quote the Old Testament at campaign stumps, and invoke God 11 times in 3 minutes; brown little people with their funny religions are ok too, and must be granted a free pass, regardless of how they stand on the nut-jobs who shoot schoolchildren in the back in their name.

A perfect little Animal Farm. All the animals chant "Four-legs good, two-legs bad" until the chickens complain, so a spinmeister sow has to explain to them "oh, we consider wings as legs too!" Classic.

[mers2]

There was a time when it might have seemed strange, for the ultra-liberal who so passionately hate and despise religion, and all public officials who have the nerve to practice one, to come out so vehemently in the defense of Islam. But it makes perfect sense: It's only the religions of Good-ol' white Christian Americans they despise; It's perfectly ok for Joe Lieberman to quote the Old Testament at campaign stumps, and invoke God 11 times in 3 minutes; brown little people with their funny religions are ok too, and must be granted a free pass, regardless of how they stand on the nut-jobs who shoot schoolchildren in the back in their name.

A perfect little Animal Farm. All the animals chant "Four-legs good, two-legs bad" until the chickens complain, so a spinmeister sow has to explain to them "oh, we consider wings as legs too!" Classic. Talk about generalizations. I believe what MorWired was against was the attitude that Islam is a religion of terror and all Muslims are suspect. Knowing Morwired from another board, I can say that if it were Jews or Christians that were facing such blanket statements she would be one of those defending them.

[ravital]

Talk about generalizations. I believe what MorWired was against was the attitude that Islam is a religion of terror and all Muslims are suspect. Knowing Morwired from another board, I can say that if it were Jews or Christians that were facing such blanket statements she would be one of those defending them.
For the record, if it's not yet clear, I am not an enemy of Moslems, or Islam. I think I've made that quite clear.

But I know exactly what attitudes are at work when it comes to religion - any religion - in America, particularly as it pertains to elected officials and the constituencies they try so hard to please. "Jumping up and down until you're heard in DC" is not the exclusive province of Islam-bashers. I know how the game is played, here and on other boards. And I don't think it's a generalization to call someone on that kind of double-standard.

[archidante]

For the record, if it's not yet clear, I am not an enemy of Moslems, or Islam. I think I've made that quite clear.

But I know exactly what attitudes are at work when it comes to religion - any religion - in America, particularly as it pertains to elected officials and the constituencies they try so hard to please. "Jumping up and down until you're heard in DC" is not the exclusive province of Islam-bashers. I know how the game is played, here and on other boards. And I don't think it's a generalization to call someone on that kind of double-standard. I have to agree with Ravital about the double standard. Why hasn't the national organization for women come out on the Islam issue over womens rights? Why is it a nightmare to think of a right wing christian in the supremem court ( I know why...) but the liberals rush to the barricades to defend Islams' rights?
Leverage.
Women in the west largley do have better lives than women elsewhere, and religion here largely does have it's power over peoples lives delimmited by law. But the boogie man, that white male protestant tyrant, can't be painted in any positive light (regardless of the proof of our society) because liberals loose leverage. I guess it might be pretty hard to complain about glass ceilings in corporate board rooms when you sister across the sea can't show her face in public without getting her head lopped off.
Islam is different because there are no checks and balances against it's power wherever it spreads. Even Democracy is a poor defense as demographics show in a generation or two you will be outnumbered, out voted, and on the outside looking in. And it's using violence NOW as compared to the historical violence often cited.
Does that mean I want to go take away the civil rights of Muslims? NO! But it does mean we might take a hard look at using immigration as some social engineering tool to create the perfectly banalnced society with a good sampling of every relgious variety to show what a nice PC society we are. (Gag). That will be great in the twenty second century. If we have one. But right now the seventh century is creeping around trying to murder the 21rst.

[MorWired]

Talk about generalizations. I believe what MorWired was against was the attitude that Islam is a religion of terror and all Muslims are suspect. Knowing Morwired from another board, I can say that if it were Jews or Christians that were facing such blanket statements she would be one of those defending them.Precisely, and thank you. I don't much care WHO is being lumped and bashed, I just want it to stop. Whether the discrimination is racially based, or religious, or lifestyle, or appearance -- makes no difference, people must be taken as individuals and not as part of some lump because "they are all..."

I don't understand why that's so difficult to understand, or to glean from my posts. I have no hatred for Christianity, I simply don't believe it's appropriate for the president to be forwarding a very specific, very minority (this is NOT what all Christians believe, this is a small portion of Christians) set of rules that all of Americans should live their lives by. I'd feel just the same about a Jewish president (as if) who wanted the US to go kosher, or an Islamic one (must lay off the hallucinogens) who thought some set of Islamic laws should become the law of the land. This is what I said in a previous post, and I continue to stand by it, and I fail to see a bias in it: "Either we fear religions usurping our governments or we don't. To fear this from only one religion is supremely biased."

There is an effort to marginalize my statements, by dismissing them as mindless knee-jerk anti-white-establishment/anti-Christian babble, when the reality is just the opposite -- the only thing I'm "anti" is blanket statements that dismiss and demean ... anyone, including myself.

[efuseakay]

Too bad there isn't a poll that shows what Muslims feel towards non-Muslims...