• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

First U.S. City With Muslim Majority

dolphinocean said:
There is no rape anywhere in there, blarg. So stop projecting your hatred into the Bible. The dynamics of the events in OT is not something a non-christian will ever fathom. It is a stumbling block for you guys who reject God, therefore you reject His wisdom. You think you are wise by selectively quoting the Bible in isolation but you're not. So, it's not for me to school you on the exegesis of the Scripture.

Are Christians of the Western world slaughtering Midianites or Amalekites as you know of in our time or in the past? Nope, because those were OT events only meant for that period and that ancient groups of people for a good reason.

But the quran is not. The commandments of the quran is binding on muslims for all time and for all places, conquering to find and kill infidels, aka unbelievers of islam, wherever they find them simply for being unbelievers. You don't find that in the Bible. Christians will love to share God's word with you if you so chose for the concern of your soul. They don't strap bombs on themselves or randomly shoot assault rifles to kill atheists in a concert or a soccer stadium in martyrdom for some imaginary black eye virgins. Because the Bible teaching is completely opposite to that of the quran.

Like I said, I'm not going to engage with you any further in an off topic discussion - for this is not the thread about bashing the Bible that you want to specifically single out for bashing though very misguided without understanding.
Click to expand...
What kind of elitist bull is this? No one can understand the Old Testament unless they believe as you do? Please.
 
dolphinocean said:
Nothing in the Bible where Jesus commanded his followers to do any of the things you mentioned above. Jesus' message is God loves the world to sacrifice His only begotten Son, to forgive 70 times 7, to love one another and to preach the gospel to the world. Nothing violence there. Neither in Jesus's conduct. Those that did violence were and are against the teaching of Christ.


But when muslims fanatically follows the teaching of not only the quran but most importantly the ahadith that espouse and exhort the mass murderous violence committed by mohammed and his companions, they are following the teaching of islam. In islam, muslims are to follow the example of mohammed. What the jiadists do globally such as ISIS is exactly in accordance to what mohammed did and what the quran commanded. All his conduct and deeds are documented in the ahadith and in biography written by early muslims, such as Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah. You can read it here:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sira/index.htm


The Oath Keepers are against what is "unconstitutional". They are against Judicial activism by the left that rewrite the Constitution to suit their political agenda. What is not mentioned in the Constitution but twisted out of shape by liberal judges are unconstitutional.

But here the argument is that fundamental muslims will completely ignore the US Constitution when they have their power and institute the sharia law which runs completely against the Constitution. But they don't care.

Oath Keepers want to uphold the Constitution to the letter. Muslims, especially the fundamental ones, don't. They want to do away the Constitution and replace sharia. They had said so. So, you can't compare Oath Keepers with fundamental muslims who want to replace the Constitution.
Click to expand...

And you're showing a vast ignorance about Islam. First, you need to get a clue that just as mainstream "Christianity" is fragmented into something like 30,000 different sects, Islam is also incredibly fragmented...and just as one cannot look at, say, the sect led by the Reverend Jim Jones (of cyanide-laced Grape Kool-Aid fame) and claim that he was representative of "Christianity", one also cannot look at ISIS and claim that they are somehow representative of Islam.

Second, if Islam demands violence in accordance to the Qur'an, then you've got some 'slainin' to do. Why? What's the most populous Muslim nation? Indonesia (over 400M). Where's all the violence there? There's some in Malaysia, but relatively speaking, there's not much. That's two third-world nations, one of which is the most populous Muslim nation on the planet...and they're relatively peaceful. How peaceful is Indonesia? For every 100,000 people, they have 0.6 homicides. By comparison, the SAFEST state in America - New Hampshire - has a homicide rate of 0.9/100K...which is fifty percent higher than that of third-world incredibly-overpopulated officially-MUSLIM Indonesia.

If Islam is SO violent as you seem to believe, then please feel free to explain why that is. And while you're at it, please don't claim that Christians aren't allowed to worship there, because we are most certainly allowed to do so - they've got the second-largest "Christian" population in Southeast Asia.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
And you're showing a vast ignorance about Islam. First, you need to get a clue that just as mainstream "Christianity" is fragmented into something like 30,000 different sects, Islam is also incredibly fragmented...and just as one cannot look at, say, the sect led by the Reverend Jim Jones (of cyanide-laced Grape Kool-Aid fame) and claim that he was representative of "Christianity", one also cannot look at ISIS and claim that they are somehow representative of Islam.

Second, if Islam demands violence in accordance to the Qur'an, then you've got some 'slainin' to do. Why? What's the most populous Muslim nation? Indonesia (over 400M). Where's all the violence there? There's some in Malaysia, but relatively speaking, there's not much. That's two third-world nations, one of which is the most populous Muslim nation on the planet...and they're relatively peaceful. How peaceful is Indonesia? For every 100,000 people, they have 0.6 homicides. By comparison, the SAFEST state in America - New Hampshire - has a homicide rate of 0.9/100K...which is fifty percent higher than that of third-world incredibly-overpopulated officially-MUSLIM Indonesia.

If Islam is SO violent as you seem to believe, then please feel free to explain why that is. And while you're at it, please don't claim that Christians aren't allowed to worship there, because we are most certainly allowed to do so - they've got the second-largest "Christian" population in Southeast Asia.
Click to expand...
Indonesia and Malaysia had several violence committed by muslims against the ethnic Chinese in the 50s and 60s long before 911. Muslim violence also happened in Singapore in the 60s. You need to read the islamic resources from their own mouth the violence committed by their prophet whom they exhort and followed.
 
dolphinocean said:
Indonesia and Malaysia had several violence committed by muslims against the ethnic Chinese in the 50s and 60s long before 911. Muslim violence also happened in Singapore in the 60s. You need to read the islamic resources from their own mouth the violence committed by their prophet whom they exhort and followed.
Click to expand...

But if Islam demands violence, then that violence would be continuing TODAY, wouldn't it? But it's not - in fact, Indonesia as a whole is safer even than the safest state in America.

So...nice try, but you're confusing ethnic violence with religious violence. In most cases - ISIS included - religion is not the reason, but the excuse that power-hungry people use to further their own ends. Oh, they'll swear up and down that the Qur'an commands them to do this or that...but if the Qur'an really left no choice but to spread religion by the sword, Indonesia would not be so much more peaceful than America. Those in command of ISIS are only doing what power-mad people and groups have done for all human history. Islam is their excuse, not their reason.
 
sanman said:
Heh, the fact that the term "Islamophobia" even exists is a tribute to the ethnic narcissism of that group....
Click to expand...
Erk?

It's evident that some people hate Muslims for being Muslim. It's no different than using the term "anti-semitism." And frankly, you're displaying quite a bit of it today.
 
sanman said:
Your problem is that you have to look at past history, and can't cite the present.
Click to expand...
World War II was only 60 years ago. Has the essential nature of Christians and Christianity itself changed in that time? No.

As to more current examples: Lord's Resistance Army, right-wing militias, right-wing paramilitaries all over Latin America up until the 90s, the Eritrea-Ethiopia border war. That's just off the top of my head.


You can talk about Islam-vs-Christianity, but it's also about industrialized world values vs pre-industrial medieval third world values....
Click to expand...
You could, but there really is no such thing as "third world values." The values of most Yemenites are very different than that of most Bolivians.

They also aren't mostly "medieval." There is a small core of Islamists who try to cast their ideas as hewing to the "original" Islam, but it is a huge mistake to conflate the views of a handful of extremists with the vast majority of Muslims.


Islam hasn't gone through any modern reformations....
Click to expand...
While it is true that many Muslim-dominant nations are not on the same level of development as the most "advanced" Western nations, it wasn't that long ago that we saw a sweep of democratic movements across Muslim nations. Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Bahrain, Syria, all had major popular movements towards democracy. Malaysia and Indonesia are fairly well developed in many ways. Lebanon is a very sophisticated nation, and was often regarded as another Paris before conflicts (which its government and citizens did not want or start) trashed it. Morocco is also very different than Saudi Arabia, which is different than northern Nigeria, which is different than Lebanon, which is different than... etc

There are also lots of Christians who want to turn back the clock on a lot of those "advanced" changes, especially in relation to the rights of women, minorities, homosexuals etc.

Anyway. It is slightly ridiculous to paint 1.6 billion Muslims, and two dozen nations on at least two continents, with such a broad brush.


There are people living in Britain who have multiple wives - I've met such people - the fact that British law doesn't allow them to is altogether meaningless.
Click to expand...
There are Americans, affiliated with Mormonism, who have multiple wives today. In some cases they get arrested for it; in other cases, they've figured out how to work around the laws. Mormons also impose restrictions on various activities, such as consumption of alcohol. On that basis, do we declare that they have rendered federal laws "useless?"

By the way, anecdote ≠ proof


They say that all politics is local, and you're proof of it. Islam isn't local, it's global - and therefore it has deep reserves, both population-wise and politically.
Click to expand...
There are (again) 1.6 billion Muslims, but they are certainly NOT a single global entity, with a single leader and hierarchy and theology, akin to the Roman Catholic Church -- 1.25 billion members, central authority, singular leader, often involved in *COUGH* influencing local and global politics, powerful political entity for centuries, even hired its own mercenaries on a regular basis at various points in its history.


Oathkeepers aren't a trans-nationalist tip of a billion-strong iceberg. They're just a bunch of repentant guys who feel bad about having been deadbeat dads - there are worse things to be than repentant. So they're born-again, etc, but their born-again rhetoric about disregarding laws doesn't have the same trans-nationalist connections. They're just local people - they're not the Thin Edge of the Wedge, or the nose of the camel coming under your tent.
Click to expand...
The Oathkeepers are not just "repentant guys." They are a right-wing paramilitary organization, that explicitly states they will resist federal laws on a unilateral basis.

And they are just the tip of that particular iceberg, of violent right-wing groups that want to literally overthrow the US government. Here's one example from last year:
How An Anti-Government Militia Grew on a U.S. Army Base - The New Yorker


Yeah, just like it's no secret that Anybody and Muslims don't usually get along. Islam is pretty much in conflict with any group on the planet that it's had contact with. Tell me who Islam is in contact with that it's not in conflict with.
Click to expand...
lol... Tell me who Christians have come in contact with, without conflict.


If you import too much of the 3rd world into the USA, then you'll make the USA into a 3rd world country.
Click to expand...
Please.

Nativists have been using that line for hundreds of years. They used to say it about the Irish, Germans, Poles, Italians, Catholics and others who are now classified as "white," and are often trying to defend "OUR" way of life.
 
truthatallcost said:
Very tired argument. You're dismissing the present because of the past.
Click to expand...
No, it's arguing against false attributions of essentialism.

There was, and is, nothing inherent in Christianity that requires violent conflict between sects. And yet, if we were assessing Christianity in 1630 by the standards you apply to Islam today, you would be forced to conclude the opposite -- that an essential character of Christianity is sectarian violence.

We are not at some conclusive point in time. History has not frozen, or reached a conclusion. Thus, it does not make sense to proclaim essential attributes of Islam based on current conditions -- especially when you are being incredibly selective about (if not cherry-picking) the attributes you want to ascribe.
 
Visbek said:
Erk?

It's evident that some people hate Muslims for being Muslim. It's no different than using the term "anti-semitism." And frankly, you're displaying quite a bit of it today.
Click to expand...

No, because Jews are every bit as modern as Christians - they're not a 3rd world culture. Judaism has had reformist movements, and most Jews in North America are Reform Jews. But there are no Reform Muslims, and there's been no reformation in Islam.

And yes, I'm openly critical of Islam. You don't want to see criticism of particular religions you've adopted a pet fetish for, so you'll cry "bigotry" at the drop of a hat. Meanwhile, if someone here speaks derisively towards a religion you don't care for, then you won't even think twice about it. The Left always promote double standards.
 
dolphinocean said:
Nothing in the Bible where Jesus commanded his followers to do any of the things you mentioned above. Jesus' message is God loves the world to sacrifice His only begotten Son, to forgive 70 times 7, to love one another and to preach the gospel to the world. Nothing violence there. Neither in Jesus's conduct. Those that did violence were and are against the teaching of Christ.
Click to expand...
While I applaud your peaceful reading of the New Testament, it's not the only text in the canon. There's lots of talk about smiting and retribution in the "Old Testament."

Further, history clearly demonstrates Christian nations engaging in extremely violent actions, often against one another, often citing religious beliefs either as motivation or justification.

Consider the Hundred Years' War, which was almost entirely about control of territory by either the English or French sovereigns. And yet, it took mere moments for the combatants to cast it in religious terms, to claim divine authority for their actions, to cite divine favor when they won, and lament that they had angered God when they lost. (I highly recommend you read Helen Castor's excellent book on Joan of Arc to get a feel for the dynamics involved.)


But when muslims fanatically follows the teaching of not only the quran but most importantly the ahadith that espouse and exhort the mass murderous violence committed by mohammed and his companions, they are following the teaching of islam.
Click to expand...
And yet, there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who insist it is a religion of peace.

You'll have to forgive me if I side with them, rather than an outsider who is falling for the extremist trap of driving a wedge between peaceful Muslims and the rest of the world.


The Oath Keepers are against what is "unconstitutional". They are against Judicial activism by the left that rewrite the Constitution to suit their political agenda. What is not mentioned in the Constitution but twisted out of shape by liberal judges are unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
OK Mr Oath Keeper

The reality is that they are not acting constitutionally. They are declaring that they, and they alone, are the arbiters of what is and is not constitutional. It's a thin veneer over the butt-hurt they feel, by not getting their way via the constitutionally sanctioned political processes. A group unilaterally declaring that "X is unconstitutional," and hoping to back up their claims with automatic weapons, is not how the system was designed, or how it works in practice, nor is it patriotic. And yet, our buddy here doesn't seem to worried about a bunch of heavily armed ex-military guys gearing up to oppose the federal government. How... selective.


But here the argument is that fundamental muslims will completely ignore the US Constitution when they have their power and institute the sharia law which runs completely against the Constitution. But they don't care.
Click to expand...
Muslims are less than 1% of the US, and their growth is vastly outpaced by *cough* Hispanic immigrants, who are predominantly Christian. No one is imposing Sharia law in the US any time soon.
 
Visbek said:
World War II was only 60 years ago. Has the essential nature of Christians and Christianity itself changed in that time? No.
Click to expand...

WW2 wasn't a religious holy war. The Germans, Americans, British, and French were pretty much the same religion. The religions of the participants was incidental, and not causal. Although you could argue that the Japanese fanaticism around their Emperor-god was an aggravating factor. When the US defeated Japan, it didn't try to convert everybody there to Christianity. If it had been Islam as the victorious power, then it would be guaranteed that the defeated would be required to convert.



As to more current examples: Lord's Resistance Army, right-wing militias, right-wing paramilitaries all over Latin America up until the 90s, the Eritrea-Ethiopia border war. That's just off the top of my head.
Click to expand...


You could, but there really is no such thing as "third world values." The values of most Yemenites are very different than that of most Bolivians.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and when even most Bolivians would be appalled at Islamic values, then you know there's something objectionable there. My family's from India, and most Indians find Islamic values disagreeable, but they're forced to reluctantly coexist with them.

They also aren't mostly "medieval." There is a small core of Islamists who try to cast their ideas as hewing to the "original" Islam, but it is a huge mistake to conflate the views of a handful of extremists with the vast majority of Muslims.
Click to expand...

You should live in India or Pakistan for awhile, and you'll get a close up view of Islamic values.


While it is true that many Muslim-dominant nations are not on the same level of development as the most "advanced" Western nations, it wasn't that long ago that we saw a sweep of democratic movements across Muslim nations. Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Bahrain, Syria, all had major popular movements towards democracy. Malaysia and Indonesia are fairly well developed in many ways. Lebanon is a very sophisticated nation, and was often regarded as another Paris before conflicts (which its government and citizens did not want or start) trashed it. Morocco is also very different than Saudi Arabia, which is different than northern Nigeria, which is different than Lebanon, which is different than... etc
Click to expand...

Malaysia and Indonesia still have unequal laws towards non-Muslims. They treat ethnic Chinese as inferiors, among others. If you're a non-Muslim, you can't get a state scholarship and things like that. Malaysia's Muslim majority are referred to as "pribhumi" - meaning first-sons-of-the-soil.

People are all over Trump for his recent statements - but Muslims say things like that all the time and never take flak for it.


There are also lots of Christians who want to turn back the clock on a lot of those "advanced" changes, especially in relation to the rights of women, minorities, homosexuals etc.

Anyway. It is slightly ridiculous to paint 1.6 billion Muslims, and two dozen nations on at least two continents, with such a broad brush.
Click to expand...

If 1.6 billion Muslims were more civilized, they'd have the internal motivation to liberalize themselves more, rather than having to be lectured about it from non-Muslims. They just don't care enough to be politically motivated in this direction.
 
Gee, this 5000-word limit is a real pain in the butt. :(

There are Americans, affiliated with Mormonism, who have multiple wives today. In some cases they get arrested for it; in other cases, they've figured out how to work around the laws. Mormons also impose restrictions on various activities, such as consumption of alcohol. On that basis, do we declare that they have rendered federal laws "useless?"

By the way, anecdote ≠ proof
Click to expand...

In this case, it is - people like you just won't accept reality until it's literally shoving itself into your face.

There are (again) 1.6 billion Muslims, but they are certainly NOT a single global entity, with a single leader and hierarchy and theology, akin to the Roman Catholic Church -- 1.25 billion members, central authority, singular leader, often involved in *COUGH* influencing local and global politics, powerful political entity for centuries, even hired its own mercenaries on a regular basis at various points in its history.
Click to expand...

Look at the fact that Muslim countries have formed the OIC (Organization of Islamic Countries) - I don't see any other group of countries formed on the basis of religion. I don't see Buddhist countries having formed an Organization of Buddhist Countries, I don't see an Organization of Christian Countries, etc. The OIC is very activist on behalf Islamic causes. How come during the Balkans war, when Serbia was fighting with Muslim Bosnia, all of a sudden you had a whole pile-on against the Serbs by Muslim countries in particular? Since when did Iran have a border with Serbia? Pakistan always gets lots of help from Muslim countries across the board.

If Muslims worldwide are allowed to gang up on particular countries, then what's wrong with non-Muslim countries banding together against Islam? Turnabout is fairplay - except for Lefties who've adopted a particular ethnic group as their pet favorites - then of course, nothing can be brooked against pet favorite group.



The Oathkeepers are not just "repentant guys." They are a right-wing paramilitary organization, that explicitly states they will resist federal laws on a unilateral basis.

And they are just the tip of that particular iceberg, of violent right-wing groups that want to literally overthrow the US government. Here's one example from last year:
How An Anti-Government Militia Grew on a U.S. Army Base - The New Yorker
Click to expand...

They're not immigrating to other countries, nor doing anything globally. Islam refers to its "ummah" - it's global body of adherents - and for Islamists, the ummah is a big deal.

lol... Tell me who Christians have come in contact with, without conflict.



Please.

Nativists have been using that line for hundreds of years. They used to say it about the Irish, Germans, Poles, Italians, Catholics and others who are now classified as "white," and are often trying to defend "OUR" way of life.
Click to expand...

Which only goes to show you that Christianity is more diverse than Islam, with differences being delineated on different lines other than religion. Show me any Muslim countries which have fought, for anything other than sectarian reasons.
 
sanman said:
No, because Jews are every bit as modern as Christians - they're not a 3rd world culture.
Click to expand...
lol

Take a trip to Williamsburg one of these days, spend a little time with the Hasidim there. Or head up to Kiryas Joel, and try not to get chased out by the police. Or wander through Bnai Brak. I would also recommend you talk to Chabad, except they probably won't talk to you at all if you're not Jewish. (Chabad and the Hasidim, by the way, are the ones who literally want to live like they are in 19th century rural Poland.)

And again, there is no such thing as "3rd world culture." That's an absurd oversimplification of a diverse array of cultures and societies.


Judaism has had reformist movements, and most Jews in North America are Reform Jews. But there are no Reform Muslims, and there's been no reformation in Islam.
Click to expand...
Erk?

There are hundreds of millions of peaceful and modernized Muslims.


And yes, I'm openly critical of Islam. You don't want to see criticism of particular religions you've adopted a pet fetish for, so you'll cry "bigotry" at the drop of a hat. Meanwhile, if someone here speaks derisively towards a religion you don't care for, then you won't even think twice about it. The Left always promote double standards.
Click to expand...
lol... No, I'm arguing against double standards.

I've been VERY clear that I do not regard the myriad violence enacted by Christians as any sort of essential nature to Christians or their religion. That kind of violence is often a function of culture and political conflict, rather than a religious injunction. In most cases, religion is less a motivator than a cultural force co-opted to justify and sanction violence. (Karen Armstrong explains this persuasively in Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence.)
 
truthatallcost said:
HAMTRAMCK, MICH. — Karen Majewski was in such high demand in her vintage shop on a recent Saturday afternoon that a store employee threw up her hands when yet another visitor came in to chat. Everyone wanted to talk to the mayor about the big political news.

Earlier this month, the blue-collar city that has been home to Polish Catholic immigrants and their descendents for more than a century became what demographers think is the first jurisdiction in the nation to elect a majority-Muslim council.

It’s the second tipping for Hamtramck (pronounced Ham-tram-ik), which in 2013 earned the distinction of becoming what appears to be the first majority-Muslim city in the United States following the arrival of thousands of immigrants from Yemen, Bangladesh and Bosnia over a decade...

In the first majority-Muslim U.S. city, residents tense about its future

The Muslim call to prayer rings out on rooftops 5 times a day in this Michigan city. Way to go ALCU, football teams can't pray before games and all public displays of crucifixes must be removed but the call to allah blares out 5 times a day in the USA.
Click to expand...

1280px-Panic_button.webp
 
Risky Thicket said:
It shouldn't bother him. Someone else already trolled this topic two weeks ago.
Click to expand...

WHAT? This is old panic? That'll teach me to run out and buy Depends undergarments every time a right-winger preaches fear.
 
Visbek said:
No, it's arguing against false attributions of essentialism.

There was, and is, nothing inherent in Christianity that requires violent conflict between sects. And yet, if we were assessing Christianity in 1630 by the standards you apply to Islam today, you would be forced to conclude the opposite -- that an essential character of Christianity is sectarian violence.

We are not at some conclusive point in time. History has not frozen, or reached a conclusion. Thus, it does not make sense to proclaim essential attributes of Islam based on current conditions -- especially when you are being incredibly selective about (if not cherry-picking) the attributes you want to ascribe.
Click to expand...

So you're comparing the Islam of today with the Christianity of 1630. Sounds about right that they're about 400 years behind the times. At this rate we only have to wait till 2415 and they'll be done killing people for allah. So progressive.
 
sanman said:
WW2 wasn't a religious holy war. The Germans, Americans, British, and French were pretty much the same religion.
Click to expand...
Uhm, hello? Does the term "Holocaust" mean nothing to you?

Further, my point is not that Christianity routinely impels violence. Rather, it frequently sanctions and justifies it, and violent entities (usually states) try to co-opt religion to their purposes. One obvious result of this is that Christians invoke God in violent conflicts as often as they do in sporting events.

I'd also say that in many cases, what seems to be a holy war is more a sociopolitical conflict, that uses the language of religion to frame the issue or motivate fighters. Consider Iran; on the surface, they are waging a "holy war" against the "Great Satan" of the West. It's much more likely that they are still outraged about Western interference in sovereign affairs, ranging from British colonialism to US support for the coup that put the Shah in power, to supporting the Shah as he cruelly repressed the Iranian people, to the US arming both sides of the Iran-Iraq war, to concern that the US wants to invade Iran -- as one might reasonably conclude, given a) how easily they conquered Iraq b) the flimsy pretenses they invoked to invade Iraq c) the American political establishment actually talking about targeting Iran.

So you tell me, how much of Iran's fiery rhetoric is based on religion, and how much on standard geopolitical maneuvering?


When the US defeated Japan, it didn't try to convert everybody there to Christianity. If it had been Islam as the victorious power, then it would be guaranteed that the defeated would be required to convert.
Click to expand...
Uhm, hello? McFly?

European colonizers routinely used force and suasion to compel conversions during their colonial conquests. Pro-slavery and pro-segregationists routinely invoked Christian concepts and language to justify those practices.

And again, if we were asking questions about the essential nature of Christianity circa 1650 or 1850, if we were using the same standards you are applying to Islam today, you would have no choice but to claim that "slavery and racism and forced conversion are essential characteristics of Christianity."


You should live in India or Pakistan for awhile, and you'll get a close up view of Islamic values.
Click to expand...
No, I will get a close-up view of Pakistani or Indian values. Those aren't the same as the values of someone in northern Nigeria or Indonesia.

To wit: Learning the values of an Italian Catholic priest will not tell me everything there is to know about the values of an Ethiopian Orthodox Christian in Addis Ababa, or a Southern Baptist truck driver in the US, or a recent convert to Christianity in Thailand.

In fact, we might see lots of overlap between those individuals, and Muslims in Malaysia or Indonesia or Michigan. All these individuals will almost certainly oppose murder, theft, assault and adultery; they may or may not tolerate drug use (something not every religion discusses); they will all discuss justice and fairness.

I.e. religion is often a proximate cause, not the real cause, for a culture's collective values. And of course, any individual can disagree with the culture at large, or religious ethics, on various points.


Malaysia and Indonesia still have unequal laws towards non-Muslims. They treat ethnic Chinese as inferiors, among others. If you're a non-Muslim, you can't get a state scholarship and things like that. Malaysia's Muslim majority are referred to as "pribhumi" - meaning first-sons-of-the-soil.
Click to expand...
The United States had unequal laws towards blacks until the mid-1960s. Southern segregationists fought against any attempts to change that situation, and recognize the rights of all Americans. Those racists frequently cited Scripture to back up their views.

So, I guess the US is a whopping ~50 years ahead of Malaysia and Indonesia. W00t! Something to be proud of. :roll:
 
truthatallcost said:
Church bells are also completely traditional in this country. I've never heard anyone say they were offended by a church bell.
But a man yelling in Arabic to get to the mosque at 6 a.m. is something I can see people being offended by.
Click to expand...

Well that's all a matter of opinion doncha think?

Personally I'd rather not hear either. Especially during foot all season.
 
Gardener said:
Looks like it only took 6 posts for somebody to pull out the racist card.

What race is Islam, again? I keep forgetting.
Click to expand...

Where did he say anything about race?
 
Visbek said:
lol

Take a trip to Williamsburg one of these days, spend a little time with the Hasidim there. Or head up to Kiryas Joel, and try not to get chased out by the police. Or wander through Bnai Brak. I would also recommend you talk to Chabad, except they probably won't talk to you at all if you're not Jewish. (Chabad and the Hasidim, by the way, are the ones who literally want to live like they are in 19th century rural Poland.)
Click to expand...

Yes, I've been to Williamsburg, and I've been to boroughs in NYC, and I've known a few Orthodox Jews too.
But 19th Century Poland is a lot more modern than the 7th century.


And again, there is no such thing as "3rd world culture." That's an absurd oversimplification of a diverse array of cultures and societies.
Click to expand...

I'm acutely aware of that - my family is from the 3rd world, any many parts of the 3rd world aren't Islamic.

But the fact remains that there is an "Ummah" - a global Islamic collective which Islam says all Muslims belong to. The fact that they don't all eat the same dishes or listen to the same music is irrelevant. The ability of Muslims to politically consolidate is an intrinsic feature of the religion. I believe that non-Muslim nations should likewise band together to counteract Muslim intimidation.


Erk?

There are hundreds of millions of peaceful and modernized Muslims.
Click to expand...

Who nonetheless engage in bloc-voting and sectarian groupthink.


lol... No, I'm arguing against double standards.

I've been VERY clear that I do not regard the myriad violence enacted by Christians as any sort of essential nature to Christians or their religion. That kind of violence is often a function of culture and political conflict, rather than a religious injunction. In most cases, religion is less a motivator than a cultural force co-opted to justify and sanction violence. (Karen Armstrong explains this persuasively in Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence.)
Click to expand...

As we can see today, Islamic terrorism is a worldwide phenomenon. That in itself is the most salient thing nonMuslims need to know about Islam and the threat it poses to others.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Guy, what religion has killed more people in the Name of God than any other? Hint: it's not Islam. It's mainstream "Christianity".
Click to expand...

Let me guess, George Bush invaded Iraq and claims to be Christian, therefore Bush was starting a holy war, right?
And Hitler was Christian so there's another 6 million. More liberal lies.

Jesus never condoned killing, therefore anyone who killed in his name wasn't really following his teaching.
Mohamed on the other hand said, "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)".
 
sanman said:
Yes, I've been to Williamsburg, and I've been to boroughs in NYC, and I've known a few Orthodox Jews too.
But 19th Century Poland is a lot more modern than the 7th century.
Click to expand...
lol... Not much. 19th Century Poland was agrarian, had very little modern technology, had strict gender roles (which were highly disadvantageous for women). The Hasidim are very strict in their interpretation of Jewish Law. They are far more strict than many Muslim neighborhoods in the US.


But the fact remains that there is an "Ummah" - a global Islamic collective which Islam says all Muslims belong to. The fact that they don't all eat the same dishes or listen to the same music is irrelevant. The ability of Muslims to politically consolidate is an intrinsic feature of the religion. I believe that non-Muslim nations should likewise band together to counteract Muslim intimidation.
Click to expand...
Good grief.

Picard_as_Locutus.jpg


Islam is not the Borg, dude. There are lots of local authorities, and groups of Muslims who do not pay attention to what other groups do. Similar to Judaism, there is no singular universal scriptural or theological authority.

Now, there is a long-standing desire by many Muslims over the centuries for a Caliph, that would take that role. Equally notable is that after the Sunni-Shia split, there never really was one; different regions had different Caliphs; and the proclaimed Caliphs never really had much power. They have always paled in comparison to the Papacy, an entity that had far more secular power than you seem to acknowledge.

And what is this "Muslim intimidation?" The United States and Russia/USSR have been the big bullies on the block since World War II; before then, European nations had a colonial stranglehold on much of the world. Is France worried that Iran will invade them? Is Italy concerned that Libya is going to launch bombers on Milan?


As we can see today, Islamic terrorism is a worldwide phenomenon. That in itself is the most salient thing nonMuslims need to know about Islam and the threat it poses to others.
Click to expand...
That is complete and utter bull****.

There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, the overwhelming majority of which do not support terrorism.

Saying that "the only thing you need to know about Islam is that 0.001% of its adherents are terrorists" is utter nonsense.

By the way: For decades, terrorism was linked to ideology and political efforts. Even in the 70s and 80s, much of the terrorism was connected with standard economic conflicts (e.g. Tupac Amaru, Nicaraguan right-wing death squads etc). It has really only been in the past 10 years that religion has become a major component in terrorism. And even then, I'd say that most of those terrorist organizations have political goals rather than religious ones.

And since I want to see how deep you can dig your hole: What, exactly, do you propose that non-Muslim nations should do to the Muslim nations, once they've banded together?
 
truthatallcost said:
Let me guess, George Bush invaded Iraq and claims to be Christian, therefore Bush was starting a holy war, right?
And Hitler was Christian so there's another 6 million. More liberal lies.

Jesus never condoned killing, therefore anyone who killed in his name wasn't really following his teaching.
Mohamed on the other hand said, "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)".
Click to expand...

Inquisitions. All of them. All the crusades. These are just the larger organized events. Then there is the more numerous smaller regional events that would be seen as terrorism in a modern sense. Like All the witch hunts and Klan hangings.

As far as Bush.... Well he did call his fight on terrorism a "crusade". Not really a holy war. Just a stupid guy saying something stupid.
 
Last edited:
poweRob said:
Inquisitions. All of them. All the crusades. These are just the larger organized events. Then there is the more numerous smaller regional events that would be seen as terrorism in a modern sense. Like All the witch hunts and Klan hangings.

As far as Bush.... Well he did call his fight on terrorism a "crusade". Not really a holy war. Just a stupid guy saying something stupid.
Click to expand...

I guess Jesus supports war for oil profits then? If you believe Iraq was over anything other than oil then you are missing the truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom