Judith Gunthorpe: Religion talk troubling

Advertisement

Last Sunday evening (July 20), I attended a talk comparing Islam and Christianity given by Mujahid El-Hasih at Holy Name Catholic Church. The speaker compared texts from the Bible and Quran. Not being familiar with the Quran, I am not in a position to judge his commentary.

However, I did take issue with two facts he quoted:

He asserted, "There are more mosques in London that there are churches."

His source was not revealed, but from my personal experience of London I would go so far as to contradict his claim.

Furthermore, the Times Online, dated April 1, 2008, headlined "No more mosques," states that a study by Premier Christian Radio claimed there are currently 47,000 Christian churches in the United Kingdom and 1,600 mosques.

By simple logic this would also suggest Mujahid El-Hasih's figures for London are wrong.

My second concern was his claim that the Archbishop of Canterbury was calling for Sharia law in the United Kingdom, suggesting that there would be a blanket application of Sharia law. Headlines at the time, in poorly researched English newspapers, perhaps gave that impression.

However, a glance at the BBC news Web page (Feb. 7, 2008) reads: "Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion. For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court."

Later the report also quotes the Archbishop saying, "There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law."

He is referring here to the rabbinical courts dealing with certain aspects for the Jewish community such as marital disputes.

These two facts were but a small section of Mujahid El-Hasih's talk, but caused me to question the validity of his main theme.

A talk based on the similarities of the Bible and the Quran would have been a constructive way to building a bridge to our understanding of fellow human beings.

I hope the audience were not swayed by his suggestions that there is no fundamental connection between Christians and Muslims.

Judith Gunthorpe

Steamboat Springs

Comments

arnonep 6 years, 2 months ago

Ms. Gunthorpe First, no matter the number of mosques in England, there are too many. Stay with me and I will explain. Second, why should any country incorporate any laws for any particular group, let alone muslims? I am wondering if the speaker, I will not mention his name as you have given him to much press, mentioned that the Quran instructs muslms to kill all non-muslims and goes on to single out Christians? So, by allowing muslims to infest a country that is not muslim, you allow the ENEMY to camp in your yard. I use the word enemy as they have declared war on us and continue to commit the most horrific acts in the name of the Quran. Now you can blow some smoke that not all muslims want to kill us, but if that is true, then they are not true muslims.

0

bubba 6 years, 2 months ago

So arno, your assertion is that 25% of the world's population has been waging a war against the rest of us since the 7th century? It seems like either that cannot be true, or they are so inept that we really have nothing to worry about, if after more than a millennium, there is still some question as to whether they are really even waging a war.

0

id04sp 6 years, 2 months ago

Well, I'll done my secret identity of "Cultural Man" again and take this one on.

Young men have been variously whipped into action by any number of causes over the last 1300 years. The Crusades. The Revolutionary War. The Civil War. "Remember the Maine!" The attack on Pearl Harbor. The Civil Rights Movement. The Anti-Vietnam War Movement. The Environmental Movement. The sale of Dream Island.

Muslim culture is using the adolescent male tendency to get caught up in a cause and do something physical about it to take violent action against the so-called foes of Islam. Fortunately, they are indeed, inept. Sadly, a lot of our own young men and women are also inept. There was a day when kids built forts, and soapbox cars, and played with gliders, and worked on their bikes -- customizing them in all sorts of ways -- that developed the skills required to be inventive and manually dextrous. Our farm-folk ancestors had to be self reliant and build or repair things themselves. Women made the clothes and cooked meals from scratch, using all manner of tools and implements to do it. Today's kids sit and watch TV, play video games, and hardly ever face the prospect of doing anything that requires manual dexterity and mechanical talent. Same for the Muslim world where the poor have little in the way of resources except sand and a water bucket, and maybe carry a stick to herd the sheep, goats and camels.

All this Muslim propaganda is founded on the belief that they will win because Allah is on their side. Uh . . . maybe not.

Any of you who have had the benefit of Bible study -- the real kind, not the snake-handling tongue-speaking kind -- would recall that the Christian scriptures foretell the coming of false prophets. BINGO! When did Muhammad show up? After Christ . . . are you with me?

Muhammad claimed that he was visited by the Angel Gabriel and squeezed until he spat forth his "first revelation." Okay, now, this is about like Al Gore's chart showing a big pane of glass over the Earth . . . uh, mostly BS, but for some reason people believe it.

The radical Muslims will kill a few thousand people now and then, blowing themselves up in the process, and we'll just see how long THAT lasts once word gets around that every strapping young Muslim man can have 72 virgins right here on EARTH! All the other guys will be DEAD!

It's only a matter of time until Islam's extremists weed themselves out, and I'm reminded of a line from "Paint Your Wagon," which goes something like, "A shot of whiskey and a good cigar are the second and third best things in the world!"

When those boys discover #1, this mess will be over and it'll be sex, drugs and rock-n-roll from Baghdad to Mecca. Just throw out the Saudi royal family, give women equal rights over there and tell the survivors that Jesus forgives all those things Muhammad would kill you for, and build a factory in the Middle East to manufacture Detane and Trojans.

0

support 6 years, 2 months ago

ido4sp

Some of ur comments are wrong.

"Any of you who have had the benefit of Bible study---the real kind, not the snake handling or tongue speaking kind"-

Respectfully the Bible is clear---Their faith was so strong they took up serpents and were not harmed and were able to drink poison and not be harmed. Even TV programs over the years record and cannot explain this one.

Also many spoke in tongues as the Holy Spirit gave utterance and interpertations were given.

Do not be afraid because you cannot speak in tongues as the Holy Spirit of God gives the utterance.

It has been my experience those that don't yet have it try to rid the Bible of it. He will give u everything when He alone feels it is time.

Find a church or synaguge thats on fire for God and not luke warm. If ur not today seeing His miracles of healing,Holy Ghost filled events then visit around. Listen close for those that earnestly seek Him. He said u will know them by their fruits. Look for Soul winners not just talkers.

Remember enjoy and visit all the brethen. Pay no attention to the name on the door. All of us maybe one religion then next year find ourselves among others. The path is narrow but we each learn and grow at different pace. The word to speak over ur life is be humble and be still until u know that you that you know that you know that you know. May God Bless U.

0

summerbird 6 years, 2 months ago

While Christianity has come a long way from the dark ages and the inquisitions, radical Islam has remained the same and embraced modern technology with a zealous and deadly passion. The disparities between Islam and all other world religions far outwiegh the "fundamental connection" of the religions.

Be very wary and don't let your guard down. The rapidly growing populations of Muslims in Europe should be an indication of what is in the future: majority rules and democracy will be but a distant memory.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 2 months ago

Well, if the Muslims overwhelm all other religions, I guess the other religions didn't have enough faith in themselves, right? And you are right- majority rules. Sounds like democracy to me.

0

summerbird 6 years, 2 months ago

A typical liberal answer: lets just all live together in harmony. Democracy only works if the rights of the minorities are protected. In an Islamic state only Islam prevails, everyone else is an infidel and are worthy of death. it's convert or die!

If and when that time comes, neither one of us will be around for me to say "I told you so." Or maybe you are the kind to take the easy way out: just convert.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 2 months ago

A typical "liberal" answer. I'm a Republican. At least Catholicism never forced people to convert...OH WAIT!!! THEY DID, DIDN'T THEY?!?!

I guess Republicans aren't allowed to want to live in harmony. No wonder we lost Congress- people like summerbird still haven't moved forward into the 21st Century.

And I am a born Catholic, although non-practicing since I started questioning discrepancies about religion. Ultimately, my God- the one I believe in privately without all the ritual of going to church- is more powerful than anyone else's God, because it's the God I envision. I believe the saying goes, "God is all things to all People." Remember- the Bible is not an AUTO-biography. It was written by human beings.

Catholicism seems to have a nasty habit of preying on young boys, and my God doesn't condone that. Granted- it's not a "death to non-believers" mentality, but would you personally rather suffer death or being raped by a man of God?

As for democracy protecting the rights of minorities...that's pretty funny, considering the US was a democratic republic for a century before freeing the slaves, and another century before we offered minority rights. So I guess we've only been a democracy for about 50yrs? LOL!

A democracy is what the majority say it is. If you and I aren't around to dispute it, who can say otherwise if the rest say democracy doesn't include minorities? The victor is the one who writes the history books.

0

freshair 6 years, 2 months ago

What a fool!! Here we are in the 21st century dealing with a resurgent Islamic Jihadist movement which is currently involved in terrorism in about a dozen countries and this very foolish person is attempting to equate the situation in 2008 with the Inquisition of 500+ years ago and the period of Slavery in America which ended almost 150 years ago. Kielbasa my boy, every totalitarian fascist movement, as Lenin famously remarked, depends on the 'useful idiots' in America and Europe to grease the skids of their push to power. There is no shortage of present day 'useful idiots' who look upon the islamic threat as non-existent or benign.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 2 months ago

And yet there are plenty who look at us as the same. Listen to yourself and summerbird- "Onward Christian Soldiers, marching "ON" to war," sounds like the trumpet call du jour. Can't let them Muslims take over the world because they believe differently from us and they espouse killing...SO LET'S BOMB THEM! LOL! The Mirror Has Two Faces.

It's so funny when freshair tries to act coherent. I do so hope you'll be sticking around after the new rules set in! I'll still have entertainment!

0

freshair 6 years, 2 months ago

If you had the minimum required knowledge to comment intelligently about Islam you would know that they look upon all non-muslims as either infidel or dhimmi. not as the 'same.' Now I don't know about you, but I certainly prefer not to live under Muslim law and I can assure you the female members of my family would be even more strongly opposed.

0

JazzSlave 6 years, 2 months ago

kielbasa is either playing devil's advocate, in which case he has too much time on his hands; or he's earnestly peddling the pc moral equivalency jive, in which case he can't be taken seriously.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 2 months ago

And again, freshair avoids the conflicting statements of religion. Imagine that- only listening to the extremely little voice internally. (Might be God talkin' to ya, but I doubt it.)

Jazz- Moral Equivalence is just a hypocrite buzzword. The majority is the one who decides what that is. If only 10 people in 1000 think something is wrong, guess what? The other 990 won't concern themselves with it too much.

Most religions have a history of violence and as time changes, so do the "rules." Who made up these rules? At the time, the majority as passed down by God, supposedly. So, God must have told the Catholic Church at one time to force conversion. Later...I guess God changed his mind. Or, somewhat was smoking something and finally came out of the haze.

All I know is that of the 10 Commandments, there's this little one saying "Thou Shalt not Kill." I could swear there wasn't an asterisk by that to see a footnote, but it's been a while. Granted- it was originally "murder" but Catholicism is more broad by saying "kill." Please show me otherwise, if you can find it. Then, show where that was in God's voice, and not some guy who said God told him to say that.

Yes, I know- don't hurt yourself contemplating that one. Just go back to your tree and keep picking nits. If you didn't want to take it seriously, why did you bother joining the discussion?

0

JazzSlave 6 years, 2 months ago

Our society marginalizes the Fred Phelps of the world; hunts down & locks up the Eric Rudolphs; embraces Jim & Tammy Faye for their utility as puchlines.

Theirs celebrates murder & subjugation, and advocates the destruction of those who disagree.

Do remember Piss Christ? Recall any rioting and firebombing and over 100 people killed as a result? How about the Muhammad cartoons?

You seem to be a film buff - Martin Scorsese & Theo Van Gogh each released films questioning/criticizing the tenets of of major religions. Which man is still alive, and which was murdered, and by whom?

If you believe contemporary Western Christians to be as malign as Middle Eastern Islamo freaks, there's little point in engaging you. And your labelling these distinctions as hypocritical would be amusing were it not so sad.

0

seeuski 6 years, 2 months ago

Matthew, Is Islam the fastest growing religion in the world today? Is Islamic sharia law now being accepted in places like London? Is Islam accepting of and peaceful to those of other faiths? Isn't it Islam that declared Jihad(war)on the west including the USA in 1996 publicly or before that date like 1993 when the 1st WTC bombing occured?What about 9/11? Isn't it Muslim killers who have been beheading infidels like Nicholas Berg? I have not seen any of these attrocities commited by anyone of other faiths. All we are saying is give us our freedom to believe as we please and don't tell us who, how or when to beleive in something whether, as you, it is nothing or any other faith. Oh, and it is not okay to be athiest under sharia law so off with your head too!

0

seeuski 6 years, 2 months ago

A very good book to read for those in the PC world or anyone else is Terrorist Hunter by Rita Katz.

http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/interrogatory062603.asp

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 2 months ago

seeuski- Well! If Islam is the fastest growing religion...why would that be? Not my choice, personally. I already said I believe in MY God and only that one.

Again- Majority rules. If Islam takes over, bummer for the rest of us, but does that mean I should compromise my beliefs to get them before they get me? I'm sure they're thinking the same thing- they need to rid the world of non-believers so that they can thrive.

Again- Other religions have made their mistakes in the past, rooted in violence. Then, the edict came down that that wasn't the way. Who's to say the future won't change that again, given time? If it's happened before, it can happen again.

But, most far-right whackos tend to believe their own reasonings as to why it's okay for us to kill and not others, then cite the ol' "moral equivalence" talking point. Maybe that has something to do with them not liking us, too. If Islam takes over, then I guess we "convert" by killing them first. Oh well. As long as my God and I get along, I'm cool with that.

And Jazz- as I asked before: Would you rather be killed by a Muslim or raped by your priest?

0

summerbird 6 years, 2 months ago

Hey you big fat Polish sausage:

I have been silent because others have been doing a good job for me.

You gave us way more personal history than we wanted or needed.

0

seeuski 6 years, 2 months ago

Warped. It is known as defending a peoples right to live free and not be forced at the point of a sword to convert to Islam. It was reported that Steve Centani of FOX NEWS was forced to convert to Islam before he was set free by the Hamas kidnappers. I wouldn't be so lucky if they nabbed me because of my faith.

But Matt, it is useless trying to move this discussion forward when one side chooses to bury their head in the sand and ignore what is going on and what these zeolots true desires for the world are. The reasons that they don't like us are spoken by them and have been for centuries as it is written in the koran and preached by their Imams, but ofcourse you will continue to turn your cheek to it until as you say:

"Again- Majority rules. If Islam takes over, bummer for the rest of us, but does that mean I should compromise my beliefs to get them before they get me? I'm sure they're thinking the same thing- they need to rid the world of non-believers so that they can thrive."

G-d forbid but with that mentallity we are in for many more 9/11's. I actually had an American Muslim tell me he wished it was 9/11 everyday.

0

id04sp 6 years, 2 months ago

Kielbasa,

In the original Hebrew, "Thou shalt not kill" really says, "Thou shalt not lie in wait to commit murder." It implies that you should not conspire to kill someone for a profit, or for personal gain.

Similar with the "name in vain" commandment. In Hebrew, it means, "Thou shalt not swear to tell the truth, or to honor a contract, in the name of God unless you really intend to do it." Screaming "J___ C___" when you hit your thumb with a hammer is blasphemous, but it's not taking His name in vain in the context of the original language.

People who study foreign languages understand that idioms and figures of speech often do not translate directly into English. These are two perfect examples where the original meanings have been twisted, maybe in good faith, into something that differs from the original meaning.

This was what I was writing about above when I said that people have to STUDY THE SCRIPTURES to know what they mean. Reading the translation is not the same thing.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 2 months ago

ID- I understand about translations, but as I said before, I'm a non-practicing Catholic. I keep my prayer private between my God and myself. I don't mock any religion (although I don't mind pointing out the discrepancies of present and past) and keep mine to myself because that is what's important- the relationship between a single person and their belief.

For Muslims, if that's their religion, so be it. If I die to keep my beliefs intact, so be it. My head isn't buried in the sand, as seeuski thinks; I'm open to my beliefs, just like the majority of Muslims don't go around chopping heads off. The same goes that I believe a majority of priests don't rape children. If I'm wrong, please list everyone Muslim follower's name, and whether they condone it or not. Don't generalize, either. Let's get this as close as possible.

summerbird- You should then probably let others do the talking for you in general. They are much better at it than you. Personally, I just thought you had gone to the bathroom for an exceptionally long time. Next time, use Lysol or light a match. You brought the smell with you.

0

freshair 6 years, 2 months ago

I am not avoiding anything, my very, very illogical and confused kielbasa. As usual, you're getting off topic...the focus is NOT the theological content of differing belief systems, or what did or didn't happen 500 years ago, BUT the very real and present emergence of worldwide Islamic Jihad and what is required to confront this enemy of Western civilization and values. If your perception is one viewed through a Politically Correct prism than you are simply one more 'useful idiot' in the service of Radical islam.

0

freshair 6 years, 2 months ago

I spent 2 yrs many years ago living and traveling across the muslim world from Morocco in the West to Afghanistan and Iran in the East and I can assure you, clueless Kielbasa, that while most muslims have certainly never chopped off a head, they are ALL, almost to a man, devout, 5 time a day praying believers, who support and if called upon, would not hesitate for one minute to join their brothers in Jihad. You simply have no idea of the hold that religion has on muslims. Their fundamental zeal and othodoxy has almost entirely vanished in the West.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 2 months ago

So freshair said, "There is no shortage of present day 'useful idiots' who look upon the islamic threat as non-existent or benign."

And then says, "that while most muslims have certainly never chopped off a head, they are ALL, almost to a man, devout, 5 time a day praying believers, who support and if called upon, would not hesitate for one minute to join their brothers in Jihad."

Soooo...what's your motivation to wipe them out? Sounds like the siren call I mentioned before, except that it's the one you agree with calling you to personal Jihad to make sure their's won't happen. LOL! You prove my point over and over again: "We have to go all Jihad on them before they go all Jihad on us." Again- whomever wins, writes the history books as to who was in the right and who wasn't. Thanks for helping!

0

slip 6 years, 2 months ago

It seems to me that you are all arguing the same point from different perspectives.

Kielbasa is saying history is repeating itself- another religion is trying to take over the world which has happened time and again throughout history.

Everyone else seems to be saying there is an unforgiving religion trying to take over the present world. We can all look through our history books and possibly foresee how it is going to turn out.

The question that needs to be asked is what can we do about? How can we stop history from repeating itself again? And I think Kielbasa is asking us if we are willing to foresake our religious beliefs such as loving thy neighbor to do something about it. If we are, does that make us any better than them. Live by nature's law: survival of the fittest. Sounds pagan to me, history repeating itself again. I'm game, but we have be game as a majority.

Majority does rule which seems to be OK when we are the majority, but what is going to happen when we are not the majority anymore. We need ideas or solutions to our future problems. Lets not waste our energies belittling eachother. Lets put our brilliant heads together to find the answers. Unite against the impending beheadings.

0

freshair 6 years, 2 months ago

'Wipe them out"? Where have I ever called for that? You have got one serious comprehension problem going on! What I, and many others who know the Reality of the threat which the Jihadists pose, have said is that it must be confronted and not appeased. Now, if at all possible, reply using some common sense and logic.

0

seeuski 6 years, 2 months ago

For those who mostly rely on the drive by media for their news the reality of what Islam condones in Muslim countries is passing you by.

1.Saudi Arabia:(scroll down to chop chop square) http://www.escapeartist.com/efam/56/Working_in_Saudi_Arabia.html 2.Iran: http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=80 3.others: http://www.omdurman.org/sharia.html

0

slip 6 years, 2 months ago

Just out of couriosity, how do we confront freedom of religion?

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 2 months ago

Okay freshair- What is your proposal if not to wipe them out, eh? You're the one who mentioned they are a threat. So- whatcha gonna do? You talk a great game, but there's no substance. HOW are you going to confront and not appease?

0

seeuski 6 years, 2 months ago

Coming to a town near you? We already have recently witnessed the murders (so called honor killings) here in the US of young girls by their Allah crazed fathers, uncles,brothers and cousins. At least these criminals will receive fair trials under our justice system.

0

slip 6 years, 2 months ago

They will receive fair trials until they are the Majority. Then what?.... What are we to do?

0

freshair 6 years, 2 months ago

slip....what must be confronted is Radical islamism and its ambition to establish Islam as THE supreme ideology on earth. Nothing to do with Freedom of Religion.

0

seeuski 6 years, 2 months ago

Mattew, The way forward is not by wiping out an entire religion, it is by causing that religions leaders to call for an end to the Jihad. History has shown us the way, WWII for example, we defeated the Nazi's and the remaining Germans and surrounding fascists ended their conquest. The Japanese also had no choice but to end their conquest. The Jihadist wing of Islam (those that are conscripted to cary out the dirty deeds) must be confronted and defeated and the ruling leaders will have no choice but to end the Jihad. No one here wants to go through this, we just are realists who cant hide from what is going on against our future existence as it has been called for by the Imams and their minions. Again, I urge you to read the Terrorist Hunter, their are plenty of other sources that will show you that before any terrorist activity in the name of Allah happens first the missions must be blessed by the religious leaders.

0

freshair 6 years, 2 months ago

'HOW are you going to confront and not appease?'.

That question is too dumb to take seriously. Way too dumb.

0

seeuski 6 years, 2 months ago

We could also agree that all of humanity receive frontal labotamies.LOL.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 2 months ago

seeuski- With the Germans and Japanese, it's was nationalism, not religion. Which would you personally put first- God or country?

freshair- How original. There are not dumb questions; just people who can't answer them.

0

seeuski 6 years, 2 months ago

IT WAS FASCISM!!!! PERIOD!!! Same as what we see now.

Do you think destroying ones own Country as Hitler did was nationalism?

How silly.

The Taliban in Afghanistan is a good example for you. Was that nationalism? I don't think so.

0

seeuski 6 years, 2 months ago

If it was "nationalism" by the nazi's, and not religious fascism, then why the Holocaust?

Huh?

0

slip 6 years, 2 months ago

The question still unanswered: How do we confront them? How do we turn this around? How do we keep the muslims from becoming the ruling majority?

0

seeuski 6 years, 2 months ago

I smell hypocrisy, it is religion it now is nationalism, it is what suits you in your arguments.

0

seeuski 6 years, 2 months ago

Slip, I gave my opinion to your question a few up.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 2 months ago

Nationalism: 1. national spirit or aspirations.
2. devotion and loyalty to one's own nation; patriotism.
3. excessive patriotism; chauvinism.
4. the desire for national advancement or independence.
5. the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation, viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.
6. an idiom or trait peculiar to a nation.
7. a movement, as in the arts, based upon the folk idioms, history, aspirations, etc., of a nation.

Fascism: 1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
3. (initial capital letter) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 192243.

Fascism is a form of government; Nationalism is an ideology.

When 1 person is in control and works up the country's patriotism in a certain fashion, to a certain degree, how do you separate the two? Japan and Germany as nations, were patriotic in their fervor. How many German defections did WWII cause mid-war? How many Japanese defected just so they could start life in an Internment Camp? For a dictator to take power, people must stand behind that person. 1 person can't take over a country of millions without help. Again- majority rules, and if the majority follows a dictator...the circle goes round.

We're now discussing religion- not government. In the Muslim case, they seem to coincide more often than not...just as people always say the US was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs. It just doesn't come to the forefront in US politics...usually. Depends on who's running for office.

Again- God or Country- which would you put first?

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 2 months ago

And since the original subject pertained to Muslim churches and not their government...where's the hypocrisy?

0

slip 6 years, 2 months ago

"The Jihadist wing of Islam (those that are conscripted to cary out the dirty deeds) must be confronted and defeated and the ruling leaders will have no choice but to end the Jihad."

Isn't this what the U.S. has been trying to do? If we don't let the military take off the gloves and do what they do best, as we did in WWII, then we are probably looking at a very long war with the wrong results as in Vietnam. History repeating it self again.

And stopping the Jihadists is a far cry from not allowing the apparently peaceful muslims from continuing to build mosques and becoming the majority. Say we stop the Jihadists that doesn't mean the muslim religion will stop growing and not become the majority and vote in their governing systems. Wasn't this the point of the whole thread in the first place?

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 2 months ago

It was, slip. Unfortunately, there are those who equate the two uncategorically.

0

David Carrick 6 years, 2 months ago

In the midst of all of this, I am glad that the Truth is still out there (check out the way it all turns out by reading the last book in the Bible). A simple summation is: The Man on the white horse wins, and if we are with Him, WE WIN TOO!

0

seeuski 6 years, 2 months ago

Slip, I agree with you and don't let Matthew fool you, he has written enough in this string to indicate an obvious opposite position. Matthew, your post above is excellent but, your interpitation of what the meanings represent is wrong: you wrote: "Fascism: 1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. "How many Japanese defected just so they could start life in an Internment Camp?"

If that does not describe what Japan and Germany looked like in WWII than you are again in the sand. Any Japanese that would try or did not do as they were told were killed just like the Islamo Fascist movemant today.

You made my point thanks.

0

seeuski 6 years, 2 months ago

In all the cases we are discussing here the loyalty you describe was to a leader not a country.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 2 months ago

1) Actually, those definitions are from the dictionary.

2) Loyalty to country usually means loyalty to the leader, if not actual respect. Since we're on the tangent, read up on Hitler. Being an evil dictator notwithstanding, he was a polished speaker and not only demanded but COMMANDED loyalty from the masses. He was Reagan's equivalent in popularity, not ideology.

And were still off the subject of religion, since you digressed to the Japanese and Germans. We were discussing ideology, not government.

0

slip 6 years, 2 months ago

Cut off the head and the body will die. If we find and eliminate the head of the jihad and their movement dies our becoming the minority voice is still a possibility. I think what Kielbasa started out trying to convey was we cannot stop the muslim recuiting movement legally. As long as they stay within the laws of the land they are in we can't stop the momentum they have built up and before we know it we will be the minority. There still has not been a solution suggested that can reverse the world domination of the muslim faith. None of us, even Kialbasa, wants to sit idly by while this happens, but, again, What can we do?

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 2 months ago

And theology, where my position is that Muslims in general are just like the rest of us. I don't call all Muslims terrorists and must have to do something to "stop" them. I respect their beliefs, whether or not they respect mine.

Where have I contradicted myself in that? Since I accused freshair of wanting to "wipe them out" because freshair said they were a threat, I then asked what should be done about them? No answer except for lobotomies. Nice- forced or not?

0

slip 6 years, 2 months ago

EURABIA!!??!! Holy S---!!! LOL Though its no laughing matter.......

0

seeuski 6 years, 2 months ago

So you choose to read what you want here Matthew and slip. Again I stated my beliefs as to the way forward and I did understand that you were interpeting the dictionary to your desired outcome. Comparing Reagan to a dictator is sad. I ask again, If Hitlers destructive movement wasn't a fascist religious and race based one then why kill all the Jews and others that are different? Is that nationalsm or fascism?

0

seeuski 6 years, 2 months ago

For the two of you since you ignore my earlier post I repost it:

Matthew, The way forward is not by wiping out an entire religion, it is by causing that religions leaders to call for an end to the Jihad. History has shown us the way, WWII for example, we defeated the Nazi's and the remaining Germans and surrounding fascists ended their conquest. The Japanese also had no choice but to end their conquest. The Jihadist wing of Islam (those that are conscripted to cary out the dirty deeds) must be confronted and defeated and the ruling leaders will have no choice but to end the Jihad. No one here wants to go through this, we just are realists who cant hide from what is going on against our future existence as it has been called for by the Imams and their minions. Again, I urge you to read the Terrorist Hunter, their are plenty of other sources that will show you that before any terrorist activity in the name of Allah happens first the missions must be blessed by the religious leaders.

My belief is that we must defeat their Jihadist warriors and they will cease the aggression worldwide. And I never said all Muslims are terrorists, but the Important ones that are causing most of the worlds problems are. And as far as Matthew respecting their beliefs, I totally disagree. I respect their right to believe but I don't always respect what it is they are believing in for sure. Read the Hamas charter or the Koran.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 2 months ago

Reading what I want...

Kielbasa said, " He was Reagan's equivalent in popularity, not ideology."

Read it carefully so as not to misunderstand what I wrote, then decide if you were reading what you wanted. It's like comparing vanilla and chocolate- you can't compare their taste; you can only say they are both flavors.

As for your question: The movement was Fascism. The fervor stirred thru his speeches to his country incited and espoused Nationalism. Killing the Jews was Racism (Racial Genocide, but since we're discussing "isms" instead of Muslims) since Nazis believed themselves to be racially superior.

0

seeuski 6 years, 2 months ago

OK, now that you are spinning like a top I think the time has come to say.... bye bye.

0

bolanger 6 years, 2 months ago

Ford issuing executive order 11905 and then Reagan following with executive order 12333 (halting political assassination} have come home to roost. A valuable tool no longer at our disposal.

0

freshair 6 years, 2 months ago

kielbasa 'And since the original subject pertained to Muslim churches and not their government...where's the hypocrisy?'

FYI...there is no separation of religion and state in muslim countries. Civil law in muslim countries is sharia law or islamic law.Most countries in the Islamic world do not separate religious and political authority.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 2 months ago

And that is their right to do so in their countries or countries that allow it. Most people cite that our law system is Judeo-Christian based, and that's open to another debate. Our basic laws are reflections of most of the 10 Commandments.

There was a time when many countries were ruled by the church. We've moved on. History will show whether it will in Islamic countries.

0

freshair 6 years, 2 months ago

You miss the point again. Every aspect of a muslim's life is governed by Islamic law. No exceptions. There is very little, if anything, in the American legal system that reflects Old Testament mandates.

0

JazzSlave 6 years, 2 months ago

"And Jazz- as I asked before: Would you rather be killed by a Muslim or raped by your priest?"

Google 'catholic abuse lawsuits' & see what you come up with.

If you are abused by a cleric, in whose culture would you rather seek redress for the grievance? If I murder my sister for venturing outside the home without her husband, where will I be penalized - in Denver or Tehran? If the local religious authorities hang your brother/son/cousin/friend for being homosexual, where are you most likely to see punishment meted out and justice done?

State/Church-sanctioned hatred, misogyny & slaughter=Catholic sex scandal. Moral equivalence at its most pathetic. I'd encourage you to do better than red herrings, but I'd hate to see you injure yourself.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 2 months ago

Ah, yes: Jazz's last bastion! The "Moral Equivalence" buzzphrase. Must be the main ingredient for the Far Right Whacko Salad. Just like cilantro! Add it to everything!

Basically, it's a way for FRW's to avoid a Dukakis moment and hold their head up high. Better to smell the southern wind, I guess.

That's fine, then. We've gone circle before, and you continue to be in the center of it.

0

seeuski 6 years, 2 months ago

Getting personal again. Shows who has the facts.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 2 months ago

No, it shows nothing of the sort except for other FRW's. We've already told the class that Moral Equivalence is only in the eyes of the majority. When the majority changes hands, so does any definition of what's moral or not. Point was- Jazz avoided directly answering the question. OMG! I compared him to Dukakis! How could I??? LOL!

Thought you were gone? Coudn't resist, couldja?

While your here, show your definitions of Fascism, Racism and Nationalism. I could use a cartoon feature before Sweeney Todd tonight.

0

JazzSlave 6 years, 2 months ago

LOL, kielbasa - thanks for proving my point!

Your "analysis" of Islamic extremism is to sputter about Catholic clergy.

Hey Christians - priests have diddled altar boys, so you're all Zarqawis waiting to happen!

Sorry to have ignored your juvenile knock-knock question: I'd rather be raped by the Pope than decapitated by Al Qaeda.

Are you willing to "directly answer" any of the questions posed in my last post? Actually, they all boil down to this: I don't have a problem declaring our culture inherently superior to theirs. We have a civil authority to go after the priests who so offend you; there are no such avenues available to the victims drowning in the other side's cesspool, to cite only one distinction. If you honestly can't say that one is worse MUCH worse than the other, then you are the living embodiment of the moral equivalence label you sneer at.

0

seven 6 years, 2 months ago

Given all this info about ms then why would Americans be dumb enough to vote in a ms President?

We know the P.C. way of saying there are good ms and there are bad ms. But we also know this keeps them on the surface to be watched by our government.

We also know their doctrine says death to America and Israel. God has a forever covenent with Israel . It says I(God) will bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel period.

The connection is so easy why the blessing now is mostly off Americans. Our covering was helping Israel. But recently our politicians tried to give the land of Israel to palestine. bush has promised to do all that he can to take Israels land before his term ends. So that folks is what is happining to our economy---housing meltdown,credit crisis,stocks in the dump. To admit this fact Americans would have to concide the fact YES THERE IS A GOD !

The ultimate trick is being played out are you wise enough to see it?Americans deserve a ms president and should be able to compare and remember Gods once bountiful blessing upon them.I only have a few more weeks to go Lord willing, before going to Israel for good to live and few little stocks have always been in Israel so the market matters not to me. I'm not effected or exposed since I'm just a common person. Likely most of you will never be warned again or here the truth after this article but your soul will take all these simple words to the grave with you. Remember He loves each person equally He will be with you until the very end

0

JazzSlave 6 years, 2 months ago

"...a ms President..."

Forgive the assumption, but I'm guessing "ms" means Muslim. Last I checked, both Presidential candidates are Christians. If my assumptions are correct, what on earth are you talking about?

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 2 months ago

I can agree with Jazz on whatever seven was saying.

Jazz- I have no analysis for Islam. Not my culture and I can't say I've ever been interested in it. Again- I follow the God I follow and nobody elses.

At least you bothered to answer a question this time instead of relying on the stale moral equivalence crap, because that's all it is. When the majority changes, so does the definition because the majority is just that- the majority. Moral Equivalence is a misnomer. It's just an excuse to do something wrong for what a person believes is for good, whether the person is right or wrong. Nothing more, nothing less. It's a lack of having a true answer to a problem.

As far as committing a crime, I'll be tried per the laws of the country as it should be. If it's a crime against another US'er in another country, we'd see where that takes me. Does it mean I want to be tried somewhere else? Nope- but I'm smarter than to try and commit a crime overseas, and do my utmost to avoid it.

Ultimately, the point is ALL religions have a dark past. Some have taken action to correct it; some continue to sweep it under the rug where they can until it can be proved otherwise; some are open about it. Still- if a Muslim commits a crime in the US, fine- that person gets tried here. It doesn't mean I hold the entire religion or their beliefs to account for the actions of one individual.

As for being raped by the Pope? Not me. Rape demeans the victim and makes them live with it. I'd rather be decapitated by terrorists and know that I held true to my convictions.

0

JazzSlave 6 years, 2 months ago

Your 'majority rules' song & dance is nothing more than a ploy to insulate you from making a judgment call on right vs. wrong; or calling bull$hite on another party's evil.

Can't call the Islamofreaks on institutionalized bloodlust because of wayward Catholic priests. Can't condemn honor killings because slavery is a part of our history, or because of your religion's "dark past." Unmitigated BS.

I assume you're willing to condemn American slavery, even though it was legal institution until 1865. There were those who condemned the "majority" view before that same "majority" removed Jefferson's anti-slavery language from the final draft of the Declaration. Why are you so reticent to call evil by its name in the here and now? Right & wrong isn't hard to identify, regardless of what your unassailable "majority" decides.

You say moral equivalence is "an excuse to do something wrong for what a person believes is for good, whether the person is right or wrong." Trying to persuade you that the head choppers in the Middle East are evil is "wrong"? I'm wrong for asserting that murder is to be condemned? Because of Christianity's dark past?

Moral equivalence there couldn't be a more precise descriptor for that kind of claptrap.

Oh, re: rape v. murder you say you'd "rather be decapitated by terrorists and know that I held true to my convictions." That's more than a little silly. Show me the rapist who's going to give you the option, so as to preserve your "convictions."

In any event, one is survivable, and the other isn't. And the survivor can try to insure that the criminal doesn't create more victims. That's what many of the Catholic victims are doing, to their credit. You position strikes me as a little selfish, with all due respect.

0

seeuski 6 years, 2 months ago

The only crime you need to commit in the Muslim world is the crime of living as an Infidel. I posted enough web sites earlier in the forum to show this and other so called sins against Allah but I guess keeping ones head in the sand and then saying, "Does it mean I want to be tried somewhere else? Nope- but I'm smarter than to try and commit a crime overseas, and do my utmost to avoid it." Yea right you Infidel so again off with your head. There's the justice you get. Here you go: 1.Saudi Arabia:(scroll down to chop chop square) http://www.escapeartist.com/efam/56/Work... 2.Iran: http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index.php?op... 3.others: http://www.omdurman.org/sharia.html

0

seeuski 6 years, 2 months ago

Matthew said,"While your here, show your definitions of Fascism, Racism and Nationalism. I could use a cartoon feature before Sweeney Todd tonight."

I agree with the definitions you posted, I disagree with your personal use and interpitations as you see fit. I do believe you are the first person to explain the Holocaust as a racist or nationalist event rather than the Fascist dictatorship bent on genocide and the spread of fascism throughout Europe and the Middle East that it was. The cooperation between some of the Muslim leaders and the Nazi's doesn't show as nationalism or racism but a fascist idealistic dream shared by both. http://somebodyhelpme.info/nazimuslims/nazimuslims.html

0

freshair 6 years, 2 months ago

Let's be very clear on one point: the only person playing the Moral Equivalence card in this debate is Mr. Stoddard.

The Intellectual Bankruptcy of Moral Equivalence--http://www.americanprowler.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8297

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 2 months ago

Let's break it down for you then:

1- The Government was National Socialist: Nazism, a form of Fascism. (Remember- Nazi Party is a conjuctive form translated to National Socialist German Workers Party. National Socialist. National.)

<p>Dictionary.com Na*zism Audio Help (nät'sÄz'Ém, nÄt'-) Pronunciation Key
n. The ideology and practice of the Nazis, especially the policy of racist nationalism, national expansion, and state control of the economy.

"racist nationalism, national expansion,..." Key words.

2- The Government, Hitler per se, rose to power after being incarcerated. At his trial, he was allowed unlimited time to speak on his behalf. This got a lot of people behind him due to his talk of Nationalism (already defined in prior post). It's what made him popular. He then gave them an enemy- Jews, Blacks; whomever didn't fit the Aryan description.

<p>Dictionary.com Aryan Audio Help /Ë ÉÉriÉn, Ë ÉÉryÉn, Ë Ã:r-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[air-ee-uhn, air-yuhn, ar-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun 1. Ethnology. a member or descendant of the prehistoric people who spoke Indo-European.
2. (in Nazi doctrine) a non-Jewish Caucasian, esp. of Nordic stock.
3. (formerly) Indo-European.
4. (formerly) Indo-Iranian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler (Just Google Hitler and you'll find all the other links corraborating Wiki or see Wiki footnotes)

3- The Holocaust as a term in modern times is usually reserved for the Nazi extermination of the Jews. Hitler's reasoning for the extermination was due to Racial Superiority- Racism.

<p>Dictionary.com rac*ism Audio Help /Ë reÉsÉzÉm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rey-siz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

In a more broad term, the Holocaust was Racial Genocide. This then links back to Nazism, since one of the descriptive terms above is...Racial Nationalism.

It all goes round, and not enough to "spin" like a top. I'm sorry if this is too much to handle, but your welcome to dispute it.

None of it truly has to do with Hitler's religious beliefs, which were more about himself as a religious leader instead of the religion itself. He "rewrote" Christianity to suit his beliefs. Happens frequently even in modern times. Even me- I follow my God, but I don't push my God on others.

0

seeuski 6 years, 2 months ago

I think we are arguing semantics or we may just have to agree to disagree as to what Hitlers movement was, Fascism as I believe or racist nationalism as you believe. Or maybe all of it. Here is short video briefly explaining, in the words of the experts, what was going on then and how it relates to the problems in the Middle East today.

http://www.somebodyhelpme.info/nazimuslims/Obsession/Hitler_and_the_Mufti.wmv

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 2 months ago

Moral Equivalence:

"Moral equivalence is a term used in political debate, usually to criticize any denial that a moral hierarchy can be assessed of two sides in a conflict, or in the actions or tactics of two sides. It could be considered a form of the rhetorical fallacy of equivocation.

The term originates from the title of the essay The Moral Equivalent of War written by William James in 1910.

The term has some limited currency in polemic debates about the Cold War, and more currently, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "Moral equivalence" began to be used as a polemic term-of-retort to "moral relativism," which had been gaining use as an indictment against political foreign policy that appeared to use only a situation-based application of widely-held ethical standards.

International conflicts are sometimes viewed similarly, and interested parties periodically urge both sides to conduct a ceasefire and negotiate their differences. However these negotiations may prove difficult in that both parties in a conflict believe that they are morally superior to the other, and are unwilling to negotiate on basis of moral equivalence."

2 sides of a conflict. In that conflict, the winner (usually a majority or stronger opponent) can then claim moral hierarchy, setting what's "moral."

Ask yourself:

1) Where do morals come from?

2) Who decides what's moral?

3) Why does that entity(entities) get to decide what's moral?

I was using examples of what others have done in the past and are currently doing, not to say it outweighs or equals, but exists.

As Jazz asks me if then I would then condemn slavery because it was legal...yes, I would. I would use Moral Equivalence to say it's okay for Blacks to reverse the roles and enslave whites because we did it first. No what I said, was it?

Those accusing me of Moral Equivalence are wrong. I'm more talking about Moral Absolutism- 2 wrongs don't equal a right. Again- it's all in who makes up the moral codes.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 2 months ago

seeuski- Agreed, then. The way I see it, Nazism is a subset of Fascism, so they all go hand in hand. I just broke it down to a less broad level.

0

raver 6 years, 2 months ago

correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like no one in this epic argument is Muslim. so clearly the view is narrowed. one can read all the articles and cite all the websites one wants but if one is not a practicing Muslim than how can you make statements that declare you as all-knowing about the religion.

0

skipole 6 years, 2 months ago

I agree with statement Who?? would be dumb enough to take a chance and vote one as a usa president knowing they hate americans. Remember their saying"death to america death to Israel"??? How quickly we forget.

0

seeuski 6 years, 2 months ago

Raver, I am not making statements, just regurgitating what the muslims say for themselves about their beliefs. I have had conversations with practicing muslims, have read the hamas charter, have read many suras of the koran, have seen videos from cameras secreted into mosques and sermon halls, and on and on. The evidence of their desires are there for all to see if you look. I just don't believe I will convert to Islam in order to satisfy your kooky need to then understand what is said and written. No thanks!!!!

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 2 months ago

Sorry, Jazz (if you are still here.) I answered your question as to why I don't condemn anyone's religion already. It's your turn, now.

0

JazzSlave 6 years, 2 months ago

Moral equivalence, as it generally applies any furor over us vs. them, accurately spotlights a tired old (& usually liberal) tactic. Someone indicts [fill in the blank]. The standard reply: But what about the Crusades! Slavery! Native Americans! Catholic Priests! Hiroshima! Watergate! Milli Vanilli! We've been EQUALLY loathsome!

It avoids the issue by attacking the indicter. We've done bad things, so how dare we evaluate the transgressions of anyone else. Moral relativism may be a more accurate label, but moral equivalence seems to have the currency, at least in the discussions I've seen/read.

":who makes up the moral codes" isn't relevant to my own sense of right & wrong. Nor to yours, given what you've said about slavery. Something is either good or bad. Radical Islam is evil. The Catholic Church isn't germane.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 2 months ago

If Radical Islam becomes the majority of the world, and they all disagree with your definition, looks like you'd be wrong and considered evil by them, even if they already do now.

Morals are just some rules a group of people made up and the majority of people tend to agree with them. Until God comes down personally to correct us on what will or will not get us into heaven, it's all we have to go on.

Look at the all the different sects of Christianity and how they differ, yet worship the same God, for intents and purposes.

Now- "Something is either good or bad." There you go- Moral Absolutism. No shades of gray, yet you don't apply that to killing in general even though modern Commandment the most widely read version of the Bible says "Thou shalt not kill" and not "murder?" Thank you!

Then we move on to "Who are we to judge?"

0

JazzSlave 6 years, 2 months ago

My, we're being oh so literal to day, aren't we?

Here's an absolutist postition: Rape is bad. Can we agree on that? Or are there shades of gray I'm not sharp enough to recognize? Maybe we should wait "for God to come down personally" and issue a ruling.

Now substitute "radical Islam" for "rape." If you can't determine for yourself whether it's good or bad without waiting on God or history, I have to wonder if you have any genuine convictions at all about how people should behave and deal with each other.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 2 months ago

You didn't answer the question. Big surprise.

"Who are we, to judge?"

0

JazzSlave 6 years, 2 months ago

The question is pointless, just like your ridiculous rape vs. murder proposition.

Is your refusal to condemn radical Islam a religious thing? Only God should presume? That's not a dig; I'm genuinely curious.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 2 months ago

No, my refusal to condemn any religion is just my thing in general. To each, their own. And as I keep saying, until you can prove otherwise, the majority of Islamic people aren't attacking us, just like the majority of priests are touching kids in unpure ways.

The question is not pointless- showing an unwillingness to answer it is, though.

Again- "Who are we, to judge?"

Hurry up! Soon, you'll have to sign your life away to post here, and everyone will steal your identity! LOL!

0

JazzSlave 6 years, 2 months ago

Radical Islam - good or bad? Unwillingness cuts both ways, it appears. Your repsonse has been semantic twaddle about majority rule and Catholic clergy. And the "Who are we, to judge?" is right out the PC playbook.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 2 months ago

Radical Islam doesn't mean Majority Islam. I answered your last questions. Your turn, Dukakis!

0

JazzSlave 6 years, 2 months ago

"Radical Islam doesn't mean Majority Islam."

You're getting warmer. You still appear unwillng to pull the trigger on the good or bad quesiton, though.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.