Robertson: "Islam is not a religion. It is a worldwide political movement meant on domination"
On the June 12 edition of the Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club, following a report on Muslims in Minneapolis seeking religious accommodations at school and work, host Pat Robertson stated, "Ladies and gentlemen, we have to recognize that Islam is not a religion. It is a worldwide political movement meant on domination of the world. And it is meant to subjugate all people under Islamic law." He characterized the American Muslim community as "Islam light" and went on to say Muslims "want to take over and we want to impose Sharia on you. And before long, ladies are going to be dressed in burqas and whatever garments they would put on them, and next thing you know, men are going to be allowed to have wife-beating and you'll be beheading adulterers and so on and so forth."
As Media Matters for America noted, during the September 25 edition of The 700 Club, following a report on a summit between Pope Benedict XVI and Muslim envoys to address tensions over controversial remarks the pope made about Islam, Robertson stated: "It's amazing how the Muslims deal with history and the truth with violence. They don't understand what reasoned dialogue is." Media Matters has documented other attacks by Robertson on Muslims.
From the June 12 edition of the Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club:
ROBERTSON: The question would be, ladies and gentlemen, if a million Christians want to go to Saudi Arabia and say, "We want to pray," you can't pray in Saudi Arabia. You can't have religious literature in Saudi Arabia. You can't get together in Bible study groups in Saudi Arabia. As far as having special places for foot-washing and all that, no way. You will abide by Sharia law because they're in control.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have to recognize that Islam is not a religion. It is a worldwide political movement meant on domination of the world. And it is meant to subjugate all people under Islamic law. In the Quran, it says it very clearly. There are two spheres. One is the Dar al-Harb, which is the realm of war. The other is Dar al-Islam, which is that part that's under submission to Islam. There is no middle ground. You're either at war or you're under submission. Now, that's the way they think.
Now, sure, over here, you've got Islam light and you've got all these various things, but the idea is we don't want just accommodation, we want to take over and we want to impose Sharia on you. And before long, ladies are going to be dressed in burqas and whatever garments they would put on them, and next thing you know, men are going to be allowed to have wife-beating and you'll be beheading adulterers and so on and so forth. That's Saudi Arabia. We don't want that here in America. If they don't like it here in America, then let them go to Saudi Arabia, to Kuwait, to Yemen, to all those wonderful nations around the Middle East.
Why would a million Christians want to go to Saudi Arabia to pray?
And what's up with the foot washing?
LOL, those sound like all the things Pat Robertson would like to do here in America.
I think he's getting his own Christo-fascism confused with someone else's Islamo-fascism. The overwhelming feeling I get every time Patsy opens his mouth is that it's all the same thing.
I think you're right. Robertson is apparently projecting here.
LOL, those sound like all the things Pat Robertson would like to do here in America.
Yes, I also think Robertson would like to see Americans have that choice. Islam doesn't give you the choice. You either convert or you are killed. Christianity says you either convert or you will go to hell when you die. One says 'as judgement for not converting you must be put to death', the other says 'when you die there is a judgement'. Seems to be a slight difference (insignificant difference to some who favor Islam over Christianity).
Unless your gay.
That very correct! Islam hates gays even more than they hate the infidel. Be very careful when you're in a room full of Muslims.
So one group wants to take away your life and the other wants to takeaway your freedom. That makes both of them the enemy.
Explain how the one "takes away your freedom". Then, when you can't do that, explain how they are the enemy.
A blatant example would be sodomy laws, which conservatives bitterly objected to being overturned.
Idaho's maximum penalty is life in prison. The law cannot currently be enforced because the Supreme Court did its job to protect the equal right of consenting adult homosexuals to sex in their own bedroom. Nonetheless, the laws are still on the books in 21 states and upon reversal of Lawrence V. Texas (a possibility with fundamentalist approved Justices), the laws would be fully enforceable again.
There are many more examples of fundamentalists using their power to try and take away other people's rights in our history. We can talk about anti-miscegination laws as well, etc.
Hmmm, immorality freedoms. Didn't we have this discussion concerning atheists changing their idea of moarality recently?
I don't know what you are talking about. Do you think homosexuals don't have the right to do what they want in the bedroom like heterosexuals do?
They can do what ever they want. It still won't make it moral.
You do understand that there is a difference between what is moral and what is legal don't you? Should everything that is immoral be illegal?
I think you demonstrate my point. Because YOU believe what someone else does is immoral based purely on your religious interpretation, they should go to prison or be otherwise punished for it.
This is exactly how fundamentalists take away people's freedom.
Thank you.
I think you demonstrate my point. Because YOU believe what someone else does is immoral based purely on your religious interpretation, they should go to prison or be otherwise punished for it.
That is only part true. Because of what I believe, when they do whatever it is they do there will be a punishment (judgement, if you will) if they don't repent, but I have no interest in sending all gays to jail.
Legal and moral are well seperated, doing one does not mean you do the other and visa versa. For example: you are deciding what (and why) I support, and telling everyone your version of MY beliefs as if I said them. Is that moral? Is it legal?
"For example: you are deciding what (and why) I support, and telling everyone your version of MY beliefs as if I said them. Is that moral? Is it legal?" --autopsych
Where was I misrepresenting your views? Do you or do you not believe in sodomy laws?
open-mind: Because YOU believe what someone else does is immoral based purely on your religious interpretation, they should go to prison or be otherwise punished for it.
You state my position right HERE. You do not know what my position is or how I derive my position on that topic, but you have no problem telling others what my position is, huh?
"You do not know what my position is or how I derive my position on that topic"
Judging from what you post, neither do you.
Are you now contending that homosexuals cannot be Christians?!?!?
These jerks are in fact anti-christ in thier treatment of gays. Jesus loves everyone.
Any other message other then love comes from the evil one and is anti-christ.
God is love. Peace all.
Would you care to explain to me why having oral sex with my husband is immoral, and any business of the government?
When you can't, perhaps you could elaborate instead on why it's justified that consenting adults ought to spend their life in jail for participating in the above referenced activity.
what about turkey ? christians and muslims live side by side the muslims are not killing them all before united states invaded iraq there were christiansd and a jewish population in fact tariq azziz was christian and muslims wernt wiping them out there orthodox chirstians in iran not being wiped out so all you have to go on is crazy pat robertsons word and like a true wingnut all facts go out the window
Okay here's the difference. Islam teaches that one should love everyone, but kill the infidel. But the definition of who is the infidel is not the same as the Christian "disbeliever". An infidel is an "evil one". Muslims worldwide observe the practice of striking down evil in the world. And how do they determine who is evil? By behavior. The United States, in their words, is evil BECAUSE of the actions the US has taken. No, it's not because we are Christians (smart Muslims know that we are not a "Christian country" - it appears that only Christians see the US as a "Christian country"). It is because they have hundreds of incidences (and they can be cited) in which the US has taken ACTIONS that they see as evil.
So obviously there is a difference in moderate Islam (which is far more prevalent to extremists - otherwise all us non-Muslims would have been doomed long ago) and moderate Christianity. Muslims define evil by what men DO, while Christians define evil by what men BELIEVE.
By far the greatest number of Muslims (even extreme ones) couldn't care less what Americans BELIEVE. It's what we DO that they object to.
Christianity is the only major (dominant) world religion which judges people based on their beliefs. Muslims would be happy to share the world with believers of other faiths, provided that they don't engage in evil. Once they do, they become Satan incarnate and must then be defeated and destroyed.
Excellent perspective. Thanks for sharing. I won't forget. It makes a lot of things make more sense now. Good work.
Brianswine;
Have you ever heard of dhimmitude? Muslims would be happy to share the world with believers of other faiths, provided that they don't engage in evil.
Robert Spencer, author of the The Myth of Islamic Tolerance defines dhimmitude as :
Dhimmitude is the status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, “protected” or “guilty” people, are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they "feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, are part of the legal superstructure that global jihadists are laboring through violence to restore everywhere in the Islamic world, and wish ultimately to impose on the entire human race.Radical Islamists want you to convert, accept a humiliating position in society, or die.
If you compare that to the freedom of religion this country affords (because we believe in things like freedom and other Christian values) you should see the folly of your statement.
In Pakistan, churches are bombed on a regular basis. In Turkey recently, three Christians were martyred for their faith by young Islamists. The Christians weren't doing anything evil - except not being Muslims.
And in New York and DC, thousands of people were doing nothing wrong, except working in America. The beef these people have are not against Christians, per se (although they do have a problem with Christians coming to Muslim territories to evangelize – like you said, they don’t agree with freedom of religion). They believe they are fighting against evil – Satan, who is evidenced ONLY by deed – not belief.
Many Christians in America seem to have a problem understanding this. This misunderstanding may stem from the paranoia theory that explains how we tend to fear most from others what we do to them. This is why a person who steals is often paranoid about the possibility that others want to steal from him. Christians fear evangelism from other religions because they know in their minds how strongly they advocate their own religion: “Muslims must want us all to be Muslims, just like them.”
Also, my friend, I remind you that freedom of religion became a value of the founders of the U.S. specifically in order to be free from the tyranny of Christian sects. At that time, there was no fear of a Muslim Crusade into the U.S. For sure, freedom of religion does NOT originate in Christian values.
And today, there is no Muslim Crusade to convert Christians. They have stated emphatically that they wish to be left alone. The fact that they subjugate their own people they way they do is beside the point. As you know, Christians have a version of the same thing - regarding prohibitions on civilized behaviors.
Recapping: terrorists hijacked planes and with those planes staged a suicidal attack on American citizens and buildings. This was not done to convert Americans to Islam. They did it to kill us, because they see it as their duty to Allah to destroy evil in the world. They did this in their belief that we ARE Satan. How could they know this? Only by our actions.
I am torn about this latest call for action against Pat Robertson. On the one hand, what he said/says about Islam is, of course, false, outrageous, slanderous and meant to be provocative. But on the other hand, demanding an apology for what he (I believe) sincerely believes and is stupid enough to say in public is simply giving him the chance to have his proverbial cake and eat it too. He gets his inflamatory remarks broadcast worldwide, and then gets to hide behind an insincere retraction that, once more, takes him off the hook.Why should we give him this opportunity, time and again, to wipe the egg off his face, rather than just condemning him and his remarks for what they are and letting him take the full effect and consequences for them. I would rather have his hateful opinions out in the open, for all to see and hear him for what he is and what he believes, rather than allow him to hide behind an apology that he so clearly has demonstrated he doesn't really mean. Instead of demanding an apology, let's stand up against him, call him to account, and promote our own message of tolerance, diversity, and understanding.
I wonder where (and how often) this little gem of Pat's dogma appears in the course material at his and other bible-thumper U's (or as I like to call them: madrassas with crosses)?
"madrassas with crosses"
heh heh. Dead-on.
Well, we could all live as atheist's and not have any moral rules to follow. But at least when someone is killed there wouldn't be that silly thing called justice involved!
Auto,
Are you saying there are no morals without religion?
Yes, no set morals. What's bad today may not be bad tomorrow. What's good today may not be good tomorrow. Are you saying atheist's command a specific moral vision?
Are you saying atheist's command a specific moral vision?
It is hard to generalize about such things as atheists don't adhere to any basic tenet. It is merely defined as not believing in God.
That said, almost every atheist I know I consider to be very moral. They rely strongly on logic and reason to form arguments instead of pointing to an old book and saying "if it's in there, I believe it", which I find to be one of the oddest beliefs in my own religion.
They rely strongly on logic and reason to form arguments
Right, so they don't base their morals on "givens", they change them as needed to fit their desires?
Some may do that. I haven't seen it. The problem with your argument is that basing arguments on reason and logic is actually more consistent than basing arguments on religion, which has some pretty glaring inconsistencies and ideas that are irrational.
Some may do that. I haven't seen it.
Duhhh! I haven't seen any NOT do that. Are you being truthful?
I seriously doubt you know any atheists by your remarks.
ditto, my freind
Practicing for your daily Limbaugh injection I see.
You have clearly hid away in your church and avoided exposing yourself to typical atheistic thought for far too long, which will probably make my appearance here rather unsettling to you. Atheism does not by definition say anything at all regarding to morality, though most atheists subscribe to some form of secular humanism, which is a decidedly ethical philosophy based on reason and compassion instead of arbitrary holy law, but I'm sure some do not. I concede, happily, that atheists as a whole can not be guaranteed to have any sort of "set morals". But this is not a problem. Open up your bible. The (very conditional) prohibitions against killing and thieving and whatever else have you are there, sure. Which opens up the question, Is the only reason you don't go around raping and killing that you fear post-death punishment from doing so? This says much more about you than you can discern about atheists. But amidst such decrees, the bible also condones atrocity, pillaging, rape, the killing of rebelious children, the subjugation of women, and lays out specific laws regarding human sacrifice, genital mutilation, and a score of other oddities, often contradicting itself. It is thus by no means the immaculate, pristine collection of well-set and established, sensible morality that you'd like to make it out to be. It's downright useless and comparable to the atheist's less certain moral conviction in such a case, rendered, above all else, null and void as any sort of system for defining moral codes.
Secular humanistic ethics, however, as commonly goes hand in hand with atheism (but doesn't have to), you'll find, are entirely sensible, and, contrary to what you'd like to assume, are not subject to being altered at the whim of one's changing desire, as you implied. The bible, at best, is entirely superfluous and unnecessary in setting moral guides, and is, at worst, downright contradictory and despicable as any sort of moral guidebook.
You, I assume (and hope) do not agree with the scattered verses of the bible that oddly condone atrocity and other ills. You gloss over them, cherrypicking the good verses from the bad.
Doesn't this imply that you are choosing your morality from a criteria that transcends the bible? A criteria of which we all must be prone to?
Yes. It does. Atheism is simply the cutting away of a superfluous, confusing, occasionally blood-soaked veil. And when that veil is cut, a much more clearheaded and honest discourse on ethics can be achieved.
I think you'll find many teachings of Jesus in that "old book". And I don't think He said "today it is immoral, but tomorrow it may be moral. So, go do what you want and judgement will be decided later...according to what the morals-of-the-day are". But, you can interpret His teachings any way you want.
Auto,
You make some interesting points and it seems you are (correct me if I am wrong) a supporter of the current administration. If so,
How do you reconcile the War in Iraq as a Christian? Since it was clearly a case of pre-emption, do you believe that as a Christian you can support it? If so, how does that fit into Jesus's call for us to turn the other cheek? How do you support any war?
What are your thoughts on electing the man who administered the Death Penalty more than any governor in U.S. history?
You seem to support Robertson's message (again, correct me if I am wrong) and seem, at least in my opinion, very judgemental of those you deem to be "liberal." How does that mesh with the passage: "judge not yest ye be judged?" Further, what do you think of Robertson's relationship with Liberia's Taylor?
This are questions asked with utmost sincerity since I believe you and I have similar morals from the same source and disagree vehemently.
Since it was clearly a case of pre-emption, do you believe that as a Christian you can support it?
Well, I (as a Christian) can support it because it is a just war against an enemy who attacked us. 9/11 ring a bell? Would you prefer we had let them attack us and not do anything?
I know, I know...you're going to complain that we went into Iraq under false pretenses. Did we not remove a regime that was murdering their own people? How is that false pretenses?
Did iraq attack America? You are living in La-La land.
There are plenty of murderous regimes around the world. The human rights issue played second fiddle to the WMD argument. That was used to SCARE people into supporting the war. There are several million iraqi refugees and over 600,000 have DIED since the invasion. The invasion failed MISERABLY in that respect as well.
And I am an atheist, so I know that you know nothing about us. Atheists are not uniform in thinking at all. A key component of atheism is not adhering to any strict dogma. I have never broken a law in my life, so I am moral.
Religion is not the only objective basis for morality you see. I prefer logic and reason to guide my behavior, not some arcane text that was used to justify millions of deaths throughout history.
Auto,
Bush has even said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Come on, you can do better than that. As for overthrowing a regime that was killing its own people, why is our presence in Iraq so much greater than in other countries.
I am puzzled by your rationale there. Also, what do you think of turn the other cheek and the other points I made in the previous post?
"Well, I (as a Christian) can support it because it is a just war against an enemy who attacked us. 9/11 ring a bell? Would you prefer we had let them attack us and not do anything?"--autopsych
Wow! Utterly clueless. Prove that Iraq attacked us on 9-11.
Well, considering I said "against an enemy who attacked us". The enemy we are fighting now is al queda. We are not fighting against the Iraqi military. We are fighting terrorists who belong to the al queda organization.
WHO attacked us? Was it al queda?
Was the leadership of Iraq a part of Al Qaeda or did it have any discernable connection to 9/11?
Hold up. The administration never thought this war would last this long. You can't possibly believe they conceived they would ever be fighting al qaida anywhere near the degree that eventually happened. Typical post-hoc fallacy.
Also, not all of the people we are now fighting are al qaida. I have no idea even what the percentage is.
The administration never thought this war would last this long.
You're right, they did not. Does that change the meaning of my statement?
Also, not all of the people we are now fighting are al qaida. I have no idea even what the percentage is.
NO, you do not know the percentage, do you? So, you are just guessing that not all are al queda (assuming). Is that critical related to my statement?
"NO, you do not know the percentage, do you? So, you are just guessing that not all are al queda (assuming). Is that critical related to my statement?" --autopshych
There is evidence that the role of Al Qaida in Iraq is greatly exaggerated or possibly even fabricated by use of military propaganda. It seems they have found a willing consumer in you.
We attacked Iraq. The administration now denies Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Therefore it is disingenuous of you to argue we started the war to attack al qaeda.
I did not say we started the war in Iraq to get al queda. Why do you insist on putting words out that I do not say? I say we are fighting al queda in Iraq. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
AGAIN! Are we fighting al queda in Iraq or are we fighting the Iraqi army?
Here was your original statement:
"Well, I (as a Christian) can support [the invasion of Iraq] because it is a just war against an enemy who attacked us. 9/11 ring a bell? Would you prefer we had let them attack us and not do anything?"
You are being disingenuous as I said before. You can try to spin it now any way you want. It doesn't explain your previous statement sufficiently. You seem to be clueless.
There is evidence that the role of Al Qaida in Iraq is greatly exaggerated or possibly even fabricated by use of military propaganda.
Your link did not work. Provide better evidence than a link to mmfa, please. As many liberals on this site do not trust sites that are far right, I don't think using a far left site to support a far left idea is appropriate.
Here is the link again:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/09/AR2006040900890.html
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/09/AR2006040900890.html
Hopefully one or two of those works. If you consider the Washington Post to have the same standards as a "newsmax" or a "worldnutdaily" then I can't help you. It is a good enough source for most people.
Well, I (as a Christian) can support it because it is a just war against an enemy who attacked us. 9/11 ring a bell?
No, Quasimodo rings a bell. Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Using your logic, Franklin Roosevelt would have bombed Switzerland following the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Would you prefer we had let them attack us and not do anything?
You mean as George Bush and Condoleezza Rice did following the rather blunt warning, "Osama bin Laden Determined to Strike Within the US?"
I know, I know...you're going to complain that we went into Iraq under false pretenses.
You don't, know, you don't know. It isn't a "complaint," it's a serious violation of international law and a war crime.
Did we not remove a regime that was murdering their own people?
Do you know what the US response was to Saddam Hussein immediately after he gassed the Kurds? I'm betting you don't. The US sold him more poison gas and more helicopters to deploy that gas. Donald Rumsfeld went to Iraq to shake Hussein's hand and congratulate him on a job well done.
How is that false pretenses?
Your entire post is nothing but false pretenses. That's why your conclusions based upon those false pretenses are completely wrong as well.
How was Jesus wrong about "blessed are the peacemakers"? Why do you think he favors warmongers like yourself?
I don't have a problem with the 4 Gospels at all. In fact, I find them largely consistent and in line with my own views. I do find that much of the rest of the Bible either conflicts with itself or with what Jesus said on many levels.
Like I said to krenith, if that's your belief in the Christian Bible, I am not the one to teach you. Perhaps you should visit www.ttb.org and listen to the teachings of Bible teacher J. Vernon McGee. You'll find the answers to all your concerns there.
So, who is that guy on the website? Are you disputing that Jesus came as the Prince of Peace?
I asked you or are you just that guy's lapdog?
I am nobody's lapdog. I'm a mechanic, not a Bilbical theology expert. Go to the experts if you want Biblical answers. Or are you too good for that?
You have been dispensing answers as if you were an expert on not only theology, but education law and now you ask us to go to an expert?
For Biblical interpretation, I suggest you google Jim Wallis.
I think I'll trust a known Biblical scholar over a leftist activist without any credentials on Biblical interpretation.
I think the apparent difference is that some of us can think for ourselves.
Then I will trust my qualifications on every issue in this thread because I believe I have far more education in every subject discussed here than you do. Fair?
For the record, Mr. Wallis is a reverend as well. Sorry if that doesn't measure up. Are you going to continue to ignore most of my questions? I have answered all of yours.
Are you going to continue to ignore most of my questions? I have answered all of yours.
I'll ignore the irrelevent one's, you've skipped over a couple of mine.
Are you now contending that homosexuals cannot be Christians ----- no
how does that fit into Jesus's call for us to turn the other cheek? ---- there is no conflict.
How do you support any war? ---- I decide if it's moral or not.
What are your thoughts on electing the man who administered the Death Penalty more than any governor in U.S. history? ---- I find nothing wrong with punishing the guilty to fit the crime.
who is that guy on the website? --- Dr. J. Vernon McGee. He has a Bible study show airing daily for the past 40 years.
Are you disputing that Jesus came as the Prince of Peace? ---- No
now you ask us to go to an expert? ---- Yes
Fair? ----- Yes
Are you going to continue to ignore most of my questions? I have answered all of yours.
I'll ignore the irrelevent one's, you've skipped over a couple of mine.
Are you now contending that homosexuals cannot be Christians ----- no (then how can you claim they are immoral?)
how does that fit into Jesus's call for us to turn the other cheek? ---- there is no conflict (Yes, there is, Jesus told us to turn the other cheek and you tell us to attack, there is a huge conflict).
How do you support any war? ---- I decide if it's moral or not. (Please tell me where Jesus advocates war)
What are your thoughts on electing the man who administered the Death Penalty more than any governor in U.S. history? ---- I find nothing wrong with punishing the guilty to fit the crime. (Jesus tells us not to kill, if we are a state that advocates for the death penalty, are we not breaking that commandment?)
who is that guy on the website? --- Dr. J. Vernon McGee. He has a Bible study show airing daily for the past 40 years. (He has also been dead for 15, why is he more of an authority than Wallis, because he has been on the air longer? Or is it because he fits your morality?)
Are you disputing that Jesus came as the Prince of Peace? ---- No (then why the condescending response to Open Mind about being blessed peacekeepers)
now you ask us to go to an expert? ---- Yes (why can't you expound on what you believe, do you agree with everything the man said?)
Fair? ----- Yes (So, I guess if its fair to stereotype Muslims, the people of Iraq have every right to think that Christians are starting a holy war if that is what they perceive Bush to be starting, correct? They could also believe that Bush is as radical as any of them, right?)
(He has also been dead for 15, why is he more of an authority than Wallis, because he has been on the air longer? Or is it because he fits your morality?) and (why can't you expoiund on what you believe, do you agree with everything the man said?)
I beleive everything he says because he has interpretted the Bible correctly every time I've needed it interpretted. I have never seen him incorrect, yet. BTW, he's been dead for 15 years and his show keeps getting more popular. The reason for that (IMHO) is because he is a blessed man and God is favoring his teachings. Listen to one (any) of his shows and make your own opinion. Every Sunday he airs "Sunday Sermon". Those are live recordings of previous sermons he made while at his Church in Los Angeles. Those are the best. The T.T.B. series is a teaching tool, not a sermon.
(Jesus tells us not to kill, if we are a state that advocates for the death penalty, are we not breaking that commandment?)
Ok, let's stop right here. If you are going to mis-represent the Bible I cannot have a fair discussion with you. The devil did the same tactic during the 'temptations of Christ'. I'm sure you don't want to be compared to the devil.
"I beleive everything he says because he has interpretted the Bible correctly every time I've needed it interpretted."--autopsych
Interpretations aren't "correct" because they are opinions. It would be more accurate to say you "agree" with his interpretations.
If you are indeed serious, it would seem to demonstrate another flaw in the way you "reason".
I think what he meant was the guy's interpretations fit his world view.
He just compared me to the devil too, I am done.
He has to think you are the devil. That allows him the justification in his mind to shut his eyes and cover his ears regarding what you say.
It is necessary for extremists like autopsych to demonize his opponent to remain in their current state of denial.
I think you just compared me to the devil. I had no idea you would go that low. I just said the Bible told us not to kill, how is that misrepresenting the Bible?
I just said the Bible told us not to kill, how is that misrepresenting the Bible?
You do not know what the Bible says, do you? If you honestly made that mistake, I apologize. For future reference, the Bible says we are not to "murder". Figure the difference out on your own.
Do you know what the devil did during the temptations of Christ? He said the Bible said something that It did not. I did not compare you to the devil, I said the devil did the same tactic as what you just did.
I am not sure I made the mistake, but I was just going through the commandments and, my interpretation was that "Thou shalt not kill" meant what it said. I get your distinction, but since only God knows absolutely everything that happens on earth that is why I am against the death penalty because of the potential for murder.
Any misrepresentation was accidental. I am a lifelong Christian and my morals, like yours, come from my, and the teachings I have had from the Bible. When the Bible says "Thou shalt not kill" and commands us to "love our enemies" and to "turn the other cheek" I do not see the distinction between killing and murder, nor do I see humans with the moral capacity to make those decisions.
I struggle with any war, but I do realize the need for it in extreme circumstances. To me, Iraq was not an extreme circumstance that justified war.
As far as the death penalty goes, since it has been administered incorrectly in the past and there are racial biases in its administration (i.e. Blacks who kill Whites get the death penalty more than any other murder demographic by far, Blacks who kill Blacks receive it the least), it is fundamentally broken and there are too many opportunities for the system to murder an innocent man.
In the future, if you think I am misinterpreting the Bible, simply point it out. I was very deeply offended when you compared my behavior to Satan.
I appreciate your apology and this discussion.
So you don't have your own opinion? Rather than defend the indefensible, you just pass me off to some guy who can fight your battle for you.
I don't think your position is reconcileable with Jesus' teachings and I think it is sad that you would rather wimp out than share your thoughts.
Get off your soap box. You made the statement, now you defend it!
Don't get your panties in a wad. It is a fair question, I just wonder what took you so long to ask it if that is really your concern. I expanded below to a basic inconsistency between the OT and the NT.
I do find that much of the rest of the Bible either conflicts with itself or with what Jesus said on many levels.
You made the statement, now prove what you say. Don't cry to me to disprove something YOU say is true.
Strawman. I never asked you to disprove my assertion and you don't have to. I simply called you out on your odd non-replies. You could have asked me to expand my point 4 posts ago if you really had a question about it and I would have been more than happy to oblige.
It is a (belated, but) fair request so here is one of the main inconsistencies. Of course, if you find my argument unconvincing (sorry, but the limited space only allows me to discuss one issue at a time adequately). There are scores more here (of varying quality IMO).
From the OT:
Exodus 21:23-25 (King James Version)
23And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Leviticus 24:20 (King James Version)
20Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.
Deuteronomy 19:21 (King James Version)
21And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From the NT:
Matthew 5:38-44 (King James Version)
38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Luke 6:27-29 (King James Version)
27But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,
28Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
29And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also.
Matthew 5:9 (King James Version)
9Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
Although Jesus also claimed in Matthew 5:17 he wasn't here to "destroy the law, but to fulfil it". He clearly takes some pretty big departures from the OT way of thinking in the above quoted scriptures.
Fundamentalists today would likely argue that Jesus' liberal attitude was "pure appeasement" or "emboldening the enemy".
If you think that is wrong, ask yourself do you love your enemies? Do you respect peacemakers like Jimmy Carter? Do you believe in abusing terrorist suspects?
The very concept that atheists or agnostics would necessarily be an less moral than religious people is ignorance and bigotry nothing more
You are the expert on ignorance and bigotry, so how did what I say make that claim? I didn't say they were any less moral, I said their moral 'yardstick' changes constantly. Sure they have morals, you just don't know what they are from day to day.
I said their moral 'yardstick' changes constantly.
Prove it.
Okay, was homosexuality considered moral 100 years ago Is it considered moral now?
And a societal shift in tolerance has WHAT to do with individual morality? Miscegenation was thought of HOW 50 years ago and is thought of HOW now and WHAT in the world does that have to do with any single persons moral compass?
And a societal shift in tolerance has WHAT to do with individual morality?
Hmmm, tough question. It has everything to do with it. That is exactly what I'm talking about. People (society) change their tolerance of morality. What do you think "societal" is?
All Christians have changed their ideas of morality over time. There seems to be a verse in the Bible for nearly every occasion. I fail to see how that is somehow superior to the atheist's approach.
What about this country that treated African-Americans as less than human for our first 188 years?
The South, which has probably the highest rate of church-going Christians, led the racism. Has the "yardstick" changed?
I agree. And slavery is an excellent example of Biblical inconsistency. Baptists in the South were arguing to uphold slavery by quoting the exact same Bible that Quakers in the north were quoting to abolish slavery.
Not according to the teaching of Christ. Show me how the teachings of Christ have changed over the years.
Auto,
We are just saying that people interpreted the teachings of Christ to justify racism in this country. Are you disputing that?
By distorting the teachings of Christ, those people were doing the same things (distorting their religions primary teachings for personal goals) as the Christians have in this country.
I'm not disputing that. However, the difference is that the koran is not being interpreted incorrectly. It specifically says what to do. There is no other interpretation. The radicals are just following it closer than the moderates. You'll notice the moderates also approve of various versions of the dress-code while the radicals follow the specificly expressed dress-code found in the koran. That is NOT misinterpretation. Do you dispute that?
So, you are more confident in your knowledge of the Koran than the Bible?
I know enough to know that your conclusion is necessarily false.
You say you are the smarter one. Who am I to say you are wrong? Obviously, everyone should just listen to you and believe everything you say, simply because you say it. Is that correct?
No, but the way you are arguing you are dismissing any other point of view.
Show me where Christ ever spoke directly about homosexuality.
Christ never spoke on homosexuality? Are you a Christian? Do you believe Christ is God? Answer that and I'll show you what you ask.
I am not going to get into a debate about whether Jesus is God, the Son of God, trinitarianism vs. unitarianism. I think you are pretty shabily trying to derail the conversation.
Did Jesus utter anything specifically about homosexuals? Anything at all?
Did Jesus utter anything specifically about homosexuals?
Yes. 1 Kings 14:24 Romans 1:24-32 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Matthew 7:13-23
Answer this: can a practicing homosexual be doing the will of The Father? "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven" Jesus says that in the Matthew reference. Also; "depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!". Jesus said that also.
Well, I know you don't respect me since you just compared me to the devil, but what is your stance on the Episcopal church allowing gays to be bishops.
I am sorry you feel I am like the devil. I forgive you.
Did Jesus utter anything specifically about homosexuals?--Original question from Open_mind
Yes. 1 Kings 14:24--autopsych
Nope. Kings isn't even in the New Testament. How did Jesus say such a thing nine-hundred to a thousand years before he was even born?
Romans 1:24-32--autopsych
Nope. "Often referred to simply as Romans, it is one of the seven currently undisputed letters of Paul." It seems you have committed the common conservative mistake of confusing Jesus with Paul.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10--autopsych
Nope. "1 Corinthians is a letter from Paul of Tarsus and Sosthenes to the Christians of Corinth, Greece." Another one from Paul. Are you under the impression it is called "Paulianity" and not "Christianity".
and Matthew 7:13-23--autopsych
Nope. Look at my question again. Where does "Jesus utter anything specifically about homosexuals"?
Answer this: can a practicing homosexual be doing the will of The Father?--autopsych
Jesus never talked about that so anything said would be speculation IMO.
"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven" Jesus says that in the Matthew reference.--autopsych
Again. Where is the specific reference to homosexuality as I originally asked?
Also; "depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!". Jesus said that also.--autopsych
What Bible verse and translation are you referring to? Not that it answers my original question either.
See? You refused to answer the question of; is Jesus God. YOU refused to accept that the Bible is inspired by God and that God essentially wrote it through man's hand.
You are the closed-minded one who refuse to accept proof when laid at your feet. I gave you the proof and your moral relativity has decided that the proof provided is not enough. You did say you are Christian, didn't you?
No. It appears you could not answer the question and tried to weasel out of it by attributing to Jesus what was written by others.
So, your Christian Bible is not the "Word of God"? And, you do not believe Jesus is God? If there's a yes to either of those then I understand your position on this matter and no further discusion is required.
So, your Christian Bible is not the "Word of God"?--autopsych
I think the Bible is largely a historical account that was written by men (I leave it to anyone to judge for themselves if it is divinely inspired or not - I am not sure one way or the other). The OT records various ideas of the Jewish faith that are often observably good principles to live by.
In regards to the NT, I only really regard the four Gospels as relevant. They record many of the important actions and words of Jesus. Much of the rest of the NT appears to be the personal beliefs of Paul and other irrelevancies not dealing so much with what Jesus said and did. What is important about the Bible to me is Christ. I suppose that is why the religion is named after Him.
And, you do not believe Jesus is God?--autopsych
I believe Jesus is the Son of God as the Bible states:
John 14:28 (King James Version)
28Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
If there's a yes to either of those then I understand your position on this matter and no further discusion is required.--autopsych
I don't know why we need to agree in order to continue. Why do you insist on that?
Because it sets the basic premise of whether Jesus wrote that homosexuality is immoral or not. And since Jesus is God, then what God says, then Jesus says also. If we don't agree with that, then how can we continue this discusion on whether Jesus says homosexuality is immoral?
If Jesus is God, then how can Jesus say "for my Father is greater than I"?
I'm at work and don't have my Bible in front of me, but didn't Jesus also say (paraphrasing) "if you have seen Me, you also have seen the Father"?
Now you seem to be picking and choosing what to believe and what not to believe from the Bible.
I believe you are correct, but it is another example of an inconsistency in the Bible.
Which verse is the right one? Who is to say?
Examples of a trinitarial God are used throughout the Bible. If God can create the universe, who am I to say He can't be a trinity....Father/Son/Holy Spirit? I don't think that is an inconsistancy in the Bible just another completion to an answer.
When I used that way of speaking (Jesus being God) talking about not killing, you told me I had misrepresented the Bible.
Because God said not to "murder". Do you understand the difference??
Yes, I do. Murder is the taking of an innocent life which happens daily in War. That is why I am not for pre-emptive war.
I can sure show you how people's interpretations of the teachings of Christ have changed over the years just like you can point out how radical Muslims can distort Islam.
Are you seriously contending that Bin Ladin and his ilk speak for Islam?
Are you seriously contending that Bin Ladin and his ilk speak for Islam?
Can you show where bin laden is incorrectly interpretting the koran?
You seem to operate under a false premise. What makes you think there is only one correct interpretation of a holy book in general? Assuming you believe that, how do you absolutely ascertain who is right?
Challenge accepted! So, you will be providing the alternate interpretation of the koran where it says to kill the infidel? Time to step up to the plate! So far you've just been waiting in the on-deck circle, jawing at the other players who are in action.
I'll be looking forward to that one.
I am running out of time and this will be my last post on this thread.
I really don't know much about the Koran. Some of my Muslim friends have discussed it with me and I will ask their thoughts on that.
I could point to many instances in the Bible (if I had more time I could point them out), of Jews and then Christians slaughtering people under the direction of God. Does that make a true believer in Christianity a believer of such things?
Here is a link to some of the atrocities in the Bible. Some of the links point to situations where God is directing the atrocity and wholesale destruction upon Israel's enemies.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.html
Coming from the most consistantly ignorant poster on this site I will take that with all the seriousness it deserves that is a loud guffaw. Perhaps you think those two statements are not contradictory. I dont see it that way. It is also a completely baseless assertion without a shred of validity. Basing your moral code on what YOU feel is right and wrong would not in ANY way preclude a strong moral and unchanging moral compass. Its pure bigotry. Its plain for anyone to see.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have to recognize that Islam is not a religion. It is a worldwide political movement meant on domination of the world. And it is meant to subjugate all people under Islamic law
And this differs from Robertson's version of Christianity...how?
This is just Robertson's way of saying
"Waaaaah! They're winning! I can't stand it, because my religion should be the dominant one! We have to count (ugh) Catholics as part of us to just get close to second place! Waaaaah!"
And this differs from Robertson's version of Christianity...how?
You aren't paying attention, are you? It differs in the one minor aspect of death! Islam will kill you, Christianity will let you die naturally. Both because of "judgement" for not converting. I tried to speak slowly, I hope you understand the difference now.
Islam will NOT kill you, more bigotry. Nutbag extremists who are Islamic will kill you that isnt the same thing. I know Islamic people and some of them are among the most God loving, kindest, most generous people I know. I guess when you just have an excess of hate you need an outlet for it but that statement was incredibly ignorant and bigoted
You haven't read the koran, have you? It explicitely says that the infidel must be put to death for his non-acceptance of Islam. Never does the Bible say you will be put to death for non-compliance. It will say you will be judged when you die, but not that the believers of that religion will kill you because you don't believe.
I have read about half of it. I have one right here less than three feet away from me. There is some dispute about what the word translated as infidel means and there are plenty of verses in the bible that can be take out of context to portray IT as violent and seem intolerant. Overall I have read verses that say the people of the book by which is meant Christians and Jews should be treated with respect that they can be as honest as a Muslim and should be judged individually and that if a person of the book is a good person and believes in judgement he has nothing to fear from Allah on judgement day I have read those verses MYSELF the last one was cryptic so I called up the head of the Islamic cultural institute in Phoenix and that was what he said was the accepted intepretation of that verse. He also told me that no one can call himself a Muslim that denies the old testament prophets and so your constant refrain that Islam hates Christianity just doesnt jibe with what my experience with it and smacks of pure bigotry
AUTOPSYCHIC,
Maybe not, but I'm sure you probably know the evangelical line of thought that indicates that if youdon't accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior then you are doomed to eternel damnation in hell. I find it hard to reconcile that line of thinking with anything other than acceptance or death.
I find it hard to reconcile that line of thinking with anything other than acceptance or death.
Let me go through this again. Does Jesus or Christianity say you will be killed for not believing in Jesus? Let me help you...NO. He says after you die there will be judgement and if you don't want to end up in hell then you have certain things to do before you reach that point. NEVER does the Bible say you must be put to death because you do not believe in the saving grace of Jesus Christ.
I challenge you to post a verse that does not agree with that statement.
Man, you are so right! Just this morning as I was walking out of my house, an Islam came flying by and almost took my head off! Luckily, I ducked at the last second.
Seriously, I try to refrain from personal attacks, but I can't hold back. You are a sad, pathetic, ignorant human being who hides behind assumed religious superiority to justify your ignorance, xenophobia, and bigotry. Your comments about atheism and Islam are rediculously offensive. I feel sorry that you are so close-minded towards people who don't share your narrow world-view. Sadder still is the fact that millions of people share your mentality and act on it with discriminatory and hateful deeds. It is people like you who perpetuate religious conflict.
That rant of mine was directed at autopsychic, not solon
I got that. Thanks for clarifying though
Your comments about atheism and Islam are rediculously offensive.
So? Get over it. I certainly don't plan on having my mind "opened" by any Muslim. And they are the experts at "opening" minds. Just because I have a respectful fear of the reality of Islam doesn't mean I'm going to stop because you tell me to. You may very well be a practicing member and therefor I would expect that type of reaction.
Quick question: What's your opinion on the "offensive" treatment gays get in the religion of Islam?? Are you even offended?
How very typical that you would assume I am muslim because I find your close-mindedness offensive and ignorant. I feel sorry for you that you are so filled with hate and bigotry. Not very Christian if you ask me. But I am not Christian (or Muslim, to your apparent consternation), so I may feel differently this afternoon once my morals make their daily shift.
That's good, jawill. Where did I say YOU were muslim? In my sentece about any muslim?
"That's good, jawill. Where did I say YOU were muslim? In my sentece about any muslim?" ~Autopsychic
Er, how about where you said, "You may very well be a practicing member and therefor I would expect that type of reaction."? I can hear it now, "But I never said he WAS a practicing member, only that he MIGHT be. Distinction!".
As for the bible never directing someone to kill:
1. Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Exodus 22:18.
2. Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death. Exodus 22:19
3. He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed. Exodus 22:20
Sounds like a fun time was had back then, eh? I don't agree with bestiality (I feel bad for the poor sheep), but to kill someone for it? How. . .loving.
-Krenith
If that's your belief of the Christian Bible, I'm not the one to "teach" it to you.
Now you are just copping out. Why are you unwilling to address the points other than your insipid comment?
You want an answer for why you do not understand the Bible?
Ok, here you go: 1 Corinthians 1:18-19 "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." "
I notice you still didn't answer.
Auto,
To me, this rant does not seem Christian.
You have a fear based on your delusional fantasies and intense bigotry. Good luck with that.
"So? Get over it." --autopsych
I think this should henceforth be referred to as the Universal Conservative Position.
Are you saying the 'universal liberal position' is convert or die? It sure seems that way considering the way liberals support every belief within Islam (except the one concerning gays...which BTW everyone seems to be ignoring my question about that).
"Are you saying the 'universal liberal position' is convert or die?" --autopsych
That's easy. Nope.
No he is saying you seem proud of your ignorance and bigotry and your answer made it apparant you are.
"It sure seems that way considering the way liberals support every belief within Islam (except the one concerning gays...which BTW everyone seems to be ignoring my question about that)." --autopsych
How do you mean that? I support everyone's right to an opinion. Even yours. Islamists can have their own opinions and I can disagree about them. You are mistaken if you actually believe that support for a Muslim's right to an opinion is the same as genuine "support" for their "every belief" as your strawman argument asserts.
To be fair without strawmen, false dichotomies and outright hallucinatory delusions he wouldnt be left with much to post.
Kind of like you...without name-calling (illegally according to mmfa standards) you would have nothing to post, either.
Two questions:
Do you know any Muslims? Are all Muslims exactly the same to you?
Yes, I know a few. One lives in Lebanon right now, he used to not like me because of my ideals, but we went golfing and talked it out. We are freinds now. I have not changed my stance and he has not changed his. He is a strict Sunni (but not radical) and I'm a fairly conservative Christian, yet we are freinds.
How many do I need to know before it is considered an acceptable amount?
Have you told him the thoughts you have espoused here? I am not looking for a specific amount, just wondering how you communicate with them.
How in heaven's name did you survive the conversation? After all, he is strictly instructed to KILL you, per your own insistences here, so if he's really a Muslim, you must have barely escaped with your life.
Christianity will let you die naturally.
Unless you happen to be standing too close to a Women's Health Clinic when one of those "Christians" decides that a bomb is what Jesus wants you to use on any fellow human beings whose beliefs are different than yours.
This is more of the "us vs. them" mentality. This is not how a Christian should act. Robertson needs to get his face away from the camera and into scripture.
It is strange that Pat is just now realizing that the Muslim Religion is a political movement, just as are the Southern Baptist, the Church of Christ, the United Pentecostal, and every other religion with the exception of the Hindu and the Church of Satan.
They band together to tell a woman she has no domain over her own body, the homosexuals they are not equal in their pursuits of happiness and the ten commandments belong in every courthouse in America and have elected their officials to make it so. "W" won twice due to their politics in the pulpit
The only story here is that Pat has not come out to say this war on terrorism is just another Religious Crusade into the Middle East that have been happening for 1600 years. I wish our next President would remove their tax exempt status and require them to list themselves as the lobbyist they really are.
Oh yes Pat, and ask native americans of both the north and the south of the continent how they perceived your religion. And ask european protestant how they perceived your religion during the... "war of religions", and the extermination of the Cathares, to cite only one the eliminated heretics . And ask the spanish and italian jews how they perceived your religion during the inquisition. And ask the local inhabitants of the Holy Land how they perceived your religion during the bloodshed of the Crusades.
Then tell me how tyrans who use a twisted vision of Islam to push their political agenda are different of the tyrans who use a twisted vision of Christianity to push their political agenda... like yourself.
Muslims in Minneapolis seeking religious accommodations at school and work
I haven't heard anything about this in the MSM. Wonder why? If it's true...then doesn't that rightfully re-open the door to prayer in school? Or are Christians the only ones that will face religious *discrimination*?? Just how far do we go to accommodate Muslims in the US?
"Islam is not a religion. It is a worldwide political movement meant on domination"
Not quite. Islam is a worldwide religion bent on domination.
I find it very telling that most of the posts thus far seem to consist of attacks against Christianity instead of addressing Islam, and whether or not some Robertson's remarks have any merit [I believe they do] and I rarely agree with much this man utters.
But carry on.
Seems to me, in the six posts prior to yours, that folks were attacking the hypocricy of Robertson's implied message that right wing Christianity is devoid of political agendas.
We both know that attacking Robertson in no way resembles an atack on Christianity. Robertson is a fraud.
RE "then doesn't that rightfully re-open the door to prayer in school? "
No. It's opening the door to accommodation, just like chrstians and jews are accommodated. I don' think they're asking for thier faith to be TAUGHT in schools.
How exactly are Christians and Jews being accommodated in public schools? How is allowing Christians or Jews to pray in public schools a form of teaching religion?
So Muslims should be accommodated by letting them pray and wash their feet or whatever it is they do, but Christians praying privately is verboten. Nice liberal logic there.
Okay, I am a teacher. Could we, just this one time, get this point straight, please? No child in the United States is prohibited from praying in a public school. If a student would like to say a prayer before a test, say grace before he or she eats lunch, or say a quick prayer as an individual before beginning his or her day, they have that right.
On the other hand, people who work for the school at the taxpayers' expense are prohibited from leading students in prayer or directing them to pray. See the difference?
Precisely.
I remember when prayer was allowed in school - they stopped it whe I was in Fourth Grade. The Protestant kids made us Catholic kids think we were doing something wrong because we stopped saying the Lord's Prayer after "...and deliver us from evil." They made the Jewish kids feel there was something wrong with them because they were Jewish. There were no Muslims in my town back then, but I'm sure the Protestant mobs would have made THEM feel uncomoprtable, too.
As I see it, the biggest problem with teacher-led prayer in school was that it emphasized the differences between followers of different religions. And led to quite a few playground fights...
Think of it this way. The religious-right demands the right to have led prayers, but let a Muslim teacher try to lead a Muslim prayer and who do you think is going to be screaming the loudest?
Okay, I am a teacher. Could we, just this one time, get this point straight, please? No child in the United States is prohibited from praying in a public school. If a student would like to say a prayer before a test,
On this site there is a guy who claims to be a scientist, yet can't scientificaly back up any of his statements. Now, you claim to be a teacher. Is that public or private school? If you are allowing your students to pray in the classroom (before a test) you are breaking the law according to the liberal's beloved 'seperation of Church and state' interpretation.
Beware that your principal will be notified and your job is now in jeopardy. Feel free to thank the liberal mentality for your unemployment.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ps_pra9.htm
No that person is NOT breaking the law nor are they breaking the law in the way ANY liberal I know interpretst it. Unlike you conservatives most of us liberals actually know what we are talking about. YOU on the other hand seem to come here exclusively to show everyone how seldom you have any idea what you are talking about this is the first two sentences in your own citation
Many people honestly believe that prayer is not allowed in the public schools. This is wrong.
Liberals cannot be held responsible for the over reactions and mistakes made by some overzealous or not too bright administrators or teachers. Flat out no one is stopping anyone from praying anywhere they want anytime they want in or out of school. LEADING prayers organized by the schools is prohibited not prayer itself its actually quite simple
Flat out no one is stopping anyone from praying anywhere they want anytime they want in or out of school.
Again, you fail to do any research.
" What the constitution allows: Again, this is in a state of flux. As of early 1999, the following activities are permitted. "
" Prayer outside of school building: Students can organize prayers on school property outside the classroom. e.g. they can conduct group prayer meetings at the school flagpole. "
" School religious speech: Students can cary Bible or other religious texts to and in school. They can pray before eating. A student can pray on the school bus, in the cafeteria, in classrooms before and after class, in the corridors, in the washrooms, etc. They can wear T-shirts with religious text. "
This can be found at the web site I provided earlier. You may notice that prayer is not allowed during class "in the classroom". But, somehow I think you'll pass over that part and complain of my reading comprehension.
YOu are confused between organized, vocal prayer and silent, personal prayer. If a kid has his head lowered for a few seconds during class, do you really think that the teacher will run over, slap him in the head and yell "I know you were praying, go to the office!". Try thinking things through before you get so worked up.
Auto,
The only prohibition is school-sanctioned prayer. What a child chooses to do or not do is fine. The problem becomes when the school, or a school employee, leads the children in prayer. Children are welcome to pray whenever they are moved.
No I dont notice that. Silent individual prayer is nowhere mentioned as being prohibited at ANY time ANYwhere. Nowhere in your article did it say it was. Now DURING classtime it is obvious why any VOCAL prayer or any VOCAL activity not related to the class material would be disallowed but it nowhere says students cannot pray in the classroom whenever they want. Nothing you cited says any such thing. It points out that OUTSIDE the classroom organized prayers can take place and ORGANIZED prayers by anyone do not belong in the classroom due to the coercive nature of peer pressure and group dynamics of the majority. I dont get why you keep thinking you have made your case. You havent besides who says this website is the last say in the matter. It seems like them giving THIER opinion and interpretations. Cough up some specific LEGAL prohibitions against silent, individual praying in the classroom or you are just whistling Dixie
It points out that OUTSIDE the classroom organized prayers can take place and ORGANIZED prayers by anyone do not belong in the classroom
We agree, then, that prayer is not allowed in the classroom. Thank you for admitting I'm right.
Don't play little games. A child can pray anytime during school in any place as long as the child isn't disrupting class or taking away from instruction time. What is unreasonable about that?
Then read the fricken LAW and quit whining to me because I tell you about it!! Hate the message not the messanger. Do I have to do everything for you?? Are you so much a liberal that you expect everyone else to do your work for you?? Get off your duff and find it on your own.
Talk about playing children's games...you take the cake!! You whine about this, you whine about that. When backed into a corner you whine about not wanting to commit to an answer!
You are avoiding answering the question.
Hate the message not the messanger.
What do we do in your case, that of the messenger who has no clue what the message says and couldn't understand it even if he were able to read it?
"but Christians praying privately is verboten."
Taz, you wouldn't make something like that up, would you? Surely you can relate to us where, in the United States, Christians are not allowed to pray privately.
Get back to us when you find an example.
well, he's had at least an hour to come up with an example...guess he was just pulling all that hate from his Cheney again.
It only took me 5 minutes of looking. Prayer is allowed in many places at public schools. However, it is not allowed to take place inside the classroom ( http://www.religioustolerance.org/ps_pra9.htm ). I guess you didn't take the full alloted hour to think before you wrote?
Doesnt back up your claim except this sentence which is a mistake
The one place where prayer is not normally permitted is in the classroom itself when a class is in session.
I think they meant to qualify that as organized or mandatory, or teacher led prayer. Which is how it is put in the rest of the article. Students can pray whenever and wherever they want including in the classroom ANYWHERE, if they TRY to stop them the ACLU will be all over them and they rarely lose in court.
They SAID what they meant. Facts are facts. Your denial of them doesn't change it.
Please explain your background in education law. You seem to be confused.
Geee, tell me what your psychic powers see that they "meant" to say. Tell me what part of what they "did" say is not what they meant and tell me what they "meant"...oh seer of unknown truths!
Reconfigure their entire statement so it fits your beliefs and relay that to everyone else in the world before they read that web site and mistake what IS said for what is MEANT to be said! Better do it quick, the site is only a few years old. (apparently plenty of time to correct any "mistakes" in statements)
As someone who is a practicing attorney, I can tell you that your statements about a child praying to himself in class are absolutely 100% wrong.
They said what they said but what did it MEAN? Organized prayer? Vocal prayer? It is ambiguous also this is a website exactly what is THEIR expertise on the issue? This settles nothing. Show me a LEGAL prohibition or you are just WISHING what you said was true. So far you have backed up nothing you have claimed.
Can you please quote to the "Fact" in question? I don't see anything that supports your contention from your link.
Prayer is allowed in many places at public schools. However, it is not allowed to take place inside the classroom
Yes, it is, on a private basis. Instructor-led or school-sanctioned prayer is not allowed inside the classroom. This has been explained to you several times, yet you are unable to comprehend.
In fact, instructor-led prayer is allowed inside the school building if it is done outside of school hours. Extra-curricular Bible study classes, with prayer, have been allowed in many school districts throughout the country. So your argument that prayer isn't allowed inside the school is so much rubbish yet again, as is almost everything you post that you can't understand.
So Muslims should be accommodated by letting them pray and wash their feet or whatever it is they do, but Christians praying privately is verboten. Nice liberal logic there.
That isn't the argument. You are making things up. No one is keeping children from praying privately. Nice conservative strawman there. Big surprise.
That isn't the argument. You are making things up. No one is keeping children from praying privately.
Yes, that IS the arguement, taz is not making it up and yes, they are. http://www.religioustolerance.org/ps_pra9.htm
Students are NOT allowed to pray inside the classroom. Taz did not just make that up. Anti-Christian government entities are keeping children from praying.
Also, the plans to build the footwashers are an admitted act to appease the Muslim community in a Minnesota public school. Which is in direct violation of the liberal's beloved "seperation of Church and state" interpretation. http://www.startribune.com/kersten/story/1115081.html
Liberal strawmen abound, while conservatives are using the logic in this one. Big surprise
Baloney. I dont care WHAT that group says or is actually trying to say. Students can absolutly pray whenever and wherever they want its flat ludicrous to claim otherwise and if handled correctly I dont see this would be a violation of church/state rules.
"Many people honestly believe that prayer is not allowed in the public schools. This is wrong. Unfortunately, this mistaken notion sometimes extends to teachers, principals and school boards." --from your first link
Lol. Your link actually backs up my point. Prayer is allowed. Some people have a "mistaken notion" about it that is likely because they listen to misinformed conservative strawmen arguments like Taz's and believe it to be true.
Sure it's allowed...as long as nobody hears you. What kind of freedom is that?
What makes you think it is okay to interupt instructional time for everyone elses kids? I think the main idea is not to be disruptive.
I don't think you are even trying to pretend anymore that you want to argue reasonably. That is just weak.
Bwah?! You're saying that in the middle of a lecture on Art History, any member of any religion should have the "freedom" to interrupt everyone else's learning by calling out the Lord's Prayer?
Children - ANY children, ANY students - do not have the "freedom" to interrupt a lecture. Period. I don't care if you're reading out loud from Tale of Two Cities or singing Mack the Knife - outbursts are slapped down, and Christians are not the special exceptions on this.
Your second link has some merit. I think the non-muslim students should just be more tolerant of people washing their feet in the sinks. Why would anyone object to that?
Of course, if the school is aware that people are going to use those sinks to wash their feet, and the school isn't doing anything to make the practice safer (providing a lower sink, non-slip surfaces), I wonder if the school can afford the lawsuits that will inevitably happen as a result of some muslim slipping, falling and breaking something.
I don't buy this business about how "they" want to take over the world. I mean, I am sure one could find some megalomaniacs who are Muslim, but you could pretty much fill in any adjective there, couldn't you?
As far as I can tell, for the most part "they" just want to be left the hell alone.
Exactly...
Organizations like al Qaeda have made it very clear in numerous propoganda messages that they want the U.S. out of the Middle East and to stop supporting Israel.
I have never heard any terrorist warning of a full-scale invasion to impose Sharia on America.
Bin Laden said the U.S. must get out of all muslim countries, not just the middle east.
Al-Zawahari said Americans must convert or die.
Virtually every week a prominent muslim says the U.S. must convert to Islam. I don't know why you lefties continue to close your eyes and mind to what the Islam agenda is.
Leather,
Surely you don't think those two are mainstream Muslims do you?
Name a prominent muslim who is actually not a radical who espouses such thoughts.
Muslims have sects but some beliefs transcend sects. The basic goal of Islam is domination of the person and the society by installation of sharia law. The religion is the government. Qutubism, wahabbism are not small insignificant sects. wahabbism is practically the whole country of Saudi Arabia.
Britain and Denmark are facing the problem of allowing immigration of large amounts of Muslims and then because of multiculturalism allowing sharia law to creep into their society and adjusting their schools and laws to incorporate muslim law. In Britain there has been a run of honor killings where girls who are raped are killed because they dishonor the family. This is just one small example of thousands of examples of the culture trying to impose its warped law into a free country.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0707/p06s02-woeu.html
We need to be extremely careful in accomodating anything outside the way we normally treat a religion. It wasn't too long ago we had madrasass schools operating in Virginia. Islam (Sharia law) is a plague that once it gets into society it is near impossible to remove. Britain is in a whole hell of alot of trouble.
Your lips appear to be stained by the red kool-aid you have been drinking.
It's odd that you didn't address any of Leather's points.
Are you suggesting that Britain, France, the Netherlands, and others aren't facing a problem with Muslim immigration?
This is pretty easy to research if you choose to.
because his point is that being under the Amerian Taliban would be no better and he and you are to consumed by your hatred to grasp that?
I wasn't aware that I hated anyone...
I wasn't aware that I hated anyone...
THose who hate seldom are.
You dug deep for that one.
You never answered my question directly about whether it was ok to stereotype Christians as all being like Robertson/Dobson. You seem to feel bin Ladin and other radicals speak for Islam. Do the "radicals" in Christianity speak for the rest of us?
Would you be offended if foreigners thought all Christians were like Pat Robertson and James Dobson?
Have Pat and James blown anyone up recently or advocated such?
When the anti-christian cartoons come out, do Christians run out and burn things, kill people, march in the streets?
You can pretend that fundamentalist Christians are as bad as their fanatical Islamic counterparts...all evidence to the contrary of course.
well, yes, they have expressed sympathy for clinics and doctors who have been murdered and assaulted by 'christians'. And wasn't it Pat asking for some 'good christian' to assassinate Chavez not to long ago? Gosh, guess you have not got a clue of what you speak.
These are your examples to compare to the likes of 9/11? The Bali bombings? The Madrid train bombings? The slaughter in the Sudan? The slaughter in the Balkans? etc. and on and on and on.
Maybe you were being sarcastic.
As for assinating Chavez...that was bizarre. I don't see how you compare it to crazy Islamic preachings.
Do you know what these Imams say?
No, I do not think they know. And, I think they do not care to know. If they knew then they would be required to prevent the spread of Islam in the government aspect of society, just as they try to prevent the spread of Christianity. But, since supporting Islam could achieve the same purpose that the liberal ideal wishes to achieve (removal of Christianity) they will remain blind to facts and only see myth. Comparing the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent men/women/children to the murder of a few (men only, no children no women)
So you just always talk in the delusional fantasies defined by propaganda parrot repititive talking points dont you?
I am guessing you told that to the victims of radical Christians, correct?
I don't KNOW any victims of radical Christians.
Abortion clinic doctors, the Holocaust victims, etc.
When was the last time an abortion clininc was bombed or a Dr. was killed and how many total would you say we're talking about?
See how absurd that comparison now becomes?
The holocaust was perpetrated by radical Christians? In the name of Christianty too, i'll bet. I haven't heard this one.
You cannot find a modern day counterpart to Islam and the violence it spreads.
Hitler's views are in dispute, many paint him as a Christian, some do not. Sorry if that was offensive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_religious_beliefs
Since you asked about Radical Christians, here is a sample of the violent acts against abortion clinics:
One source reported in late 1996, that there has been "over $13 million in damage caused by violent anti-abortion groups since 1982 in over 150 arson attacks, bombings, and shootings
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm
At the bottom of the article are a list of sites advocating violence against abortion clinics.
According to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidences of trespassing, 1264 incidences of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs")
There was an attempt in Austin, Texas in May:
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2719258620070428
There was an attempted arson last month in Virginia Beach VA. The bombing at the Olympic Village in 1996 was done by a radical right bomber, Eric Rudolph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-related_violence
LOLO,
If your brother or mother or friend was a victim of a bomb at one of these places, would you feel differently?
You asked if they had "advocated as such," and the answer is Yes. Please don't ask the question if you're not comfortable with the answer.
Devout Christians have murdered abortion doctors and blown up innocent people. How is that any different?
Fundamentalists in general are the enemy. We shouldn't be arguing that our fundamentalists are better than theirs. They are both a threat to democracy because they want to instill self-serving legislation and do not believe in individual inviolable freedoms.
"Our" fundamentalists aren't a threat. I'm not the least bit concerned about my Christian neighbors plotting to blow up Chicago.
Devout Christians have murdered abortion doctors and blown up innocent people. How is that any different?
Let me be more specific as to how it's different.
The size, scope, social and economic impact, and objectives of the radicals.
Other than those things, it's a good comparison.
No, they're plotting to blow up Tehran.
Is there a reason to blow up Tehran? We plotted to blow up Hiroshima and Nagasaki...and then we blew them up. But I'm pretty sure there was a reason.
Could there be a reason, any reason, to bomb Iran? (I don't think anyone's plotting to blow up Tehran itself).
There are reasons to blow up Iran being floated around by Cheney and his followers, and by media pundits, but I don't think they are any more legitimate than the reasons the terrorists have for blowing up American cities (which, for the record, are not legitimate in any way).
I'd say that any means necessary must be used to prevent Iran from going nuclear. We may disagree on this point but I don't think we can debate it.
I think you either aren't willing to let them get nukes or you are. I'm in the "not" crowd.
Our" fundamentalists aren't a threat. I'm not the least bit concerned about my Christian neighbors plotting to blow up Chicago. --lolo
I am not worried about just Chicago. Our fundamentalists are a threat to the basic democratic principles that have defined our country.
They are both threats, but from different directions.
A BIG threat! One way everyone dies the other way everyone gets to vote. Gosh, I'm scared of that happening too. I sure would prefer death over voting. My God those democratic fundamentals are being threatened again...GET MY GUN!
Nice little strawman. I think I take freedom a little more seriously than it appears you do.
i don't see any threat to my freedoms or yours Open_mind...at least not from any Christian group. It's a non-issue. You've got nothing to worry about their my friend.
What do you need with your gun? If you are sure in your beliefs, death shouldn't scare you.
I don't own a gun. I do have a knife though, but my wife's kitchen knives are bigger. I certainly know how to fight, so if you want to try to take me down you go right ahead and try.
I am not challenging you to a fight, I don't do that. I just responded to your post when you said "GET MY GUN,"
My bad.
But what about the corner "Planned Parenthood" just down the street...on the other side of town?
LOLO,
I never said that Dobson or Robertson advocated blowing anything up. I just asked that since Leather was conflating the religious views of two men considered to be extreme with all of Islam, would it be fair to do the same with Christianity?
OK, but I guess we disagree how much "conflating" was done.
Fair enough, I just think its terribly unfair to characterize Islam as Robertson does.
Maybe I didn't make myself clear earlier. Do you believe that most Muslims feel the way that the fundamentalists do?
If so, would someone be out of line, in your opinion, to say that all Christians cheat charities (check out Pat's diamond mines), call for executions, support dictatorships (his support or Liberia's Taylor), make hilarious false claims (he can leg press 2200 pounds), support war, are hypocrites about wealth and believe that our country has stuck a finger in God's eye?
Or if we want to go with other fundies, do they represent all Christians like the examples you describe for Islam?
Although it is true that moderate muslims may not be pushing for world domination in the same way the radicals are; we need to move past that fact and look at what is actually happening. Moderate muslims are doing nothing to stop this "severe minority" within their religion. Need examples of world domination being carried out by muslims? Lets look at some places where muslims are at war with other groups:
Afganistan, where muslims want a pure islamic society. The EU, where muslims want the EU out of Iraq and decimation of western society. India, where they are fighting over religious sites. Indoesia, where they want to drive out christians. Iraq, where they want us out and government control. Isreal, where they want to exterminate Jews and take the land. Kashmir, where they want the land to fall under Pakistan's control. Kurdistan, where they want to drive out christians. Sudan, where they want complete control and are committing genocide. Maldives, Nigeria, Pakistan, Palestine, Phillipines, and Russia, the list goes on...
Are you seeing a pattern of domination and desire to control everything by the practitionners of the "religion of peace," Islam? America is their biggest target, and they are currently taking advantage of the climate of political correctness here, and our freedom of speech and freedom of religion laws.
Afghanistan, Iraq, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Kashmir, Pakistan, Kurdistan, Sudan, Maldives, Nigeria, Pakistan, Palestine, Philippines, and Russia........ I don't know if you realize this, but these are all sovereign countries with heads of state. Why should Americans want to police these countries for their religious preferences? Religion, unlike sexual orientation is a choice. When are the Religious Righteous going to realize this?
Palestine is a sovereign country?
Are we interfering with the other country's you listed? A few of those countries have some serious problems, don't they? And it serems to me that the ones with problems have MUSLIM problems.
Iraq. Pakistan. Sudan. Phillipines. Palestine. It's not coincidence.
And it's our business because it's a national security issue. If radical groups dominate the middle East (or any region or country)and acquire nuclear weapons...fill in your own scenario there.
If they control the Mid East's oil supply economic chaos would ensue. Neither scenario is in the world's best interests or our best interests.
Hoe DARE they live on top of OUR OIL!
Is it that simplistic to you?
For the most part those are oversimplifications. Lets put for instance Palestine in its proper perspective it has been ISRAEL that has occupied the land ceded to the indigenous Arab people for forty years so that is certainly more complicated than the Muslims want to exterminate the Jews, Russia and Chechnya is a decades long civil war the Sudan is a north/South resources battle where the Muslim GOVERNMENT is the aggressor but its not a simple Muslim Christian fight. I see a pattern alright but it is a political one not a religious one. The fact you are picking out the hotspots in the that area of the world is inidicitive of the problem with seeing everything through a black/white lens. Are we blaming the decades long instability and slaughter still taking place in Columbia and Guatemala on Christianity? Did we blame South African aparthied or the instability it caused on Christianity? Did we blame the Jewish terrorists groups that wanted a homeland in the 40's or the IRA terrorists on Judaism or Catholocism? Earlier you talked about fundamentalists blowing themselves up look into Papes study on every terrorist bombing done since the 80's and the study shows first the the group with more suicide bombings in history is NOT an Islamic group but a secular quasi marxist group called the Tamil Tigers he said the study shows there is very little religious motivation and it is rather a POLITICAL strategy. We didnt blame Jewish terrorism on Judaism or IRA terrorism on Catholicism because we didnt have the bigotry pushing us to. NOW we blame the Islamic terrorism not on its political motivations of each area but on Islam. Iraq is a ludicrous example WE INVADED THEIR COUNTRY they want us gone there isnt a BIT of religious dogma involved
"Iraq is a ludicrous example WE INVADED THEIR COUNTRY they want us gone there isnt a BIT of religious dogma involved"
-Perhaps you need to look into the persecution of christians in bahgdad then. They are being killed, for to pay the jizya tax, or forced to leave. That is deeply rooted in Islamic religious doctrine, and has nothing to do with US forces...It's simply another example of Islamo-fascism.
**forced to pay the jizya tax.
...but at least we got rid of Saddam...Right?
A decent point. However since Iraq was pretty secular before our invasion and since the struggle is mostly about who is going to fill the power vacuum created BY the invasion while some nutbags might take advantage of the chaos created BY the invasion to act out on their insanity we dont really know how much is the former and how much is the latter but certainly a lot more political manuevering than anything else. So using it as an example of ISLAMIC violent tendencies still doesnt wash. Clearly the lions share of violence there has to do with OUR invasion. Baghdad was one of the safest large cities in the world until the first Gulf war. I mean how much does the murder rate in Washington DC have to say about Christianity? No I dont see a compelling argument that I was wrong.
There is no such thing as "Islamo-Fascism."
John,
You have just related one of the scariest scenarios I have ever read. Correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying that our freedoms here in America make us less safe? If that is your premise than am I to assume that you support the taking away of civil liberties for safety? I am sorry but I truly can't stand folks who support the supposition of "if you got nothing to hide you shouldn't have a problem with the taking away of civil liberties". If that is not what you are saying then I apologize but I would ask for clarification regarding your view on our civil liberties.
No, thats not what a meant at all, and the fact that you pulled that assumption is a pretty stereotypical left wing assumption. I pointed out FACT about current events happening around the world, and how muslims are involved in them. Involved at the level of seeking power, control, and domination in these places of conflict.
I then made a comment regarding how the PC attitude in America, mixed with our freedoms (which we all cherish and never want to see taken away) give Islamists who want to push their agenda an opening to do so under the guise of freedom, making them completely "innocent" and often times "victimized" (See the flying imams case in Minneapolis). As has been stated before here, just look at the results of the same PC attitude in Britain and other European countries.
So, I'm not advocating taking any of our rights away, we are most certainly going to need those rights as citizens to battle back against . I'm just pointing out that we need to be aware of how Islamic domination and rule is currently beginning to insert itself into western culture.
I think you are misrepresenting this as a PC problem. It is a fundamental flaw of liberal democracy. Everyone has the same rights -- even those that, if they were ever put in charge, would try to take away the seemingly inviolable rights of others.
I'm not sure where you are going with that point. I understand your concept, but i'm not sure if it was in defense of the Islamists in America taking advantage of our freedoms in order to push their twisted radical religious laws and lifestyle on America.
Consider my post written as a big fan of liberal democracy, but someone who also understands how its own principles may very well lead to its own destruction.
The fundamentalist mindset rejects the idea that all rights are equal as the fundamentalist wants to serve its own ideology on others who don't share it. If such people used our system to gain power, they could undermine our system as a long history of fundamentalists have already tried and mostly failed - thankfully.
Therefore, we should make sure to reaffirm basic democratic ideas in immigrants and citizens such as the idea that everyone's rights are both equal and inviolable.
I agree. Assimilation is a key factor in keeping the American homeland safe.
I think a key component of assimilation is to welcome these people with open arms and open hearts. One of the main things that aids the growth of radical Islam in non-Muslim majority countries is a feeling of societal alienation.
We need to work hard to make Muslims feel that they have a stake in our future and why democratic principles and rights are important for everyone.
Interaction between different faiths and people of no-faith is crucial.
"And they are currently taking advantage of the climate of political correctness here, and our freedom of speech and religion laws."
you are clearly indicating that our basic freedoms and rights are detrimental to our safety. My question to you was since that is your belief then logically how could not advocate for restricitons on such freedoms. I merely asked you to clarify that and clearly stated to you that if that was not your meaning then I apologize. Of course you had to insert your petty accusation of my "stereotypical left wing assumptions". What is typical here is that you based your rebuttal on YOUR ASSUMPTION that I am a stereotypical left winger. I'll look past that infantile insinuation and move logically to the next step. How then do we use our freedoms (that you say are being used against us) to combat radical Islam? I think you indicated that we need to use these freedoms to our advantage.
Yes, we do need to use these freedoms to our advantage, and I do support some ideas that are already in play out there. There is a group called the "Mapping Sharia in America Project." This is a group of people, who thanks to freedom of religion, are posing as individuals interested in converting to Islam. They are going into mosques (particularly ones considered to be radical) and recording what is said and taught. They also get to know the Imams and who they are linked up with. Groups like this will take the information they gain, and report it in the media (well, at least media outlets that care about America enough to not worry about offending the muslim community). This second part of the operation is thanks to freedom of speech. I think this is a great example of how we can use our freedoms to counter radical Islam in America.
Fair enough JOHN. Thanks for the civilized answer. It is rather limited, but an answer nonethless. Anyway, you won't find much resistance from me on eliminating terrorists that are here in America. I do believe their are much better ways to do this than the "patriot act" or illegal wiretapping. Your example provides good fodder for that idea.
My eyes are wide open. You're wearing goggles full of crude oil.
Pat Robinson is to Christianity as Bin Laden is to Islam.
Our eyes are wide open, Leatherhelmet. Your problem is that you can't see much with your head up your ass.
If you can't address an issue at least make your insults more creative please.
Ben Laden and Zawahiri no more speak for Islam than Jim Jones spoke for Christianity. I dont know why your bigotry compels you to make such ludicrous statements.
Actually, there is some truth to the notion of "Islamofascism". A sect of Islam called Wahabiism is what's got a lot of international security organizations a bit nervous. They're militaristic to the core and they've got their hands in a lot of Saudi pockets and around a lot of other Saudi necks. World-wide domination is what they want. And they're ready to do anything to get it. I learned about this when a guy from CSIS came to a lecture I was in and taught us about it.
Also, could we get a link to this "accomodation" thing? I'm out of the loop.
One of our problems is that we do not understand Islam. Wahabism (which is not what its folowers call it) is not a sect. It's the name of a movement which started about 200 years ago to reform Islam. It was and is practiced by the Al-Saud family, who run Saudi Arabia and control Mecca and Medina.
Far from having its hands in a lot of Saudi pockets, as you claim in your post, it is the cultural practice of Islam in Saudi Arabia. I don't who this fellow was who gave you a talk about it, but if Wahabism has just come to the attention of those in charge as you described it, then heaven help us all!
well that is a part of the problem, people who had no clue that Islam had as many sects and movements as Christianity does thought they could start a new crusade and not get burnt.
Radical Islam wants the fall of Israel, the west and essentially, all the infidels. Infidels being, ofcourse, those who don't believe as they do. This is one of their objectives as stated by them.
Lumping the entire religion of Islam in with this group is a mistake. That said, I don't see the "moderate" muslim world rising up against this ideology.
and radical christianity want the fall of israel (hey hey is it rapture day yet?) the 'west' (Hollywood 'elite's and liberal thought) and want to see everyone they have not nuked bowing to their version of gawd (oh, and tithing too!)
And radical Christians (where are these Christians ) are plotting or have called for the destruction of Israel when? I mean, I can't believe we're even debating it.
Palestine, Iraq, the Sudan, Pakistan, The Balkans, The Philipines, Ethipia, etc, would all be peaceful countries if it wasn't for those darn Cristian fundamentalists. Horrible all those Christian suicide bombings.
"and want to see everyone they have not nuked bowing to their version of gawd"
Make me sick. If it had not been for those bombs, you would still have kamikazes flying up your behind...and if we dont do something extreme, the radical Islamist suicide bombers will continue in their current ways.
Baloney the war was lost to Japan and they were already talking surrender before the bomb blasts. There might be an argument that it saved American lives since we didnt have to invade but to say we would STILL be fighting them is ludicrous
According to Robert Papes study on suicide bombings they have almost no religious component and the group that has done more suicide bombings than any other is the Tamil Tigers a secular semi Maoist group. The study shows that they are POLITICALLY motivated not religiously.
Did someone say we'd still be fighting them? I know I didn't. There's no doubt nuking them saved thousands of US lives.
They were already beaten...that's pretty much true but on the verge of surrender? I'm no historian but I'd always heard they were ready to fight to the death (not the leadership of course).
I don't see how mention of this "Maoist" group helps us here Solon. I've never heard of them. They're not in the news EVER. How important can they be, at least to us?
Maybe they ( the Tigers) are politically motivated. The Muslims are not. And it's the Muslims we have to deal with.
I agree to an extent JETER. If christians kids can't pray in school they better not be letting Islamic kids pray in school.
OK, let's get this straight, once and for all NO ONE is prohibited from praying in school, got it?? No one - any student can say a prayer at any time they want as long as it does not disrupt a classroom, OK? The law simply prohibits a structured prayer in a school. That's it. If a student wants to pray between classes, at lunch, in study hall, before class - there is absolutely NO restriction on that and I support their right to that 100%.
We know that. I was referring to indications that there has been activitiy to allow Muslim children to engage in their daily prayers during class. don't know if it is true but my point is that it better no be.
The second part of the first amendment says the government cannot prohibit the free excercise of religion. Since Islam requires prayers at SPECIFIC times that is something that ought to be accomodated. Again this could be done to allow for many religions to excercise their practices in a specified place. This could be done in a way to expand religious tolerance and make for more widespread religious activities at school for those who want them without coercing others who are indifferent from either conforming to prayers or setting themselves apart.
I ain't buying that one. It would certaitnly be disruptive to the classroom experience, not mention the firstorm it would create from the christian right as they wold certaintly scream that it wold be a double standard. And rightly so.
I would tend to agree, but I should remind everyone that we are dealing with a point that is completely speculative and is being retold by a dubious source.
I have often found that such situations call for someone to demonstrate the issue from a neutral source to begin with.
Jeter, one of my fondest fantasies is that this rumored "Rapture" would take all the reasonable people out of harm's way so the Christo-fascists and the Islamo-fascists can kill each other with impunity.
Good riddance to bad rubbish on both counts, I say.
Honestly, I think you bring up a good point. Fundamentalists of the Muslim and other religious/ideological varieties are often anti-democratic in nature. They do not recognize the freedom of the individual from the often petty demands of their own religions and or ideologies.
I find it very ironic that Robertson of all people would point this out (albeit framed as a fundamentalist vs. fundamentalist mindset). My point of view is that all fundamentalists are wrong in similar ways to each other.
open-mind said:
I find it very ironic that Robertson of all people would point this out (albeit framed as a fundamentalist vs. fundamentalist mindset). My point of view is that all fundamentalists are wrong in similar ways to each other.
Exactly. Religious fundamentalism attempts to reduce morality to a simple set of rules or principles that do not allow the individual to make allowances for context. It operates on the false assumption that resort to a few simple rules or principles will bring about a utopia that the founders of these religions never believed themselves.
--ML
In your first point no, prayer is already allowed in school always has been. What hasnt been and shouldnt be is ORGANIZED prayer by the school. Setting a place aside where religious observances can be done wouldnt violate that in my opinion and could be used by any religious student wanting its services. Also this is NOT political action per say anymore than the Catholic Church soliciting funds and fighting the death penalty makes them a political not religious group.
I dont think the second characterization is fair either most religions want to spread that seems to be in their nature I dont see the religion, as opposed to the extremist elements of Islam wants domination any more than other religions. The Three religions that sprang up from the middle eastern worship from Jehovah Judaism, Christianity and Islam all have a more social aspect than the more eastern religions that have a tendency to focus on the individual and his betterment within himself while those three have a larger focus on our responsibilities within our society. The difference may be seen as being a better person in context your own life and within the context of how you fit into your society, your obligations to yourself and God alone as opposed to your obligations to yourself, God and your neighbor. This will have varying manifestations ON society but I dont think THAT manifestation has domination as its motivation or at least shouldnt ideally. Therefore to blame it on the religion itself rather than its corruption I think is unfair.
I know Robertson has no shame. And I agree with an earlier post that he's also a fraud.
Instead of the Islamic extremists "hating us for our freedom," maybe they hate us because of people like Pat Robertson. Is it that difficult to assume that a direct affront to the Islamic religion like Robertson's comments may actually enrage Islamic radicals more than some specious idea that they hate Americans for our freedom?
And this gem: "It is a worldwide political movement meant on domination of the world. And it is meant to subjugate all people under Islamic law."
Robertson seems to have conveniently forgotten that Christians, mostly through bloody conquest or persecution, imposed their religious will upon all of Europe, virtually all of North and South America, and much of Asia and Africa. On the other hand (not including minority immigrant communities) Islam seems to have been confined to the Middle East and parts of Africa and Asia. If "subjugation" is the goal of Islam, they're not doing nearly as well at it as the Christians.
At least Robertson seems to grasp the "subtle" differences between a democracy and a theocracy. Unfortunately he has it backwards with respect to Islamic states. Islam is incorporated into politics, not politics incorporated into Islam. And many of these theocracies are regimes that have been in place for a long, long time, to the point that the line between religion and politics doesn't exist.
The question would be, ladies and gentlemen, if a million Christians want to go to Saudi Arabia and say, "We want to pray," you can't pray in Saudi Arabia. You can't have religious literature in Saudi Arabia. You can't get together in Bible study groups in Saudi Arabia. As far as having special places for foot-washing and all that, no way. You will abide by Sharia law because they're in control.
Wow. Of all people, I didn't expect Pat Robertson to be championing religious freedom and the separation of church and state.
Wow, if only there was a coalition that advanced a Christian agenda in Washington, Pat Robertson would really look bad if he indicted Islam for being a political movement.
Has Pat Robertson forgotten the time when Christian Religion ruled Europe. It was called the dark ages.
I'm a bit more concerned with what's happening now. The Dark Ages...not so much.
yes, history is hard for people who can't learn
Right. And all the continents used to be connected into one big continet and then, over time, coontinental drift and tectonic plate shifts created individual land masses or the 7 continents we have today. So, we lasso Australia and we all start pulling...
Seriously. Who cares about the Dark Ages?
What's next, a lecture on Mesopotamian culture?
How bout we go all the way back to the Mezozoic era?
There has been a time when fundamentalists were in charge in the West. It didn't go so well, to put it mildly. Perhaps the middle east is still stuck in that same age themselves.
Student's of history should learn from this that fundamentalism is a failure.
No argument here. But simply saying, "see, way back when, some Christians were just as bad as these Muslims so..."
So what? How is that point helpful or relevant?
It's not, obviously but your lesson is the correct one to be learned OPEN.
Isn't Pat Robertson the one always whining about America not accommodating his religion enough, who criticizes seperation of church and state and one time said all schools should be run by Christians? Hypocrite.
I think the dark ages was an applied label. From folks who felt supeior to them. They may have a case.
A case can be made for the church working to reduce the violent behaviors of the rulling class in this era. A lot of theological philosophy was created and worked over for a while. Roger's Kingdom of the Two Siscilies (spelling?) was of this era. It is a facinating time worthy of some study.
That Christianity was dominent for a long period maybe ignored because, looking at its loss of power in any way might cause them to look clearly. At history and and their preasent stance. It just don't make for bill paying TV.
"I think the dark ages was an applied label. From folks who felt supeior to them. They may have a case." The "Dark Ages" are called that because education plummetted and the vast majority of people could neither read nor write, so except for the very few religious and upper class people who COULD we have no documented evidence of the lives of the majority
doggone-ga
The 'Dark Ages' were when the mongol hordes of central Asia overran most of western civilization. Had it not been for the Church protecting and preserving the literature and learning of the 'west,' we'd have been set back many centuries, perhaps never to recover.
You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
The Dark Ages began with the fall of the Roman Empire in the late 5th century and lasted about 500 years until around 1000 AD.
The Mongols occupied Eastern Europe from 1223 through 1480. A quick glance shows the Mongols invaded a little over 200 years after the Dark Ages ended.
Actually, you are terribly misinformed. During the Middle Ages, Islam was in its Golden Age:
"During the early Middle Ages and the Islamic Golden Age, Islamic philosophy, science, and technology were more advanced than in Western Europe. Islamic scholars both preserved and built upon earlier traditions and also added their own inventions and innovations. Islamic Al-Andalus passed much of this on to Europe. The replacement of Roman numerals with the decimal positional number system and the invention of algebra allowed more advanced mathematics." --wikipedia
"Islam is not a religion. It is a worldwide political movement meant on domination of the world."
Since our Constitution protects freedom of religion, Robertson is now assuming the role of almighty judge of what constitutes a religion.
"In the Quran, ...There is no middle ground"
...And the version of The Bible that we get from likes of Falwell, Dobson and Robertson is all about middle ground, isn't it?
"we want to take over and we want to impose Sharia on you"
This is just more nutbag rightwing dooms day talk to instill fear of any and all things Muslim. Even if Osama bin Laden himself said something this ridiculous, there is no way in the freakin' world that he or any other crazy, barbaric terrorist could even come close to amassing an armed force capable of a full-scale invasion of the U.S. They can bomb us, they can kidnap us, they can torture us, but they will never have the troops, armament, or mobility to occupy and impose religious and political will on the U.S.
They are not trying to do it with bombs. They are trying to use political correctness as a weapon to instill sharia law. Just follow Britain and Denmark to see how it is done.
So, what do you suggest Leather?
Asking an employer for time to pray is indicative of an ultimate goal of discarding our Constitution in favor of Sharia law? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, can you fill in some of the blanks?
Not quite political correctness. They are using our own liberal-mindedness and commitment to tolerance against us.
Fundamentalists often try this tactic as Robertson does himself. Fundamentalists use the freedom given to everyone in order to try and limit it for groups they oppose. At one time it was blacks. Now it is the homosexuals in America. In Europe it is used in order to substitute sharia for the law of the land.
They are both disgusting and anti-democratic.
Please tell me you're not serious. American homosexuals, blacks, Muslims are trying to undermine democracy??? Are you on drugs?
My apologies. I reread your post and now realize what you mean. Mea culpa.
That's cool. I am working on being more cogent and I have been known to fail.
: )
Any religion that insists that everyone else will suffer eternal damnation is an invalid religion ..... See both Christianity and Islam.
Pat Robertson maybe using some wild language. But the fact that too many muslims subscribe to a very close reading of the Quran and therefor subcribe to what we could call 'political Islam' is true in my opinion. Try and read Sam Harris "The End Of Faith" he has a very nice chapter about Islam.
I am from Denmark and we had that cartoon crisis going on last year - that showed to me that a fundamental reading of Islam i very widespread in the arab world.
- Jonatan
The fundamentalist Christians here in America are much the same.
That is a lie. You could print a cartoon of the pope or Jerry Falwell and people might bitch about it but they wouldn't riot anywhere and kill people. They wouldn't threaten to kill people who printed the cartoons.
http://www.lastingnews.com/maps/cartoons_protests.html
That is true. In order to get a fundy enraged, you just have to flash a black woman's titty for a millisecond during the Superbowl Halftime show.
Leather's right. That's a flat out lie. The fact that you dry to draw parrallels here is frightening!
Tell that to the victims who survived abortion clinic bombings. Murdered abortion doctors' families. Christian fundamentalist fanatics are not violent? Really?
Red herrings. How many deaths are we talking about from these "abortion bombings?" (We'll leave the millions of aborted babies out of this, right?)
Muslims have been killings tens of thousands. Let's compare a blue whale to a Shrew while we're at it. They're both mammals.
You are just quibbling about numbers now. I have established that both groups have their murderers.
You can try to limit the scope of your view to support your conclusion if you like and I can expand it to fit mine. If you look at the broad range of history, Christian and Muslim fanatics have taken their turns murdering vast amounts of people in the name of their religion.
I think you are simply unwilling to see that fanatacism and/or fundamentalism is the problem - no matter what the religion or ideology in which it finds its expression.
Right. The numbers or scale of the thing isn't important. We'll disagree on this. Why I don't know.
I'm not intersted in "throughout the ages" I'm interested in today and tommorrow.
Fanatacism is the key. We agree here. But to simply shrug of the numbers of Muslim fanatics as unimportant seems dangerous to me.
Think your argument would go over well with the families of those who lost loved ones during abortion clinic bombings?
Read the book -- nice selective comment -- as Harris also admonishes against allowing "Chirstain" leaders from taking the faith to extremes and using it as an excuse for say a "Clash of Cultures" -- as the conservatives are want to call it along with the "War on Terror", which it isn't. If it was the "Conflict to End the World" there would be a draft, we would not have 24/7 of Paris Hilton's jail sentence and the related drama, and the only durable goods that would be higher in the consumer confidence surveys would be canned foods, bottle H2O, and firearms. Oh, and hopefully there would be an actual long term strategic plan before we where several years in to the "War".
Pat's often an embarrassment, but here he's exactly right. Of course most mainstream Muslims, especially in the U.S., don't talk about us all being under Sharia law, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't love it.
But listen to sources like MEMRI, and learn just what prominent influential clerics and mullahs say. They regularly advocate bringing everyone under Muslim law, if not simply "destroying" you, often to the cheers of thousands. This is far, far removed from anything on the American religious right, or anywhere in America for that matter.
And I disagree with the notion that the religious right is somehow out to aggressively push itself on everyone, at least no more than your average church sect. They're playing defense, what with things like Roe v Wade and no prayer in school being relatively recently imposed on THEM and all of us by the courts, not by legislatures.
The religious LEFT is every bit as determined to impose its more socialist agenda on us, as the right is with their particular issues. They may not be as numerous or organized, but big government do-gooding is what they want.
I remember going to both Robertson's and Sojourner's websites after Katrina. Pat's focus was collecting donations for the purpose of distributing food and other necessities to the victims. Wallis was busy writing high-minded essays about the poor vs. the rich, condemning those that would be most able to help out organizations like Robertson's. And there was a place to donate to "Sojourner's".
I'm not really a fan of Pat's, but this difference in approach impressed me about him, and by extension the religious right, I guess.
Pat is often rather undiplomatic in the way be blurts things out, but on this and Chavez, he is "fundamentally" correct, IMHO.
++ The religious LEFT ... big government do-gooding is what they want. ++
Well, someone's got to do it. :-) Good, that is. Clearly we can't rely on Christianity or Islam to do it.
More lies. Christians and conservatives in general give more money to charity than liberal counterparts. Several studies have been done on this.
Can't say as far as Islam goes.
That may very well be true. It shouldn't be hard to find some info and paste some legitimate links to back your statement up.
If you're disputing the statement then you can research it yourself.
Don't be lazy. It is your argument and thus your job to back it up.
Open_Mind, I would suggest a book "Who Really Cares" by Arthur C. Brooks, Professor at Syracuse University. (Some of us still read the printed word.) Could provide you some sources out of the book, but that might violate copyright laws.
Good one Oscar! I like your originality.
My favorite one is: "The answer is D. Who gives a sh-t?"
On a serious note, I don't like it when people argue using the logical fallacy: Argumentum ad Uranus.
: )
If you read my post correctly, the title was a statement, not a question. and it is actually is a book, despite your protestations. Has lots of figures and charts, but you have to furnish your own crayons or colored pencils. And there are some fairly large words, more than three-four syllables, so you may have to find some help to comprehend it. You asked for backup from another poster, I furnished, you blow it off. Great screen name (open_mind)
Okay. Sorry Oscar. I really thought you were making a sarcastic joke. If you read it with that in mind, it is really looks like you are being pretty witty. I see now that you weren't being witty at all.
My bad.
: )
So, LOLO if I made an outlandish statement about you that you would dispute, it would be your responsibility to dispute it? Wow, tempting ;)
What was the outlandish statement that I made? I think Oscar backed it up for me but look...just because you don't like the statement doesn't mean I'm responsible toprovide evidence it's true.
If you don't think it's true check it out.
I hope you didn't just intentionally categorize Christians as a subset of conervatives. If so, then you are giving up your chance to be taken seriously and engage in thoughtful debate with anyone on this site.
Since the above posts were referring the the "religious right" I think it's consistent.
If you'd like to bar me from your serious consideration I have no problem with that.
Not at all. The way your comment was written, it sounded like you were stating that all Christians were conservatives, which has been espoused countless times by conservatives both here and in the media. I was curious what your intentions were.
I'll take your word for it that you were referring to Christian conservatives, not all Christians.
Thanks. I know that all Christians are not "Christian Conservatives."
I looked at some of those studies. The first one only took into account organized charities. That is problematic, does it mean Leftists dont give more but in other venues? We dont know he didnt look another put Salvation Army donation centers in A North Dakota City and San Fransisco. Considering that the Salvation Army had just gone on a very public crusade for their right to discriminate AGAINST gays in their hiring pracitices that was an obviously flawed study. Now I will quickly admit that it is hard to do a study that would quantify giving anyother way than he did it. I also know that my giving includes almost NO organized charaties so though I have given a lot of money over the last few years almost none of it would have counted by the guys methodology. So as usual it may not be anywhere near as simple as conservatives give more money.
No one who has researched Pat Robertson would give him money. The state of Virginia launched a probe of the bogus charity, Operation Blessing, after Robertson had been soliciting funds for displaced persons relief in Rwanda and then diverting the bulk of the money to fund his for profit diamond mining operation in Mobutu's Congo. Of 40 flights Operation Blessing carried out, only two were even remotely related to humanitarian efforts. The rest were just doing business for Robertson's African Development Corporation, which only develops one thing; immense personal wealth for Robertson. He is the president and sole shareholder in African Development Corporation.
Robertson dominates Operation Blessing, although he uses an alias, Marion Gordon Robertson, for his Chairman of the Board role. His wife and a son are also on the Board. After his Congo rip-off the Virginia Office of Consumer Affairs tried to prosecute Robertson for making deceptive appeals while deceitfully collecting cash donations for a medical strike force, using the money to bolster his private business. They claimed “Pat Robertson made material claims, via television appeals, regarding the relief efforts. These statements are refuted by the evidence in this case and thereby suggest a violation of the…law's prohibition against obtaining money by any misrepresentation or misleading statement. They summed up by charging that Robertson “willfully induced contributions from the public through the use of misleading statements and other implications.” Virginia's corrupt Republican Attorney General and Robertson ally, Mark Early was in cahoots with, then Governor James Gilmore who both put the kibosh on the prosecution and ended the probe. Robertson has since funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars into the campaign of these two politicians.Robertson dominates Operation Blessing, although he uses an alias, Marion Gordon Robertson, for his Chairman of the Board role.
That's not an alias, that's his name. "Pat" is a nickname he has gone by for years.
He's still bats#it insane, but to suggest that his real name is an alias is just absurd.
"Of course most mainstream Muslims, especially in the U.S., don't talk about us all being under Sharia law, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't love it." Some hard data... The most comprehensive poll conducted of American Muslims at this point is, I believe, the 2007 Pew Research Poll. http://pewresearch.org/pubs/483/muslim-americans Although it shows some opinions held by American Muslims which can legitimately be criticized, their opinion of the Church/State intersection shows the number of Muslims who feel that the Mosque/Church should be involved in politics (43%) is less than the percentage of Christians who feel the same way (54%).When running for president in 1988, Pat Robertson said that he "would only bring Christians and Jews into the government." Presumably the Christians he would have accepted wouldn't include Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Methodists (who he claimed were imbued with the spirit of the Antichrist). "I remember going to both Robertson's and Sojourner's websites after Katrina. Pat's focus was collecting donations for the purpose of distributing food and other necessities to the victims. Wallis was busy writing high-minded essays about the poor vs. the rich, condemning those that would be most able to help out organizations like Robertson's." "And there was a place to donate to "Sojourner's."Yes, because Pat Robertson has never used his charities for private gain.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_robertson#Charles_Taylor.2C_gold.2C_diamonds_and_racehorse_controversy "And there was a place to donate to Sojourner's." Did you mean that there was no place on the Sojourner's site to donate? In which case, how hard did you look?go.sojo.net/campaign/katrinapledge http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/saguaro/911katrina.htmOr were you pointing out that Pat Robertson linked to the Sojourners effort? In which case, good for him, but it also shows that the Sojourners were doing more than just "writing high-minded essays." Also, you compare Pat favorably against Wallis who you seemingly accuse of politicizing Katrina. Pat said that Katrina was God's way of punishing New Orleans because Ellen Degeneres was chosen to host the Emmys. http://datelinehollywood.com/archives/2005/09/05/robertson-blames-hurricane-on-choice-of-ellen-deneres-to-host-emmys/ "Pat is often rather undiplomatic in the way be blurts things out, but on this and Chavez, he is "fundamentally" correct, IMHO."If Pat was so correct about saying we should assassinate Chavez, then he should have stuck to his guns, but instead he temporized about what he said and then later apologized (and then still later reaffirmed the statement). His original quote was... "I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he [Chavez] thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war and I don’t think any oil shipments will stop." "Cheaper than starting a war" and the "oil shipments won't [sic] stop." Jesus couldn't have said it any better himself. What a moral, Godly man Pat Robertson is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_robertson#Hugo_Ch.C3.A1vez
"They're playing defense, what with things like Roe v Wade and no prayer in school being relatively recently imposed on THEM and all of us by the courts, not by legislatures."--gtskauai3556
Precisely what part of Roe V. Wade imposes anything on Fundamentalists? Are fundamentalists somehow forced to have abortions under Roe? I must have missed that one.
As far as the "no prayer in schools" argument, you are framing it disingenuously as the right usually does. No one has said school children cannot pray. It is just the end of government esablished/promoted favoritism towards one religion over other people's equally protected beliefs. In order to argue your point of view, you will need to demonstrate:
1. That another religion is given unfair favoritism at the expense of Christianity.
2. Assuming you believe Atheism is a religion and being given a preference, that the atheistic principle that "there is no God" is being somehow affirmed by the government in place of the previous government acknowledgement/promotion/establishment of God.
Do you think Atheists, Muslims and/or Jews do not have equal rights as Christians? Why do your beliefs need to be acknowledged/established/promoted "there is a God" and others (especially atheists who believe "there is no God") can simply be ignored?
Isn't the proper compromise for the government to remain neutral on the subject as courts have upheld?
Islam is a religion, political movement and also want domination of the world. Islam in past showed true justic under the holy leadership of Prophent Muhammad (Sallalaho Alahi Wassalam) and four rightous caliphs. West has not a single example of compassion and justic as Islam did. Plus according to Islam, freedom to keep naked, naming massacre and invasions as democracy and libration and duality in the philosophy of life are original source of injustic. It will eliminate it no matter it is in east or west. Why you people are scared of Islam. Just wait and watch-Islam is coming to dominate Europe. Ammar Das New Delhi
Oh please. Could you make this posting any more fake. Good God, I need a ham sandwich.
Robertson reminds me of the commentator in the movei "Airplane!". You know the guy who says "They bought their ticket, they knew what they were getting into, I say let em' crash". The sad reality is that people like him incite hatred and anger all the while he supports war when he wouldn't face enemy fire if he had to.
Pat Robertson: "Ladies and gentlemen, we have to recognize that Islam is not a religion. It is a worldwide political movement meant on domination of the world. And it is meant to subjugate all people under Islamic law."
WZWRITER: "Ladies and gentlemen, we have to recognize that Pat Robertson is not a Christian. He is a demagogue and a political hack, bent on turning America into a Bible-based government. And he wants to subjugate all American people under Judeo-Christian law - as HE interprets it."
Bottom line? Pat Robertson is a thoroughly dangerous man. He needs to join his pal Jerry Falwell down in hell.
The bad guys are just out for power. Give me all of the power so I can protect you...
The really scary part is that there are people in the Bush administration who listen to Pat's asinine meanderings and think it's all true. Many of them honestly believe the fairy tales laid out in Revelation, and think we are predestined to melt the Middle East in a Nuclear inferno, so that Jeeeeezzzzzzuuuusssss can return.
What if those aren't fairy tales?
What if pigs could fly?
I couldn't help it Nerzog. I will readily admit that you have put forth some arguments regarding religion that have made me think. Corresponding with you reminds me of philosophy class in college in what seems like a hundred years ago. I enjoy reading your point of view although I disagree with it routinely.
"What if we picked the wrong religion? Every week we're just making God madder and madder." -- Homer Simpson
I guess he conveniently forgot there is also a Dar Salaam which means "House of Peace."
I think what conservatives may forget is that Christians have also behaved like barbarians in the past, and they found plenty of "scripture" to justify it. Was it because Christianity was a violent religion? No, it was because these Christians were members of violent societies. There are peaceful Muslims all over the world, so it is possible to practice Islam without bloodshed. The danger comes not from the religion itself, but from those who would pervert it toward a violent agenda.
Nowhere is Islam practiced in peace. It's a nice thought, but it has never happened and never will happened since their religion is based on the fact that dying for their religion puts them in heaven.
Nowhere? Never? Are you sure, Leatherhelmnut?
That is about the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard about Islam. By saying that, you must think there is not a single Muslim in the U.S., right?
If there were, they would be killing people every day.
You are a bigot who never knows what he is talking about. The word Islam MEANS peace. It translates best as the peace that comes from submission to God which is a type of peace. The initial era of Moor rule in Spain for instance was considered a very tolerant time especially since after the last Moors were expelled from Spain came the Inquisitions and Toquemada.
Bogs: "So is ultra-consternative Christianity."
Pat Robertson is now stating that Islam is not a religion but somehow he has decided that both secular humanism and evolution are religions.
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/plural/kurtz.html
http://www.freeinquiry.com/teaching-morals.html
http://mediamatters.org/items/200512190011
What a magical world he lives in.
For those who think Christianity is squeaky clean or just want a better idea of what Islam is all about, I suggest reading this book: End of Faith. I found it very informative when I was wondering about why these different religions are always waring w/ each other. There is a lot of history in it as well that can help explain why things are the way they are today.
NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITON!!!
"Neoconservatism is not a valid political movement but operates on tenets with abandon approaching religious zealotry. It is not uniquely American and is meant on domination."http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17869.htm
Robertson has a memory problem also. He neglects to mention that for centuries Christians tortured and burned people at the stake. Wars were fought world wide as Christians tried to force their beliefs on others killing what they labeled "heretics" or those who refused the word of God. It was fighting these Christian war mongers that got the cross symbol expelled from Saudi Arabia. He is taking a small sample of Islam and putting everyone in the middle east under an extremist view just like if all Christians should be characterized by Leviticus where we would be killing our sons and daughters for eating certain foods etc., etc. The we he refers to when he says "we don't want that in America" represents a tiny portion of non thinking, bigoted sheep that pay a attention to the likes of his propaganda and hypocrisy. He's a billionaire. Need I say more? He should be practicing getting a camel to pass through the eye of a needle so that he can find a way to get into heaven. Hypocrisy in the dictionary shows a picture of Pat Robertson...Look it up.
So, BJOBOTTS;
when he says "we don't want that in America"
Do you want women to have to wear burqas, that we condone wife-beating, adulterers to be beheaded, that sort of thing? Because that's the context of that quote. I might add 'honour killiings.'
I would also suggest to you that there will be more Christians killed by Muslims this year than the total of people who were ever burned at the stake by Christians.
Which "world-wide wars" were fought "to force their beliefs on others..."
Who were the 'war mongers' who caused the cross to be expelled in Saudi Arabia? (According to Wikipedia, the Saudi dynasty began in 1902.)
"I would also suggest to you that there will be more Christians killed by Muslims this year than the total of people who were ever burned at the stake by Christians." --edross
Umm, okay, whatever? Are you aware that over 50,000 (a very conservative estimate) muslims have been killed in Iraq by mostly Christian Americans? Looks like that would dwarf both sets of numbers you are talking about.
Umm, okay, whatever? Are you aware that over 50,000 (a very conservative estimate) muslims have been killed in Iraq by mostly Christian Americans? Looks like that would dwarf both sets of numbers you are talking about.
Actually, the number of Christians who will die as a result of violence directed at them because of their faith is estimated at around 200,000 people this year. A big percentage of that will be at the hands of Muslims. That's without talking about deaths to Buddhists and Hindus caused by Muslims.
Life is pretty cheap outside the confines of western civilization. Where'd you get that 50K number - does that include all the terror bombings in Iraq? You'd be hard pressed to lay those at the door of our guys. I've heard numbers that suggest that there is less violent death in Iraq today even with the terror bombings (by Muslims) than there was under Sadaam.
"Actually, the number of Christians who will die as a result of violence directed at them because of their faith is estimated at around 200,000 people this year."
Where did you get that number? I would like to see a legitimate link.
"Where'd you get that 50K number - does that include all the terror bombings in Iraq? You'd be hard pressed to lay those at the door of our guys."
The number comes from IraqBodyCount.org. You can argue that some of the deaths are the result of an insurgency, but I would counter that we have created the current conditions in Iraq and it would be disingenuous to pretend we had nothing to do with it.
I've heard numbers that suggest that there is less violent death in Iraq today even with the terror bombings (by Muslims) than there was under Sadaam.
I would like to see that legitimate link as well.
You make some good points, Christopher. However, I don't think it's reasonable to put much stock in polls of Muslims regarding questions like this. The most remarkable result of that poll was that 25% were willing to share the fact that they approved of suicide bombing. Heaven knows what the real number is; I would be terrified that I was being monitored and wouldn't for a second share that kind of feeling with anyone.
I really don't think it's very debatable that a large segment of the world Muslim population supports the idea of all of us being under Sharia law, and that numerous Muslim leaders openly advocate for it.
As far as Sojourners, I specifically looked very closely at their website for some kind of indication that they were attempting to collect donations for Katrina victims. I could find nothing to that effect, although it's possible I missed it and probably more likely they caught on down the road a ways. Just about every conservative and liberal blog site I went to had a "Katrina button" during this period when I was curious. I just thought it was an inopportune time to be writing rich vs. poor editorials, when the focus should have been raising money and helping people. I remember Robertson encouraging people to do this, on his TV show and on his website.
Now if what I'm seeing about Robertson being corrupt is true, although AFAIK nothing's been proven in court, my opinion of him would be even lower.
I'm not even religious, but I do see an imprecise eagerness to paint the religious right in general as being way more pushy about things than they are, to the point of saying things like "the taliban wing".
Like I said, Pat is clumsy and stupid in the way he says things, and perhaps he's no angel himself, but I believe his instincts on Islam and Chavez are correct. I'm quite sure the nation would breath a collective sigh of relief if Chavez would be more like the guy in Canada, who also has oil and doesn't party with Amawhatshisname in Iran, and if the Muslim world would suddenly convert to hard right-wing Christianity. You really don't hear a lot of death wishes coming from them, less even than from the Daily Kossers. ;-)
"The most remarkable result of that poll was that 25% were willing to share the fact that they approved of suicide bombing." gtsk...
But the problem with such a question is what context do they mean in the suicide bombings? Do they mean are you for all historical uses of suicide bombings or do you believe your religion is important enough for you that you would suicide bomb your enemy?
Is it a hypothetical question or one of historical opinion? Who would be the recipient of the suicide bombing? If the question was explicitly asked "Would you suicide bomb infidels" or "America", how would the results of the study have been changed? I assume they would be different.
I convert to Islam around 2002 ace(after common erea). Islam is than peaceful religion and they only fight when other people pick a fight with then . The Crusade where than offiense wage by Christian of Western Europe to forcely convert Muslim to Christian by the sword. Islamist doesnot recongize the forceful conertion of anybody to Islam. The misquoteing of the Koran by rightwing christian is way out of hand. When Islam was fighting for it live against idoel workshipper it was than civil war between famility members. Allah said you are allow to kill than idoel workshipper who make the statement of faith which make one than muslim that was why muslim warrier ask the oppesing warrier are you a muslim it they answer yes they where spare if they said no they where kill. The founder of Islam when he conquest Mecca didnot harm or kill his emenies the only one who where kill where two muslim who committ murder in Medine and who escape to Mecca to avoid being excute for they crime.
What about American slavery? Many Republicans view the Constitution as a religiously inspired document, but slavery was allowed. If the Constitution was "just and moral" 220 years ago and based on Christianity, why has that changed?
Same thing with a woman's right to vote. Why are women afforded more rights in the last 100 years. What changed?
forget about Islam and the muslims. what about these racist catholic mexicans who really are wanting to take over america?