http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=071023_1_A1_spanc46170
This is outrageous! Oklahoma will continue to be a redneck state as long as ignorant people like Rex Duncan are elected to the state legislature.
I tell you what.....you go over to the Middle East and try to hand out the Bible. Lets see how well you are received.
quote:
Originally posted by tulsapoolplyr88
I tell you what.....you go over to the Middle East and try to hand out the Bible. Lets see how well you are received.
Fortunately for us, we aren't in the Middle East.
quote:
From the article
"I don't know any Christians who run around using the Bible as their basis of justification or instruction booklet to keep killing innocent people," he said.
Sounds like someone has never taken a history class.
have to wonder what he thought the Crusades were...
The guy's just being an a**hole.
It was a gift from a local Muslim-American group. Don't you think it's rude to shout to the high heavens, "I hate this gift!" like a spoiled kid at Christmastime?
If he didn't like the book, he could have just sent it back instead of making an a** of himself.
If a Muslim politician in the Middle East acted the same way about the Bible, I'd call him an a**hole, too. But it's not terribly likely that would occur, because Jesus is considered a prophet to Islam.
Here's the best part of the article:
"I don't know any Christians who run around using the Bible as their basis of justification or instruction booklet to keep killing innocent people," he said. <end clip>
Apparently he's never read the book "Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith" by Jon Krakauer.
Whatta goofball.
It's pure politics, guarantee you he sent for the media himself.
[/quote]
Sounds like someone has never taken a history class.
[/quote]
Exactly. History class. Unfortnuately, the middle east is stuck in history, whereas this Country and the majority of civilized society is living in the present.
I think you're seriously underestimating Southerners' ability to carry a grudge for 140-odd years, guido.
There's an awful lot of those "The South Will Rise Again" Confederate flag-wavers around.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
I think you're seriously underestimating Southerners' ability to carry a grudge for 140-odd years, guido.
There's an awful lot of those "The South Will Rise Again" Confederate flag-wavers around.
That's right RW. Every day you read or hear stories about "Confederate flag-wavers" videotaping the beheading of people while praising God all the time around here. Oh, and how about those Confederate flag-wavers strapping bombs to themselves or their kids to kill the infidels in praise of God.
Yep. Those slack jawed Southerners are just like them Muslims
Now, now, Guido, you didn't have to get so excitable. [}:)]
I don't like religious extremists of any stripe. Both sides have plenty. Does Eric Rudolph ring a bell?
Back to topic: No matter what you say, I doesn't change the fact that Rex Duncan is an a**hole.
Shoot, the ones I know, down in Clayton, OK, they take pride in the fact that persons of color don't live there, and pride in their confederate flag bumper stickers. With regularity and freedom they speak of minor atrocities toward unsuspecting black folk they might have come in contact with. And, their nick-name is "Little Dixie". Seriously.
These are the type of folks this particular politician was pandering to, those and apparently people like guido.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
Shoot, the ones I know, down in Clayton, OK, they take pride in the fact that persons of color don't live there, and pride in their confederate flag bumper stickers. With regularity and freedom they speak of minor atrocities toward unsuspecting black folk they might have come in contact with. And, their nick-name is "Little Dixie". Seriously.
These are the type of folks this particular politician was pandering to, those and apparently people like guido.
Oh, so I am like those persons in Little Dixie you criticize? You do not even know me. Oh, and since you decided to ignore my post to RW and resort to ad hominem, you are also a coward bomb thrower. Perhaps you should leave this thread, big people are communicating.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Oh, so I am like those persons in Little Dixie you criticize? You do not even know me. Oh, and since you decided to ignore my post to RW and resort to ad hominem, you are also a coward bomb thrower. Perhaps you should leave this thread, big people are communicating.
Wow, you're not even close.
I never criticized the folks of Clayton, OK, or you. "Little Dixie" is their nickname, and apparently this politician was speaking to you. Just relaying info, it's all there, nothing I said about Clayton is untrue. Go check it out yourself. And if you didn't like what the politician did, you've got a crazy way of showing it. Crazy.
I think Michael C and I would agree that guido is at least sending mixed messages.
Or confusing ones, at least.
From The World:
According to the governor's council, other Republican representatives declining a copy of the Quran are David Derby of Owasso, Guy Liebmann of Oklahoma City, Scott Martin of Norman, Mark McCullough of Sapulpa, Mike Reynolds of Oklahoma City, and Susan Winchester of Chickasha.
This is just sad.
This is one of those double-edged sword moments. If we believe that people are free to spread the word about their religious beliefs, then others must be equally free to simply say no. Further, they are free to be rude dicks about it.
I can only assume these guys have very few Muslim constituents.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Oh, so I am like those persons in Little Dixie you criticize? You do not even know me. Oh, and since you decided to ignore my post to RW and resort to ad hominem, you are also a coward bomb thrower. Perhaps you should leave this thread, big people are communicating.
Wow, you're not even close.
I never criticized the folks of Clayton, OK, or you. "Little Dixie" is their nickname, and apparently this politician was speaking to you. Just relaying info, it's all there, nothing I said about Clayton is untrue. Go check it out yourself. And if you didn't like what the politician did, you've got a crazy way of showing it. Crazy.
I do not care what the politician did. If he is offended by the Koran, that's his issue. His constituents, of which I am not, will judge him a decide whether to reelect him.
If you look at my comment that began this tete a tete, I was responding to yet another bozo comparing the violence and murder of modern Islam to that of historic Christianity. RW thought it was important to inject Confederate flag wavers, Eric Rudolf, and you had to inject "little Dixie" BS as if that compares to Islamic terrorists to bolster that inane canard.
As far as visiting "little Dixie", I travel down there often and, nope, never saw or heard of any beheadings or suicide bombings.
quote:
Originally posted by Ed W
This is one of those double-edged sword moments. If we believe that people are free to spread the word about their religious beliefs, then others must be equally free to simply say no. Further, they are free to be rude dicks about it.
I can only assume these guys have very few Muslim constituents.
Excellent point....
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
I do not care what the politician did. If he is offended by the Koran, that's his issue. His constituents, of which I am not, will judge him a decide whether to reelect him.
If you look at my comment that began this tete a tete, I was responding to yet another bozo comparing the violence and murder of modern Islam to that of historic Christianity. RW thought it was important to inject Confederate flag wavers, Eric Rudolf, and you had to inject "little Dixie" BS as if that compares to Islamic terrorists to bolster that inane canard.
As far as visiting "little Dixie", I travel down there often and, nope, never saw or heard of any beheadings or suicide bombings.
Who cares? Maybe it's your guilty conscience, maybe you're a flat out racist, maybe you've taken part in a lynching somewhere. I don't know.
I never made that comparison, you did. I've said all along, this was a political move. And I've laid out who this particular guy is pandering to. There are plenty of people in this state that think what he did was just fine. Just as you do.
And as insane as you sound, you're probably in good company.
By the way, know where "Little Dixie" comes from? Check wiki.
quote:
I tell you what.....you go over to the Middle East and try to hand out the Bible. Lets see how well you are received.
I live there lol and I go to TU... I have many Christan firends like myslef and many others that attend ORU... Or UAI also known as...
I can't belive u have the nerves to say that.
No wonder your state schools suck and that the best choice of school you can offered is your average TCC...
Dont close your eyes and listen to the Devil speak... Wake up and read and learn...
It's a Gift... Take it... U just look like a racist when u decline it...
quote:
Originally posted by tulsapoolplyr88
I tell you what.....you go over to the Middle East and try to hand out the Bible. Lets see how well you are received.
There are racist ignorant people in every religion and every country. Fortunately, we live in the United States, where those that represent government are required not to discriminate against peoples' religions. If the US was a Christian theocracy, you would have a good point.
[/quote]
Who cares? Maybe it's your guilty conscience, maybe you're a flat out racist, maybe you've taken part in a lynching somewhere. I [/quote]
FU jackass
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Sounds like someone has never taken a history class.
[/quote]
Exactly.
History class. Unfortnuately, the middle east is stuck in history, whereas this Country and the majority of civilized society is living in the
present.
[/quote]
You don't have to go that far back in history to find examples of "Christians" persecuting others. The last century was replete with examples from Hitler to abortion center bombings to hate crimes against minorities.
Yep. The KKK was notorious for being a "religious" group, believe it or not.
It's a credit to our nation that we finally got past -- for the most part -- such stupid, embarrassing and frankly violent views about people with different skin colors or creeds.
The Tulsa World reports this morning that 16 more state legislators have joined in this show of ignorance and refused copies of the Quran.
Why can't these dolts just graciously accept the copy and move on? Just because they are given a copy doesn't mean they have to read it or live by what it says. Besides, they could use it as a reference book the next time someone quotes the Quran and they feel the rare need to double check the facts.
I think these guys are pandering to conservative fundamentalist Christian thinking, which in many ways is just as scary as radical Islam.
Rex Duncan is showing great ignorance. Out of the, what, 1.5 billion or so muslims around the world, it's a very, very small minority who are intent on extinguishing America and the Christian faith.
A wise man would have graciously accepted it. If he didn't like it or it offended his faith, he could burn it, trash it, re-gift it, or sell it on eBay.
He certainly has a right to not accept it, but he looks like a total putz.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Yep. The KKK was notorious for being a "religious" group, believe it or not.
It's a credit to our nation that we finally got past -- for the most part -- such stupid, embarrassing and frankly violent views about people with different skin colors or creeds.
Not according to Michael C. Hell, the principles of the KKK are apparently alive and well in "little dixie" (also known as south eastern Oklahoma where according to Michael C the worst of this state reside) if you buy his garbage.
RW: Still peddling that Christians are as bad as Muslim terrorists stuff huh? I bet you enjoyed the heck out of CNN's God's Warriors.
The so-called KKK of today is still highly "Christian". I'd assume some Neo-Nazi groups are too, though, most Christians are in complete denial about those sort of things. Depending on who you talk to, some have a hard time counting Baptists as Christians, much less Klan.
It's just the way it works. For many Christians; If you're right about the ideology, that means everyone else is eternally and infinitely wrong. You might have coffee with the guy, but you're not going to buy a ticket for his slow boat to hell.
But, I'm certain that if you really dig into parts of SE Oklahoma, you'll find plenty of "Klan" or true Klan-sympathizers, and then other folks with various ties to the ideology. Can't say for sure on the rest of Oklahoma.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
The Tulsa World reports this morning that 16 more state legislators have joined in this show of ignorance and refused copies of the Quran.
Why can't these dolts just graciously accept the copy and move on? Just because they are given a copy doesn't mean they have to read it or live by what it says. Besides, they could use it as a reference book the next time someone quotes the Quran and they feel the rare need to double check the facts.
I think these guys are pandering to conservative fundamentalist Christian thinking, which in many ways is just as scary as radical Islam.
Just to add, the article is on the front page of today's World, lists the 16 joining Duncan including these Tulsa-area state legislators:
Randy Brogdon, Owasso
Bill Brown, Broken Arrow
Nancy Riley, Tulsa
David Derby, Owasso
Mark McCullough, Sapulpa
All of the 16 are Republicans except for Riley, a Democrat. I am glad none of my representatives have made the list, at least not yet.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Not according to Michael C. Hell, the principles of the KKK are apparently alive and well in "little dixie" (also known as south eastern Oklahoma where according to Michael C the worst of this state reside) if you buy his garbage.
There are plenty of fine folks in SE Oklahoma, there are plenty in Clayton. Nearly all my relatives hail from SE Oklahoma, some of them are Reconstruction, "Little Dixie", transplants from Georgia. And I've spent enough time there, and lived there long enough to know who and what is on the ground.
You are very much coming off as insane. No sane person would make your case, say what you've said, and be serious about it.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
It was a gift from a local Muslim-American group.
It was a gift from a state government body, the Governor's Ethnic-American Advisory Council (//%22http://www.batesline.com/archives/2007/05/is-there-only-o.html%22), which despite the strangely euphemistic name appears to exist specifically to promote the interests of the Muslim religion in Oklahoma. Gov. Henry created the body by executive order in 2004.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
It was a gift from a state government body, the Governor's Ethnic-American Advisory Council (//%22http://www.batesline.com/archives/2007/05/is-there-only-o.html%22), which despite the strangely euphemistic name appears to exist specifically to promote the interests of the Muslim religion in Oklahoma. Gov. Henry created the body by executive order in 2004.
Oh, that helps his defense. We should all be thoroughly ticked off. Or shall I say, infuriated?
Here's the straight dope.
http://www.ok.gov/opm/HR_and_Employee_Services/Ethnic_American_Advisory_Council.html
When did it become PC to refer to Muslims as "Ethnic-Americans"? I don't think I'd heard the term until five minutes ago.
It is a different term.
BUT, the Council though perhaps a majority Muslim, is not likely all Muslim. You're likely to have a few who are completely secular. It's about Ethnic Minorities, Near East and Far East, not necessarily followers of Islam.
Though, more specifically, Near East and Middle East, those countries are for the most part, majority Muslim. Except Israel, Lebanon has a large Christian population, there are large pockets of other Ethnic groups who are non-Muslim in those regions. Other than to fan religious tensions, I don't see a reason it was brought up.
Most of you are showing great ignorance here.
Islam is a troubling religion. It is the only religion in the world that allows its followers to lie in order to gain advantage over their enemy. This fact is in the words and deeds of their prophet.
Do you disagree that there are several Islamic movements trying to instill a caliphate worldwide? Have you not paid attention to the fact that where there is fighting in the world - it is usually because of Islamists?
Muslims like to tell you that their religion is about peace but the fact is their history does not back this up, at all.
Seirafi-Pour had the nerve to preach in an e-mail to legislators, "The Holy Quran is the record of the exact words revealed by God through the Angel Gabriel to the Prophet Muhammad."
Do you not see that preaching the Quran to Christians is very insulting because the Quran states throughout the book that Christians and Jews are on the wrong side.
The worst case scenerio here is that there are Islamic enemies who have infiltrated our country and are trying to convince you that they are just like us. Once they gain your trust and can affect elections watch out.
You simply have not done your homework!
quote:
Originally posted by kakie
Most of you are showing great ignorance here.
It's called proper perspective. As opposed to, automatically losing bowel control every time you hear a word associated with "Islam." It's called understanding, as opposed to Ignorance, as in ignoring all other aspects and focusing on the most minute details to paint a picture of everything.
quote:
Originally posted by kakie
Do you not see that preaching the Quran to Christians is very insulting because the Quran states throughout the book that Christians and Jews are on the wrong side.
So? Everything is offensive to everybody. You're offended, and somehow I should care? Isn't Islam about the only thing Jews and Christians agree on? Otherwise, everybody is going to hell right? If you're suggesting we start burning offensive books, we might as well start with the Bible. There's plenty of them around, with a proper boiler, we could provide energy to this town for a year.
quote:
Originally posted by kakie
Most of you are showing great ignorance here.
quote:
Originally posted by kakie
Muslims like to tell you that their religion is about peace but the fact is their history does not back this up, at all.
quote:
Originally posted by kakie
You simply have not done your homework!
Neither have you. The history of Christian religion certainly does not back up "Peace on Earth, Good Will toward Man".
Christianity is a club, you are either with us or against us. I'll take Cartlon Pearson's inclusionist vision over "we're right, you're going to hell" dogma any day.
The day humans begin to accept each other and embrace our differences is the day we'll have peace on earth.
I know I am one of the village idiots...but wasn't it just a gift of a book?
They weren't required to read it, or swear on it, or take a test on it or anything...it was just a gift. Why would you say no to a gift?
Do you have to totally understand a support a religion to accept a book? I have a lot of books on my shelf and I bet many of these legislators do to. Are they either close-minded or afraid to take another?
Why is this any different than someone accepting a native-American made "dream-catcher"? I am not a member of a tribe and don't believe all the symbolism of native-American art, but I still think many of their things are beautiful.
This was pure public relations by a bunch of legislators wanting to be seen as against the Muslim religion. That is so sad.
I guess they only represent their Christian constituents. There is something clearly un-American going on here. With a handful of legislators like this and a mind set that put them where they are, I would say that Oklahoma is up a creek without a paddle.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
There's plenty of them around, with a proper boiler, we could provide energy to this town for a year.
Let me run the Btu calcs into megawatts on that. I'll get back to you later... [:P]
The only thing I see that could be "un-American" about the incident, is that some of these folks apparently were using this for PR. That's pretty bad. If they really felt strongly about it, that some how accepting the book would have made them less of a person, fine. Reject it, talk to no one, and go about your business.
That's not what happened. They had to jump up on stage, and tap dance around it a while. Spew a few racial stereotypes that are already becoming outdated, and milk it for what it's worth. It's like Looney Tunes, plenty of characters, non of which really have character.
The good news is, apparently most of the legislature didn't have a problem with it at all.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
There's plenty of them around, with a proper boiler, we could provide energy to this town for a year.
Let me run the Btu calcs into megawatts on that. I'll get back to you later... [:P]
Ha. I probably need to trim that back a little bit. Maybe not the entire town, how long could we power an acorn light?
Maybe we could put it in Patric's front yard.
[:P]
Let's not forget that the book was presented to these legislators as the exact word of GOD.
Michael C: "You're offended, and somehow I should care?"
Damn right! Because you expect us to give a damn how you feel about some state legislator's decision on accepting a book or not.
Michael C: "[T]he Council though perhaps a majority Muslim, is not likely all Muslim. You're likely to have a few who are completely secular."
Do you have any facts to back this up? If you don't know, then why presume that to be the case? Indeed, the book they were distributing, and which was rejected by now 16 state politicians, was the Koran. If this group were secular, you would think they would be passing out copies of the Talmud or Rig Ved, religious texts of millions of people living in "Ethnic American" lands.
Interestingly, in reading the final agenda posted on this website, this Ethnic-American Counsel was going to take up the issue of the Counsel for American-Islamic Relations. I guess you are okay with that organization and those who oppose its philosophy must be rednecks too.
http://www.anti-cair-net.org/
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Michael C: "You're offended, and somehow I should care?"
Damn right! Because you expect us to give a damn how you feel about some state legislator's decision on accepting a book or not.
No, not really. I don't care how you feel, I don't care if it changes, I don't care who you think you are, or who you might grow up to be. I don't care.
And as I've already said, the legislators had the right to reject it. I'm perfectly content with your opinion, you and that kakie character; you guys are making it too easy on me.
quote:
Originally posted by kakie
Let's not forget that the book was presented to these legislators as the exact word of GOD.
What makes you say that? The Quran was given to them as a piece of literature, so they might better understand the culture of Islamic people. There was nothing oppressive or aggressive about it. Honestly, in Oklahoma, Bible Belt Central, do really think Islamic people are in a position to force their religion on others? Get a clue people!
Duncan's direct quote was: "Most Oklahomans do not endorse the idea of killing innocent women and children in the name of ideology." If you want people that viciously stereotype others they way Duncan does to represent you, then you must also viciously stereotype others. There is an eerie similarity between the purveyors of anti-American sentiment in the Middle East and the purveyors of anti-Muslim sentiment in America's Bible-belt.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
There's plenty of them around, with a proper boiler, we could provide energy to this town for a year.
Let me run the Btu calcs into megawatts on that. I'll get back to you later... [:P]
Ha. I probably need to trim that back a little bit. Maybe not the entire town, how long could we power an acorn light?
Maybe we could put it in Patric's front yard.
[:P]
I have a little 5 HP HRT boiler which would be perfect for that, I might even be able to power a few more acorn lights on his block, people could stop by and throw leaves in it, dog ****, oily rags...
You know if Duncan and others had just kept their mouths shut this would have been nothing more than a fart in the wind.
What Michael Bates and kakie and guido seem to be missing or conveniently omitting in this conversation is that radical Islam (please note the "radical" part) has no chance of taking hold in America in any meaningful way.
Muslims make up less than 1 percent of the U.S. population -- a group which, incidentally, has been shown in studies to assimilate extremely well into American society.
Radical Muslims make up a small percentage of an already-tiny group.
So why the hell do a few people fear a certain deranged segment that's a microscopic portion of the population? Why have so many Americans turned into 'fraidy cats about lil ol' Islam here, when there are many other people and issues to be genuinely fearful about?
Doesn't it occur to anyone that being courteous and respectful would be a better way to assimilate American Muslims -- and thus blunt the possibility of radicalism -- than to act like sanctimonious jerks?
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
What Michael Bates and kakie and guido seem to be missing or conveniently omitting in this conversation is that radical Islam (please note the "radical" part) has no chance of taking hold in America in any meaningful way.
Muslims make up less than 1 percent of the U.S. population -- a group which, incidentally, has been shown in studies to assimilate extremely well into American society.
Radical Muslims make up a small percentage of an already-tiny group.
So why the hell do a few people fear a certain deranged segment that's a microscopic portion of the population? Why have so many Americans turned into 'fraidy cats about lil ol' Islam here, when there are many other people and issues to be genuinely fearful about?
Doesn't it occur to anyone that being courteous and respectful would be a better way to assimilate American Muslims -- and thus blunt the possibility of radicalism -- than to act like sanctimonious jerks?
I don't think it's that simple when you are talking to the American psyche. It only took 15 muslims to kill about 3800 Americans in one day.
I by no means underestimate the threat of loose cannons in any society or religion, but I can't live in fear of it. There's a bunch of people brought up in Christian households who randomly murder others every day.
Ostensibly, more Americans die at the hands of non-muslims than muslims every day, except for 9/11/01.
That's why it's so distasteful, this guy purposefully sent a letter to the legislature announcing his "explanation" for why he rejected it, and then goes on to be interviewed. It looks designed from the beginning to be PR. No one would have been talking about this had he rejected or accepted it, in silence. Of course, that's exactly why he was loud about it all.
The rejection wasn't really that big of a deal, that it was used as PR says tons about his constituency, and probably a good portion of this state.
If I may, I'd like to quote one of our own, who purports himself a Christian:
Friendly Bear:
Quote:
Make the followers of these Islam Cults fear the Men of the West. Make their women and children tremble when our helicopters swoop over their hovels. Death is coming for their men today......... Death from Above.
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7857&whichpage=2
All Sons of Radical Islam must DIE! What do we do with their women? They breed future Jihadists.........Ideas?
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/active.asp
Maybe we need some more understanding and education between ourselves and Muslims. Just maybe.
quote:
Originally posted by jne
From The World:
According to the governor's council, other Republican representatives declining a copy of the Quran are David Derby of Owasso, Guy Liebmann of Oklahoma City, Scott Martin of Norman, Mark McCullough of Sapulpa, Mike Reynolds of Oklahoma City, and Susan Winchester of Chickasha.
This is just sad.
Curious as to why you left the democrat(s) off the list??
But I agree, it is very sad.... for people in both parties!
More persons with opinions different than Michael C and perspicuity (I mean bigots) have picked up on the story:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1915839/posts
<conan wrote:
I don't think it's that simple when you are talking to the American psyche. It only took 15 muslims to kill about 3800 Americans in one day.
<end clip>
I'm not disagreeing with you, Conan. I'm just observing how the reaction to Muslims in America seems disproportionate.
What happened was that two dozen religious anarchists took advantage of a porous security system in the U.S. airline industry. And bin Laden had no idea the Twin Towers were going to collapse -- nobody did. What was an act of mass murder unwittingly became an act of bigger mass murder.
Twenty-four hours after the deed, I was ready for everything to go back to normal. I wasn't about to change plans for my upcoming Route 66 trip. Play the baseball games, play the football games, open the markets.
Yeah, it was apparent a few buildings were destroyed and that a few thousand were dead. But America had faced far, far worse and widespread disasters in its history. I figured the best way to show the world our resolve was to go back and do things we Americans did, as usual. Re-establish our routines, ASAP.
But no, a lot of people seemed to be paralyzed with grief or fear. Instead of bucking up, everything ground to a standstill for a week and more. I didn't understand it then, and I don't understand it now.
And we STILL have people who can't get their heads back in the game. We STILL have people -- including a large number in government -- acting like irrational fools or frightened children over an infinitesimal part of the population, of which nearly all want to just get along, anyway.
C'mon, folks. Suck it up, be vigilant, and live your lives. Quit acting like there's an evil Muslim behind that bush or under your bed. Act like Americans.
End of sermon.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
More persons with opinions different than Michael C and perspicuity (I mean bigots) have picked up on the story:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1915839/posts
I actually agree with you here.
That website you posted, seems to be full of bigots.
Good call.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by jne
From The World:
According to the governor's council, other Republican representatives declining a copy of the Quran are David Derby of Owasso, Guy Liebmann of Oklahoma City, Scott Martin of Norman, Mark McCullough of Sapulpa, Mike Reynolds of Oklahoma City, and Susan Winchester of Chickasha.
This is just sad.
Curious as to why you left the democrat(s) off the list??
But I agree, it is very sad.... for people in both parties!
I didn't leave anything out of the report. This was copied from the Tulsa World website. More legislators were added to the list in a later report.
Yeah, there's up to 16 now. One, Nancy Riley, covers much of Tulsa county including South Tulsa, Jenks, all the way up to Sand Springs, Mannford.
Here is the latest list:
Sen. Cliff Branan, R-Oklahoma City
Sen. Randy Brogdon, R-Owasso
Sen. Bill Brown, R-Broken Arrow
Sen. Todd Lamb, R-Edmond
Sen. David Myers,R-Ponca City
Sen. Nancy Riley, D-Tulsa
Sen. Mike Schulz, R-Altus
Rep. Gary Banz, R-Midwest City
Rep. Doug Cox, R-Grove
Rep. David Derby, R-Owasso
Rep. Rex Duncan, R-Sand Springs
Rep. George Faught, R-Muskogee
Rep. Guy Liebmann, R-Oklahoma City
Rep. Scott Martin, R-Norman
Rep. Mark McCullough, R-Sapulpa
Rep. Mike Reynolds, R-Oklahoma City
Rep. Susan Winchester, R-Chickasha
There is your 1 D and sadly enough, from right here in Tulsa. She'll be getting a call from me tomorrow.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
What Michael Bates and kakie and guido seem to be missing or conveniently omitting in this conversation is that radical Islam (please note the "radical" part) has no chance of taking hold in America in any meaningful way.
All I did was clarify your statement that the Qurans were offered to the legislators by a "local Muslim-American group."
No one here has a problem with a governmental body distributing religious texts? Or with the governor creating a special council to promote the interests of a specific religion? I'm surprised.
Radical Islam has no chance of taking hold? Tell that to the moderate Muslims who founded a mosque in a Chicago suburb 50 years ago, only to be pushed aside by increasingly radical leadership. (//%22http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/chi-0402080265feb08,1,7392742.story%22)
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
No one here has a problem with a governmental body distributing religious texts? Or with the governor creating a special council to promote the interests of a specific religion? I'm surprised.
Ummmmm, yes, absolutely, if it's gov't funded. It's not.
And part deux, doesn't matter how many times you say it, how you spin it on nut ball radio, that's not what this council does by definition. So no. Every WASP organization has somebody speaking for them, there are other councils for other ethnic groups. Why should we exclude the Near East/Middle East, or prohibit them from spreading documents representative of a culture?
All you're saying is, that we should be exclusive of Islam, and make damn sure Muslims aren't allowed to do something that anyone else is allowed to do. With their own money. You're attacking the rights of American citizens, specifically because they follow Islam. That, by definition, is bigotry.
And your doing it to defend a politician who did nothing wrong, except for the fact that he's a typical pandering moron. Nothing new there, but...
Michael C: "You're attacking the rights of American citizens, specifically because they follow Islam."
And YOU'RE attacking the rights of this legislator, an American citizen serving in the military no less, because he follows his faith. Do you even take the time and read what you have written earlier before you post? Talk about making it easy...
Does anyone know why it was necessary for Gov. Henry to create this Ethnic-American entity? I mean, did he feel the middle and near east was not adequately represented in Oklahoma? If so, why be such a wuss about and call it what it is rather than this BS/PC Ethnic American agency.
Michael Bates wrote:
Radical Islam has no chance of taking hold? Tell that to the moderate Muslims who founded a mosque in a Chicago suburb 50 years ago, only to be pushed aside by increasingly radical leadership.
<end clip>
Big deal. You found one case, in which there may be a handful over the years, in one religion that makes up less than 1 percent of the U.S. population.
You're making a mountain out of a molehill. My assertion stands.
But if you want to live in unreasoning fear, that's your prerogative.
As disappointed as I am with these legislators refusing a gift from a different faith, I am not taking the side of the Muslim group passing these out either.
They had to know that certain legislators were going to make a big deal out of refusing the books. I believe they did this in full knowledge that this would identify the elected officials.
It was a set up and 22 of the legislators fell for it.
The elected officials should have quietly accepted the books, then given them away or disposed of them in some other manner. Instead, the idiot Rex Duncan called a press conference to sound like an uniformed bigot.
There are no winners here and all of Oklahoma lost on this one.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Michael C: "You're attacking the rights of American citizens, specifically because they follow Islam."
And YOU'RE attacking the rights of this legislator, an American citizen serving in the military no less, because he follows his faith. Do you even take the time and read what you have written earlier before you post? Talk about making it easy...
The ugliness comes from the fact that he felt the need for a press conference on why he won't take the gift, and the fact the he is an elected official and assuredly has Muslim people in his district that he is supposed to represent, and instead has called killers just based on their religion. If that's not what we should be against, than what is? A very ugly offshoot of Islam has high-jacked the religion, are we going to allow the same?
I really don't feel much better about born again Christians (who often are hypocritical asses) telling me that I am going to hell unless I join their narrow and to me, misguided view of what it is to be Christian. The leaflets on cars when I leave my church saying I belong to a cult with pictures of people burning in hell is a very nice touch and make it clear that there is little difference.
Talk to the gay people that get lynched by "Christians", talk about Timothy McVeigh and his crowd, they misused Christianity too. And while we are talking about how much better we are consider the fact that we are wealthier and safer. If we were desperate and poor, I firmly believe that we, the United States, could get really ugly, really quick. Read what Friendly Bear wrote again about "death from the sky" and tell me I'm wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
As disappointed as I am with these legislators refusing a gift from a different faith, I am not taking the side of the Muslim group passing these out either.
They had to know that certain legislators were going to make a big deal out of refusing the books. I believe they did this in full knowledge that this would identify the elected officials.
Damn fine point. I don't think anyone is taking their side as far as, reaction from the legislators, or decision to send it. I will however defend their right to send it. Some, primarily Bates, have nothing to do but attack the group for the exclusive reason that it's centered around countries that are primarily Islamic. As if American citizens, from those countries, or from that religion, have no rights here. That's the only plain where that group has the moral high ground, and the only plain I'll defend them on.
The legislator, and all the legislators that signed on for this deal technically did nothing wrong, outside of turning it into a PR campaign. It was simply unethical, immoral, and void of character. It
is, however,
typical for a politician to pander. There is another overriding fact no one seems to be touching about this stunt. For some of these politicians, it probably has been a very good move, career-wise.
What accompanied the Quran was a letter that preached the Quran was the exact word of God. I think this could have been considered offensive.
Islam is not only a religion but a ruling system, as well. Muslims truly believe the Quran supercedes the Bible, is the only true religion in the world and that Christians and Jews are on the wrong side.
There are many verses in the Quran that endorse killing of others who are perceived to stand in the way of Allah. Did you know that Islam is the only religion that promises a grade higher in paradise if you die while fighting for Allah. Islam is also the only religion whose prophet allowed lying in order to gain an advantage over its enemy.
Since we are told by Muslims that the verses in the Quran are the exact word of God, we need to know when they are applicable. As citizens, we must ask Muslims to be honest and accountable for what is taught in the Quran. We need to know how these exact words of God are taught in mosques.
The following chapters in the Quran give clear instruction about fighting and dying for Allah. How is this taught in the mosque near your neighborhood?
Chapter 4.74: Let those fight in the cause of Allah Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah,- whether he is slain or gets victory - Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value).
4.95: Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward.
Let's not forget, America's founding fathers struggled for decades against Islamic rulers and their pirates which claimed American lives and treasury.
"Contemporary scholars estimate that over 1 million white Christians from France and Italy to Spain, Holland, Great Britain, the Americas, and even Iceland were captured between 1500 and 1800...the victims of these maritime hijackings would languish in fetid prisons, unsure of when, or even if, they would ever be redeemed. Many perished or simply disappeared in the White Slave trade. The only other escape was conversion. Embracing Islam—"turning Turk"—instantly changed one's status and prospects."
In verse 5.18 we see how the Jews and the Christians tried to explain to Mohammad that they were the children of God but he challenges them and said God was punishing them for their sins and they are not the chosen ones. Mohammad then declared that Islam is the true religion and that they, the Jews and Christians, are on the wrong side.
9.29: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the (tax of inferority) Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Israel is a big deal now with Muslims. Do you know any Muslim who believe it has a right to exist? Start asking them about this.
There are several verses in the Quran which verified the existence of the land of Israel. Here is one verse:
10.93 We settled the Children of Israel in a beautiful dwelling-place, and provided for them sustenance of the best...
Arabs have 99% of the land in the Middle East but yet many want Israel gone. Can you see why the denial of Israel's right to exist is insulting and hurtful to Christians and Jews whose ancient scripture evolves around Israel since before Christ?
Why is Palestine not mentioned at all in the Quran? I don't believe it came into existence until after Israel was dominated by another empire - perhaps sometime after the Roman Empire or during the Islamic Ottoman Empire.
Just some food for thought.
quote:
Originally posted by kakie
What accompanied the Quran was a letter that preached the Quran was the exact word of God. I think this could have been considered offensive.
Then recycle it. Throw away. No one cares.
"But we might offend some Muslim if we throw it away"...not if they don't know about it. RM's probably right, these politicians may have been baited, but they were also dumb enough or smart enough to take it. Whatever the case may be.
As for the rest of your post, I don't mind going over every point with you by
private message. There are some misunderstandings there, but the answers would consume this page and the next.
SWAKE: I am not quite ready to read anything from Friendly Bear after the thread on BOK taking vengeance on North Tulsa following the river vote. Too many painful memories and nightmares about the tax vampire out there...
There are plenty of examples of religious sects which seem rather innocuous at first which have turned out to become a radical cult which has destroyed lives. I don't have a problem of keeping an eye on those which spew perverted messages of spirituality.
However, it's completely moronic to characterize an entire religion by the actions of a small number of nutjobs.
^ +1
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Does anyone know why it was necessary for Gov. Henry to create this Ethnic-American entity? I mean, did he feel the middle and near east was not adequately represented in Oklahoma? If so, why be such a wuss about and call it what it is rather than this BS/PC Ethnic American agency.
It's not PC, it's complicated.
If you call it "Muslim-American Council", you'd have to include Muslims from all over the planet (like Indonesia and Nigeria), and exclude large swaths of the Middle East and the Near East. You'd kick Zoroastrians, Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, and any other religion out automatically.
If you call it "Arab-American Council", you exclude Iranians, Turks, Pakistanis, Afghans, Israelis, Kurds, Armenians....then you include a bunch of African countries like Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Mauritania, etc.
And lastly, their stated goals have nothing to do with religion (Islam, Christianity, Jewish, or other), only culture, ethnicity. Their scope is much broader than religion.
There is no one term that actually describes the Near and Middle East. Throwing them under the generic term "Ethnic" seems quite reasonable.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
If you call it "Muslim-American Council", you'd have to include Muslims from all over the planet (like Indonesia and Nigeria), and exclude large swaths of the Middle East and the Near East. You'd kick Zoroastrians, Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, and any other religion out automatically.
If you call it "Arab-American Council", you exclude Iranians, Turks, Pakistanis, Afghans, Israelis, Kurds, Armenians....then you include a bunch of African countries like Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Mauritania, etc.
And lastly, their stated goals have nothing to do with religion (Islam, Christianity, Jewish, or other), only culture, ethnicity. Their scope is much broader than religion.
There is no one term that actually describes the Near and Middle East. Throwing them under the generic term "Ethnic" seems quite reasonable.
I'd like to think you're right, but their stated goals don't match up to their actions or membership. Every public action this council has taken so far has concerned the Islamic faith -- encouraging schools to grant excused absences for Muslim holy days, asking for rebuttal time on OETA to the PBS series "America at a Crossroads" because, according to the council's chairman, "we thought there were a couple of segments that did not put Islam in a positive light," and now passing out Qurans at the state legislature. While those actions would be reasonable for a private organization representing Oklahoma Muslims, they don't suggest a government-sponsored council seeking to represent the diversity of religions in the Middle East.
Is there even one Israeli Jew, one Lebanese or Armenian or Syrian or Palestinian or Coptic (Egyptian) Christian, one Iranian Baha'i or Zoroastrian on the Governor's Ethnic-American Advisory Council? I haven't found one yet. Where I've been able to find some indication on the web of a member's religion, it's always been Muslim. Oklahoma has a sizable Lebanese Christian community that dates back prior to statehood, but I don't see any Saieds, Bayouths, Besharas, Eliases, or Courys on the list of council members.
Could it be that the Governor wanted to create a Muslim advisory council, perhaps at the request of a supporter, but thought it would cause trouble to come right out and call it that?
Nihad Awad, Co-founder and former National Chairman of CAIR, former board member of CAIR-Los Angeles (CAIR-California), and former President of CAIR's (dissolved) parent organization, the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP)
'If you choose to live here (in America)... you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam,' he said. Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith but to become dominant, he said. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth, he said." (Lisa Gardiner, San Ramon Valley Herald, 'American Muslim leader urges faithful to spread Islam's message,' July 4, 1998)
CAIR's founder and executive director, Nihad Awad, was the IAP's public relations director with a long history of extremism. Awad openly praised Iran's notorious Ayatollah Khomeini. He blasted the trial and conviction of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers - against whom the evidence of guilt was overwhelming - as "a travesty of justice." At a 1994 Barry University forum, he candidly stated, "I am in support of the Hamas movement." (Hamas and Hizzoner, By John Perazzo, FrontPageMagazine.com Wednesday, March 05, 2003)
Maybe this is what Rep. Duncan and others were thinking about when they declined to accept the Koran.
quote:
Originally posted by Wingnut
'If you choose to live here (in America)... you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam,' he said. Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith but to become dominant, he said. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth, he said." (Lisa Gardiner, San Ramon Valley Herald, 'American Muslim leader urges faithful to spread Islam's message,' July 4, 1998)
And how this is different than Evangelical Christianity's effort to convert and "save" everyone in this nation?
Evangelicals and their war on the first amendment, gays, abortion, evolution and any science that conflicts with what is in the Bible. Evangelicals and their war on public schools and any school whose teaching is not based on the Bible. Their war to take over the Supreme Court.
Their war in fact on anyone in public life that does not believe that the bible is the inerrant word of God, which correct me if I am wrong, that would be the part that is so offensive about this gift of the Koran, that the giver believes it to be the inerrant word of God. It's evangelical Christians that are a danger to our freedom of religion in this country, not Muslims.
Personally, I prefer the Constitution and the Bill or Rights to Sharia Law and fascism. Thats the difference.
quote:
Originally posted by Wingnut
Personally, I prefer the Constitution and the Bill or Rights to Sharia Law and fascism. Thats the difference.
And so do I. Sharia law is evil. It's treatment of women, it's complete disregard for human rights and freedom of thought. It's the worst form of oppression on Earth. But we are no danger of Sharia law in the United States, but we are quickly slipping towards an Evangelical Christian Theocracy.
A quiz: Iran or Saudi Arabia?
Which country decrees that women are property?
Which country allows women to drive and be visible in public?
Which country has a far more oppressive version of Sharia law?
Which country were the majority of the terrorists on 9/11 from?
Which country is more responsible for the funding and teachings that lead to terrorism?
Which country has the strongest democracy outside of Israel in the Middle East?
Which country is our enemy again?
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by kakie
What accompanied the Quran was a letter that preached the Quran was the exact word of God. I think this could have been considered offensive.
As for the rest of your post, I don't mind going over every point with you by private message. There are some misunderstandings there, but the answers would consume this page and the next.
By all means, please send me a PM to let me know what I have misunderstood in the Quran. I've seriously studied this book and the growth of Islam for a couple years now and welcome your input. Are you a Muslim? Because if you are I have many questions I would like to get answered. I could send them to you. One burning one is why Palestine is not mentioned in the Quran at all but the land of Israel is.
Islam is concerning to me because is isn't just a religion and their followers can lie per guidance from their prophet in three circumstances. It would help me if you would include references for me to study. I look forward to receiving it.
quote:
But we are no danger of Sharia law in the United States, but we are quickly slipping towards an Evangelical Christian Theocracy.
A Soft Jihad Grows in Brooklyn
by Aryeh Spero
Posted: 10/25/2007
In Brooklyn, New York, a public school named the Khalil Gibran International Academy (KGIA) has opened. Its primary purpose -- demonstrated by its advisory board, its apparent curriculum and the lining of school walls with pictures of Arab figures and heroes, is to teach Arabic and Muslim language and culture and to inculcate the children with radical Islamic ideology.
One of the school's more notorious pubic supporters is convicted cop-killer and former Black Panther Mumia Abu-Jamal.
The school's advisory board includes several imams, one of whom has displayed the Muslim Brotherhood slogan on his mosque's website: "Jihad is our way, and death in the way of Allah is our promised end." A spokesperson for the school speaks not of the duties of American citizenship but the aspiration towards "global" citizenship. Perhaps that is why this public school, unlike P.S. 132, calls itself an "international academy."
Many New Yorkers are appalled that taxpayer money is being used to finance a public school whose purpose will likely advance the Islamic religion and Islamist ethnic identity. Three local parents, two of whom are teachers, started a grassroots effort called Stop the Madrassa to question this inchoate madrassa disguised as a neutral public school.
Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes has written extensively about KGIA and other such schools now spreading across the country. On the opening day of school, Sept. 4, 2007, civil rights, religious and community leaders held a press conference on the steps of New York's City Hall demanding answers from Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his Schools Chancellor, Joel Klein. From out of town came Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, and attorney Brian Rooney of the Thomas More Law Center.
That day, Citizens for American Values in Public Education was born, created to fight the problem of Islamization in schools across the country. Immediately a request was made of the Department of Education, under the Freedom of Information Act, as to the curriculum, teachers, lesson plans and textbooks of the school. This is not unusual given that schools --- for reasons of transparency and accreditation – must pre-publicize educational content prior to the school year. Indeed, many are wondering about the use of public money for an institution, such as this, with religious overtones. The response to these legitimate concerns is that those that are asking these questions must be "racists."
For example, Mumia Abu-Jamal asserts: "Racist and right-wing groups and media outlets have demonized the school..." Councilmember Leticia James talks of "anti-Arab racism ..." The New York Collective of Radical Educators, in its statement supporting KGIA, called on "New York City to continue to be a voice in the struggle against anti-Arab/anti-Islamic prejudice..." Even Brooklyn's Borough President, Democrat Marty Markowitz, labeled inquiry into the school "disgraceful, xenophobic, and racist."
The intent of calling "racist" those who question the school's goals and legitimacy is, no doubt, to silence critics of the school's agenda. This attempt to silence Americans is very similar to CAIR's lawsuit that was brought by Muslim organizations against citizens on an airplane who alerted flight attendants of the fear they felt witnessing highly erratic conduct by six belligerent and provocative imams on a plane.
What should be every American's right to self-defense, or the right to inform appropriate authorities of possible harm or danger, has now been characterized by a number of Muslim organizations as "criminal" and, somehow, a "violation of civil rights" worthy of civil suit. Fortunately, House Republican Steve Pearce introduced the Protecting Americans Fighting Terrorism Act of 2007, protecting citizens from lawsuits when simply informing authorities of possible danger.
It appears that yet another strategy for silencing critics of radical Islam is emerging. It is alleging that critics of suspicious Muslim activities are guilty of "stalking," "harassing," or "assaulting." This new mode of attack is, it seems, being hatched here in Brooklyn. Dhabah Almontaser, the school's former principal, recently claimed that those non-Muslim community members who were critical of her stewardship at the school "stalked me wherever I went and verbally assaulted me with vicious anti-Arab and anti-Muslim comments."
With her lawyer standing at her side at the press conference in which she made this claim, she sent a veiled threat of legal action against those who have criticized her. As usual, those merely critical of policies are being defamed as "anti-Muslim" and "viciously anti-Arab." The fact is that, according to Citizens for American Values in Pubic Education and Stop the Madrassa, no one has followed Almontaser on the street or ever threatened her and there has been no personal harassment or stalking.
Ms. Almontaser knows this. Nonetheless, her hope, and the hope of her attorneys, is that concerned citizens in New York and elsewhere in the country will become intimidated by threats of prolonged and expensive lawsuits if they question alarming Muslim activity.
Almontaser resigned after a firestorm erupted regarding her support for some T-shirts emblazoned with the slogan "Intifada NYC" that were distributed by AWAAM, one of the organizations affiliated with her. When asked to separate herself from such obvious incitement to violence, she told the New York Post that the slogan merely referred to a "shaking off" and was a chance for young girls to express that they are "shaking off oppression." What "oppression," she did not say. The Post reports that the co-founders of AWAAM, the distributors of the T-shirt are "active in the more militant pro-Palestinian group, al-Awda, whose main U.S. office is in California," and that AWAAM is an active supporter of Hezbollah and Hamas.
In an interview with Amnesty International in Europe in January 2002, Almontaser stated that "I have realized that U.S. foreign policy is racist; in the 'war against terror' people of color are the target." Such attitudes about our country raise legitimate concerns as to whether such a person should be a school principal of children for which the tax system is paying.
Most Americans, except for die-hard liberals and leftists, are prepared to fight the terrorism that we call the "hard jihad." The left, though, seems unwilling to fight the "soft jihad" assaulting our culture and way of life. Many Americans who in the past were proud of that unique American penchant for being outspoken and truthful are now being cowed into silence by being called a racist when they are trying to protect themselves and the institutions they admire and love from deliberate damage and obliteration.
Those New Yorkers opposed to this school and those alarmed that such schools may spread across the country are not backing down and apparently will not be intimidated by legal threats. Citizens for American Values president Stuart Kaufman states, "We will not be silenced through threats of lawsuits or being falsely called names such as 'racists' and 'haters' and 'bigots' or other efforts to silence American citizens exercising their right to freedom of speech."
In addition to the cop-killer, radical imams, and anti-Americans associated with
the school, Stop the Madrassa is also up against the usual multiculturalists who are pushing Islamic schools -- though they themselves are not Muslims -- as a further means to radically transform our culture and diminish the concept of Americanism historically taught in our public schools. The liberal left is a witting collaborator in the soft jihad that has already arrived on our shores and is moving westward, one that wishes to incrementally carve out Islamic principalities, and brazen influence, in our midst.
Sorry for the length.
Just a tidbit of things to come....
quote:
Originally posted by Wingnut
quote:
But we are no danger of Sharia law in the United States, but we are quickly slipping towards an Evangelical Christian Theocracy.
A Soft Jihad Grows in Brooklyn
by Aryeh Spero
Posted: 10/25/2007
In Brooklyn, New York, a public school named the Khalil Gibran International Academy (KGIA) has opened. Its primary purpose -- demonstrated by its advisory board, its apparent curriculum and the lining of school walls with pictures of Arab figures and heroes, is to teach Arabic and Muslim language and culture and to inculcate the children with radical Islamic ideology.
One of the school's more notorious pubic supporters is convicted cop-killer and former Black Panther Mumia Abu-Jamal. The school's advisory board includes several imams, one of whom has displayed the Muslim Brotherhood slogan on his mosque's website: "Jihad is our way, and death in the way of Allah is our promised end."
A spokesperson for the school speaks not of the duties of American citizenship but the aspiration towards "global" citizenship. Perhaps that is why this public school, unlike P.S. 132, calls itself an "international academy."
Many New Yorkers are appalled that taxpayer money is being used to finance a public school whose purpose will likely advance the Islamic religion and Islamist ethnic identity. Three local parents, two of whom are teachers, started a grassroots effort called Stop the Madrassa to question this inchoate madrassa disguised as a neutral public school.
Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes has written extensively about KGIA and other such schools now spreading across the country. On the opening day of school, Sept. 4, 2007, civil rights, religious and community leaders held a press conference on the steps of New York's City Hall demanding answers from Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his Schools Chancellor, Joel Klein. From out of town came Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, and attorney Brian Rooney of the Thomas More Law Center. That day, Citizens for American Values in Public Education was born, created to fight the problem of Islamization in schools across the country. Immediately a request was made of the Department of Education, under the Freedom of Information Act, as to the curriculum, teachers, lesson plans and textbooks of the school. This is not unusual given that schools --- for reasons of transparency and accreditation – must pre-publicize educational content prior to the school year. Indeed, many are wondering about the use of public money for an institution, such as this, with religious overtones. The response to these legitimate concerns is that those that are asking these questions must be "racists."
For example, Mumia Abu-Jamal asserts: "Racist and right-wing groups and media outlets have demonized the school..." Councilmember Leticia James talks of "anti-Arab racism ..." The New York Collective of Radical Educators, in its statement supporting KGIA, called on "New York City to continue to be a voice in the struggle against anti-Arab/anti-Islamic prejudice..." Even Brooklyn's Borough President, Democrat Marty Markowitz, labeled inquiry into the school "disgraceful, xenophobic, and racist."
The intent of calling "racist" those who question the school's goals and legitimacy is, no doubt, to silence critics of the school's agenda. This attempt to silence Americans is very similar to CAIR's lawsuit that was brought by Muslim organizations against citizens on an airplane who alerted flight attendants of the fear they felt witnessing highly erratic conduct by six belligerent and provocative imams on a plane.
What should be every American's right to self-defense, or the right to inform appropriate authorities of possible harm or danger, has now been characterized by a number of Muslim organizations as "criminal" and, somehow, a "violation of civil rights" worthy of civil suit. Fortunately, House Republican Steve Pearce introduced the Protecting Americans Fighting Terrorism Act of 2007, protecting citizens from lawsuits when simply informing authorities of possible danger.
It appears that yet another strategy for silencing critics of radical Islam is emerging. It is alleging that critics of suspicious Muslim activities are guilty of "stalking," "harassing," or "assaulting." This new mode of attack is, it seems, being hatched here in Brooklyn. Dhabah Almontaser, the school's former principal, recently claimed that those non-Muslim community members who were critical of her stewardship at the school "stalked me wherever I went and verbally assaulted me with vicious anti-Arab and anti-Muslim comments."
With her lawyer standing at her side at the press conference in which she made this claim, she sent a veiled threat of legal action against those who have criticized her. As usual, those merely critical of policies are being defamed as "anti-Muslim" and "viciously anti-Arab." The fact is that, according to Citizens for American Values in Pubic Education and Stop the Madrassa, no one has followed Almontaser on the street or ever threatened her and there has been no personal harassment or stalking.
Ms. Almontaser knows this. Nonetheless, her hope, and the hope of her attorneys, is that concerned citizens in New York and elsewhere in the country will become intimidated by threats of prolonged and expensive lawsuits if they question alarming Muslim activity.
Almontaser resigned after a firestorm erupted regarding her support for some T-shirts emblazoned with the slogan "Intifada NYC" that were distributed by AWAAM, one of the organizations affiliated with her. When asked to separate herself from such obvious incitement to violence, she told the New York Post that the slogan merely referred to a "shaking off" and was a chance for young girls to express that they are "shaking off oppression." What "oppression," she did not say. The Post reports that the co-founders of AWAAM, the distributors of the T-shirt are "active in the more militant pro-Palestinian group, al-Awda, whose main U.S. office is in California," and that AWAAM is an active supporter of Hezbollah and Hamas.
In an interview with Amnesty International in Europe in January 2002, Almontaser stated that "I have realized that U.S. foreign policy is racist; in the 'war against terror' people of color are the target." Such attitudes about our country raise legitimate concerns as to whether such a person should be a school principal of children for which the tax system is paying.
Most Americans, except for die-hard liberals and leftists, are prepared to fight the terrorism that we call the "hard jihad." The left, though, seems unwilling to fight the "soft jihad" assaulting our culture and way of life. Many Americans who in the past were proud of that unique American penchant for being outspoken and truthful are now being cowed into silence by being called a racist when they are trying to protect themselves and the institutions they admire and love from deliberate damage and obliteration.
Those New Yorkers opposed to this school and those alarmed that such schools may spread across the country are not backing down and apparently will not be intimidated by legal threats. Citizens for American Values president Stuart Kaufman states, "We will not be silenced through threats of lawsuits or being falsely called names such as 'racists' and 'haters' and 'bigots' or other efforts to silence American citizens exercising their right to freedom of speech."
In addition to the cop-killer, radical imams, and anti-Americans associated with
the school, Stop the Madrassa is also up against the usual multiculturalists who are pushing Islamic schools -- though they themselves are not Muslims -- as a further means to radically transform our culture and diminish the concept of Americanism historically taught in our public schools. The liberal left is a witting collaborator in the soft jihad that has already arrived on our shores and is moving westward, one that wishes to incrementally carve out Islamic principalities, and brazen influence, in our midst.
Sorry for the length.
Just a tidbit of things to come....
Here's a tid bit, you want to stop crap like that?
Follow the money and it goes to Saudi Arabia, not Iran and Iraq.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
If you call it "Muslim-American Council", you'd have to include Muslims from all over the planet (like Indonesia and Nigeria), and exclude large swaths of the Middle East and the Near East. You'd kick Zoroastrians, Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, and any other religion out automatically.
If you call it "Arab-American Council", you exclude Iranians, Turks, Pakistanis, Afghans, Israelis, Kurds, Armenians....then you include a bunch of African countries like Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Mauritania, etc.
And lastly, their stated goals have nothing to do with religion (Islam, Christianity, Jewish, or other), only culture, ethnicity. Their scope is much broader than religion.
There is no one term that actually describes the Near and Middle East. Throwing them under the generic term "Ethnic" seems quite reasonable.
I'd like to think you're right, but their stated goals don't match up to their actions or membership. Every public action this council has taken so far has concerned the Islamic faith -- encouraging schools to grant excused absences for Muslim holy days, asking for rebuttal time on OETA to the PBS series "America at a Crossroads" because, according to the council's chairman, "we thought there were a couple of segments that did not put Islam in a positive light," and now passing out Qurans at the state legislature. While those actions would be reasonable for a private organization representing Oklahoma Muslims, they don't suggest a government-sponsored council seeking to represent the diversity of religions in the Middle East.
Is there even one Israeli Jew, one Lebanese or Armenian or Syrian or Palestinian or Coptic (Egyptian) Christian, one Iranian Baha'i or Zoroastrian on the Governor's Ethnic-American Advisory Council? I haven't found one yet. Where I've been able to find some indication on the web of a member's religion, it's always been Muslim. Oklahoma has a sizable Lebanese Christian community that dates back prior to statehood, but I don't see any Saieds, Bayouths, Besharas, Eliases, or Courys on the list of council members.
Could it be that the Governor wanted to create a Muslim advisory council, perhaps at the request of a supporter, but thought it would cause trouble to come right out and call it that?
Good luck finding a real live Zoroastrian in this state. We might have a population of, I don't know, less than 10? If we're lucky. Or a Copt, or a Baha'i, there are a few Baha'i.
It's possible, no doubt. Some people would have a hissy-fit if it was called "Muslim-American" Council. Some already have. That's why your bringing it up.
Still, for it to be a Muslim Council, you'd have to include regions that are purposefully excluded. As far as Middle East/Near East, Egypt is disputable, beyond Egypt is normally out though around half of Africa is Muslim.
And you'd have to include Muslims that would be better covered under the umbrella "Asian" or "SE Asian", like Malaysia, China, India, Indonesia, etc.
It's not inclusive enough to be strictly defined Muslim, or exclusive enough to be strictly defined Muslim. It only covers a defined area. The majority of which, happen to be Muslim.
Not that it matters, if the Latin Council was able to put out a Catholic Centennial Bible I wouldn't be complaining. Of course, neither would politicians, even though some would consider that possibility.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Wingnut
'If you choose to live here (in America)... you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam,' he said. Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith but to become dominant, he said. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth, he said." (Lisa Gardiner, San Ramon Valley Herald, 'American Muslim leader urges faithful to spread Islam's message,' July 4, 1998)
And how this is different than Evangelical Christianity's effort to convert and "save" everyone in this nation?
Evangelicals and their war on the first amendment, gays, abortion, evolution and any science that conflicts with what is in the Bible. Evangelicals and their war on public schools and any school whose teaching is not based on the Bible. Their war to take over the Supreme Court.
Their war in fact on anyone in public life that does not believe that the bible is the inerrant word of God, which correct me if I am wrong, that would be the part that is so offensive about this gift of the Koran, that the giver believes it to be the inerrant word of God. It's evangelical Christians that are a danger to our freedom of religion in this country, not Muslims.
There is
one difference in reference to a paragraph from Wingnut you didn't quote about CAIR. Generally Christian religious leaders don't support asshat dictators (Khomeini) and defend the actions of terrorists (WTC '93). I don't recall hearing a single Christian pastor publicly defend abortion clinic bombings, shootings, or arson attacks- which is terrorism. The public comments I heard were along the lines of: "Abortion is an abomination, but there is no justification for killing and maiming others to prevent it."
Take a look at what happens when Islam becomes the dominant religion in a country like Iran, Iraq, or Afghanistan. You have plenty of religious freedom so long as you are a Muslim. I'm not saying that is an
imminent reality in America. I believe Islamic influence on government needs to be watched as close as evangelical Christianity.
America has always had close ties to Christianity because it was founded by protestant Christians. Many principles of our laws came from Biblical scripture or from the British Common Law which also has roots in Christian principles. However, there has at least been tolerance for other religions from our government, something which is lacking in non-secular Muslim governments- there is no comparison.
America
was founded in a large part on religious freedom. It bothers me for any single religion to try to influence itself on our government. I don't like the far Christian right trying to assert itself into our laws and government through the front door and I don't like Islam trying to do it through the back door.
The ACLU and others have done a pretty good job of making sure Christian prayer was taken out of public schools, the ten commandments has been removed from courthouse lawns, and that no expression of the Christian faith is permissable in these places.
Yet, there are instances right now of Islam recieving preferential treatment in public schools with the installation of prayer rooms, foot baths, and mandated prayer breaks for their Muslim students. I don't ever recall hearing of public school cafeterias having a kosher requirement for their Jewish students, yet there are now accomodations for Muslim student's dietary needs in the Detroit and Dearborn area.
"Barry Lynn, of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, says however that the law is murky on these expressions of faith. And the American Civil Liberties Union says overt religious symbols like crucifixes are not legal, but whether Muslim foot baths and prayer rugs fall into that category is not clear."
So we have a clear understanding that the cross is verboten (as I would assume the star of David is as well), but a very tepid interpretation when it comes to Islamic symbolism and rituals.
Source (//%22http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-25-muslim-special-treatment-from-schools_N.htm%22)
Honestly I don't see an assault on the First Amendment by evangelicals. They exist in this country by virtue of the First Amendment.
"Well the evangelical Christians are doing it" is a truly naive justification for allowing any other religion to silenty be allowed preferential treatment in our communities and schools.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I don't ever recall hearing of public school cafeterias having a kosher requirement for their Jewish students, yet there are now accomodations for Muslim student's dietary needs in the Detroit and Dearborn area.
Here's one.
http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/?action=viewRelease&emailAlertID=2973
I'm sure there's more, but certain people are far more interested in focusing on certain groups.
Dietary is fairly important, for years schools I went to offered fish on Friday's for Catholics. If you don't have dietary restrictions, like those swine-eating Protestants, you really don't have anything to complain about. Swine-eaters. *shakes fist*
But seriously, I love pigs. Especially eating them.
Not that we need to get further sidetracked with events and places and foods exclusively used to stereotype. Let's move on. Shall we?
What is it with religion and restricting food?
No meat on Friday for Catholics...Jews can't eat pork, Hinduism and no eating beef...and don't get me started on fasting for Ramadan.
Why does God care about what and when I eat?
Is there any religion that prohibits eating broccoli, spinach and otherwise healthy food? I would probably tithe to them...
You know, maybe I can't quite get past it, but I was reading that article on the Hebrew-English magnet school, and I got to thinking why there couldn't be a Christian Magnet school. And the article actually explains it quite well.
It boils down to culture versus religion. Religious schools can't be publicly funded, but a school can be publicly funded and designed to fit a culture that already exists in an area. It's a fine line probably, but still. Everyone kind of knows that there are cultural details around groups that are Catholic, or groups that are primarily Jewish, or primarily Muslim, or primarily Chinese. What would a cultural, non-religious, "christian" school look like? Would it look almost exactly like the vast majority of public schools? Is there a such thing as a "christian" culture, and if so what are the agreeable details?
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Wingnut
'If you choose to live here (in America)... you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam,' he said. Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith but to become dominant, he said. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth, he said." (Lisa Gardiner, San Ramon Valley Herald, 'American Muslim leader urges faithful to spread Islam's message,' July 4, 1998)
And how this is different than Evangelical Christianity's effort to convert and "save" everyone in this nation?
Evangelicals and their war on the first amendment, gays, abortion, evolution and any science that conflicts with what is in the Bible. Evangelicals and their war on public schools and any school whose teaching is not based on the Bible. Their war to take over the Supreme Court.
Their war in fact on anyone in public life that does not believe that the bible is the inerrant word of God, which correct me if I am wrong, that would be the part that is so offensive about this gift of the Koran, that the giver believes it to be the inerrant word of God. It's evangelical Christians that are a danger to our freedom of religion in this country, not Muslims.
There is one difference in reference to a paragraph from Wingnut you didn't quote about CAIR. Generally Christian religious leaders don't support asshat dictators (Khomeini) and defend the actions of terrorists (WTC '93). I don't recall hearing a single Christian pastor publicly defend abortion clinic bombings, shootings, or arson attacks- which is terrorism. The public comments I heard were along the lines of: "Abortion is an abomination, but there is no justification for killing and maiming others to prevent it."
Take a look at what happens when Islam becomes the dominant religion in a country like Iran, Iraq, or Afghanistan. You have plenty of religious freedom so long as you are a Muslim. I'm not saying that is an imminent reality in America. I believe Islamic influence on government needs to be watched as close as evangelical Christianity.
America has always had close ties to Christianity because it was founded by protestant Christians. Many principles of our laws came from Biblical scripture or from the British Common Law which also has roots in Christian principles. However, there has at least been tolerance for other religions from our government, something which is lacking in non-secular Muslim governments- there is no comparison.
America was founded in a large part on religious freedom. It bothers me for any single religion to try to influence itself on our government. I don't like the far Christian right trying to assert itself into our laws and government through the front door and I don't like Islam trying to do it through the back door.
The ACLU and others have done a pretty good job of making sure Christian prayer was taken out of public schools, the ten commandments has been removed from courthouse lawns, and that no expression of the Christian faith is permissable in these places.
Yet, there are instances right now of Islam recieving preferential treatment in public schools with the installation of prayer rooms, foot baths, and mandated prayer breaks for their Muslim students. I don't ever recall hearing of public school cafeterias having a kosher requirement for their Jewish students, yet there are now accomodations for Muslim student's dietary needs in the Detroit and Dearborn area.
"Barry Lynn, of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, says however that the law is murky on these expressions of faith. And the American Civil Liberties Union says overt religious symbols like crucifixes are not legal, but whether Muslim foot baths and prayer rugs fall into that category is not clear."
So we have a clear understanding that the cross is verboten (as I would assume the star of David is as well), but a very tepid interpretation when it comes to Islamic symbolism and rituals.
Source (//%22http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-25-muslim-special-treatment-from-schools_N.htm%22)
Honestly I don't see an assault on the First Amendment by evangelicals. They exist in this country by virtue of the First Amendment.
"Well the evangelical Christians are doing it" is a truly naive justification for allowing any other religion to silenty be allowed preferential treatment in our communities and schools.
I don't disagree that radical Islam is very dangerous, or that it's far worse than radical Christianity. It's just that radical Christianity is a bigger danger to us.
And, Radical Islam becomes more dangerous here when we treat all Muslims here as radical and when a state senator comes out and basically calls all Muslims murderers, he is helping to make all Muslims radical by his treatment of them.
That is the point. I would bet money that he is one of those Evangelical Christians that I have been talking about so here again is another area where "radical" Christians are dangerous to US in their treatment of other religions.
From the text of the article...
quote:
Serious concerns were raised over whether the school would be sponsoring religion, breaching the constitutional line between church and state.
Where is that in the Constitution?
I'm sorry but, the ACLU holds no water with me. They are the most anti-American organization there is. It's founder Roger Baldwin was an avowed communist who stated that "Communism (was) the goal".
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1579
//
[url]
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6145
There is story after story about how the ACLU has taken up the cause to give special rights to those that want to overthrow our system of gov't, even on the taxpayers dime.
http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/3667
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200707/CUL20070710c.html
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AlanSears/2007/06/16/the_aclu_never_forgets_its_pro-communist_roots
We live in a country with Constitutionanly protected freedoms. I have no use for communism, socialism, nazism, or stalinism, and the death and oppression that goes with it. No one can say that hitler's goal wasn't world domination. That's what our boys fought against and died for in WW2. I don't think we need another facist organization to come along in the name of "peace" that wants to dominate the U.S. and the world.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6386
SWAKE: "I don't disagree that radical Islam is very dangerous, or that it's far worse than radical Christianity. It's just that radical Christianity is a bigger danger to us."
What absolute, blame America first b*llsh*t:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Wingnut wrote:
We live in a country with Constitutionanly protected freedoms.
<end clip>
Which is why you ought to be supportive of the ACLU instead of deriding it. The ACLU has been defending the Constitution and the Bill of Rights for decades. It deserves praise, not scorn.
Back to topic: Nancy Riley got a scathing e-mail from me yesterday. We'll see whether she explains herself.
<guido wrote:
SWAKE: "I don't disagree that radical Islam is very dangerous, or that it's far worse than radical Christianity. It's just that radical Christianity is a bigger danger to us."
What absolute, blame America first b*llsh*t:
<end clip>
I agree with swake. Christian fundamentalists are in a far, far bigger sphere of political influence than Muslims ever will be. If they set their sights on usurping portions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, you betcha they're a bigger threat. That's obvious.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I don't ever recall hearing of public school cafeterias having a kosher requirement for their Jewish students, yet there are now accomodations for Muslim student's dietary needs in the Detroit and Dearborn area.
Here's one.
http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/?action=viewRelease&emailAlertID=2973
I'm sure there's more, but certain people are far more interested in focusing on certain groups.
Dietary is fairly important, for years schools I went to offered fish on Friday's for Catholics. If you don't have dietary restrictions, like those swine-eating Protestants, you really don't have anything to complain about. Swine-eaters. *shakes fist*
But seriously, I love pigs. Especially eating them.
Not that we need to get further sidetracked with events and places and foods exclusively used to stereotype. Let's move on. Shall we?
Well duh, kosher food at
Ben Gamla charter school. [;)]
Your commment about "I love pigs" brings to mind the Vincent Vega/Jules Winfield exchange in the coffee shop in "Pulp Fiction"
"Bacon tastes good, pork chops taste good..."
"Hey, sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie but I'll never know because I wouldn't eat the filthy mother ****ers".
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
SWAKE: "I don't disagree that radical Islam is very dangerous, or that it's far worse than radical Christianity. It's just that radical Christianity is a bigger danger to us."
What absolute, blame America first b*llsh*t:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Blame America? Blame us for what? You aren't even making sense.
quote:
Which is why you ought to be supportive of the ACLU instead of deriding it. The ACLU has been defending the Constitution and the Bill of Rights for decades. It deserves praise, not scorn.
Support for the aclu is support for communism. Read some of the links I posted.
Why don't they support anything that has to do with Christianity if they are for "equal rights and protections"?
quote:
Originally posted by Wingnut
quote:
Which is why you ought to be supportive of the ACLU instead of deriding it. The ACLU has been defending the Constitution and the Bill of Rights for decades. It deserves praise, not scorn.
Support for the aclu is support for communism. Read some of the links I posted.
Why don't they support anything that has to do with Christianity if they are for "equal rights and protections"?
The Cold War is over, let it go....
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
<guido wrote:
SWAKE: "I don't disagree that radical Islam is very dangerous, or that it's far worse than radical Christianity. It's just that radical Christianity is a bigger danger to us."
What absolute, blame America first b*llsh*t:
<end clip>
I agree with swake. Christian fundamentalists are in a far, far bigger sphere of political influence than Muslims ever will be. If they set their sights on usurping portions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, you betcha they're a bigger threat. That's obvious.
RW- I wouldn't go so far as to say "ever will be". The muslim population will only continue to grow in coming years, and with that will come a demand for more influence. In terms of imminent influence, yes Christianity has more pull these days.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
That is the point. I would bet money that he is one of those Evangelical Christians that I have been talking about so here again is another area where "radical" Christians are dangerous to US in their treatment of other religions.
Honestly, I think Rex Duncan's actions have been dismissed by 75% of us as him being a pathetic ignoramus. I don't see anything "dangerous" about his actions. His refusal of the Quran wasn't stupid, so much as his public justification for not accepting it.
Move on nothing more to see here.
Wingnut wrote:
Support for the aclu is support for communism.
<end clip>
Congratulations. You've just blown your credibility all to hell.
Next thing you know, you'll say that the communists are trying to control our bodily fluids, without a hint of irony. [}:)]
And wingnuts wonder why people ridicule them. [}:)]
Conan wrote:
The muslim population will only continue to grow in coming years, and with that will come a demand for more influence.
<end clip>
That will have to be one hell of a population boost to go up from infinitesimal. According to the 2000 census, Muslims made up 0.6 percent of the U.S. population.
If they double their numbers, they'll be 1.2 percent of the population.
Whoop-dee-do.
That's also assuming other ethnic groups stay stagnant in growth, which they won't. And because Muslims assimilate very well in America, their radical elements will be very small indeed.
Forgive me if I'm not worried. Facts and common sense make me that way.
quote:
And wingnuts wonder why people ridicule them
I'm not one of those wingnuts. I'm into avaition. I'd post an aircraft avatar in I could figure out how.
Granted, saying support for the aclu is support for communism may be out of line, but what have they done other than beat up on churches and Boy Scouts? All I see them doing is removing peoples rights while enforcing rights for special interest groups.
Actually, the ACLU has done quite a lot to defend religious liberty.
http://www.aclu.org/religion/public/16254res20050302.html
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Conan wrote:
The muslim population will only continue to grow in coming years, and with that will come a demand for more influence.
<end clip>
That will have to be one hell of a population boost to go up from infinitesimal. According to the 2000 census, Muslims made up 0.6 percent of the U.S. population.
If they double their numbers, they'll be 1.2 percent of the population.
Whoop-dee-do.
That's also assuming other ethnic groups stay stagnant in growth, which they won't. And because Muslims assimilate very well in America, their radical elements will be very small indeed.
Forgive me if I'm not worried. Facts and common sense make me that way.
Didn't say I am
worried about it. You don't live in fear of something, but you don't entirely discount all possibilities either.
I just wouldn't turn a blind eye and assume that it's not possible and there won't be the potential for some mosques to be perverted by a charismatic iconoclast for nefarious ends. The difference is, when Christianity is is bastardized, it's usually for the personal financial gain, ego needs, or sexual proclivities of the leader. When Islam is bastardized, it's usually to bring down another religion or nation.
Here's some interesting stats covering the growth just from 1994 to 2000.
http://www.islamfortoday.com/america04.htm
Muslim's I grew up with came here as their parents wanted to escape the repression of their home countries, and yes they did assimilate well, and some became Christians. I even dated a Muslim woman for awhile. My own personal life experience with Muslims has been quite good and positive.
Conan wrote:
I just wouldn't turn a blind eye and assume that it's not possible and there won't be the potential for some mosques to be perverted by a charismatic iconoclast for nefarious ends.
<end clip>
Of course. But that's what the police and law-abiding citizenry are for -- to be on the lookout for criminal activity.
That doesn't mean you move police resources away from monitoring gang-bangers down the street and meth houses because you're skeered that a handful of Muslims *might* be up to no good.
As I've said before, the concern about radical Islam is way, way out of proportion to obvious and much more widespread lawbreaking -- stuff that has a real and present detriment to our society.
As an old boy I knew once said: "We've got bigger fish to fry."
The only motivations I see for this undue attention on American Muslims are unreasoning fear, old-fashioned bigotry, or cheap political opportunism.
RW- I do believe I said more Americans are killed by non-Muslims every day than by Muslims.
That is the present situation and there's no guarantee that will always remain the case. I don't ascribe to the unreasonible fears of others nor the dense rhetoric of the Rex Duncans of this world, but I do understand what foments that sort of narrow-minded thinking.
quote:
Actually, the ACLU has done quite a lot to defend religious liberty.
The ACLU of Oregon (1996-present) filed suits on behalf of Portland student Remington Powell and his parents against the Portland School District for allowing The Boy Scouts, a religious organization, to recruit in public schools during school hours. The first case alleged constitutional and statutory violations of the separation of church and state. The second case alleged violation of state anti-discrimination laws based on public schools allowing the Boy Scouts to recruit in school despite the organization's history of religious and sexual-orientation discrimination. www.aclu-or.org/litigation/powell/powellmain.htm
Interesting that the aclu doesn't want kids around those pesky Boy Scouts that want to teach boys things like citizenship, character, physicial fitness, first aid (including life saving skills), personal responsibility, community service, respect for others, cooking skills, and those other evil things needed in life.
Too bad the Boy Scouts were determined not to be discriminatory by the Supreme Court (I guess they made a mistake on the aclu website).
Since it says 1996 - present, I wonder why the story has been removed from the website.
Sure, why not, quote me, take out the link, and then dig around for something to keep crazy people crazy. Wingnut, eh?
The ACLU is specifically designed to defend against Civil Liberty infractions. I saw somewhere where something like 25 or 30% of ALL their cases were defending Christians against some type of religious discrimination. Which would likely not be a surprising idea, if you read that link I posted, rather than digging around obsessively trying to prove some weird twisted point.
Liberties you might take for granted, other are barred from having. That's where the ACLU comes in. They're very equal opportunity about whom they defend.
Sorry, but I don't know anything about "taking out links".
Well shucks, here it is again.
http://www.aclu.org/religion/public/16254res20050302.html
That's just religious discrimination cases in 2002 through 2005.
Michael,
I did follow the link you posted. The Scout story was at the bottom of the list.
The reason I picked that story was because, being a long time volunteer Scouter, it hit close to home. The aclu has constantly tried to inhibit the Boy Scouts from promoting the program. That case affected every Scouting unit in the nation. So in effect, because one person didn't like it, everyone else has to suffer.
It's not my intent here to upset anyone and I have not flamed anyone. All I'm doing is making my point and joining in on a discussion and stating facts in a civil way. Sorry to have upset you.
By the way, did you order your Boy Scout popcorn to help support Scouting?
No, I'm not upset at all. I must be missing something here. No one will ever be 100% happy with the ACLU, but they're not the evil entity some portray it as. That just comes with the territory though. It's a dirty job, and they're doing it.
I ordered the trail mix, popcorn just wasn't doing it for me that particular day. Haven't seen it yet. Seems like it's been a long time ago, probably hasn't.
quote:
Originally posted by Wingnut
Michael,
I did follow the link you posted. The Scout story was at the bottom of the list.
The reason I picked that story was because, being a long time volunteer Scouter, it hit close to home. The aclu has constantly tried to inhibit the Boy Scouts from promoting the program. That case affected every Scouting unit in the nation. So in effect, because one person didn't like it, everyone else has to suffer.
It's not my intent here to upset anyone and I have not flamed anyone. All I'm doing is making my point and joining in on a discussion and stating facts in a civil way. Sorry to have upset you.
By the way, did you order your Boy Scout popcorn to help support Scouting?
I was a Boy Scout and I'm an adult leader with Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts both. I helped run the recruitment and sign up event at my daughter's public school for Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts have held several such events this year at my son's school.
And while I may not agree with every case the ACLU takes on, I still can appreciate what they do.
Well now, kind of convenient having the Boy Scout pros around, considering my situation. Mostly, I'm void of trail mix. Can one you old boys clue me in as to when I might see my trail mix?
Just wondering, want to make sure I'm not missing the young man.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
Well now, kind of convenient having the Boy Scout pros around, considering my situation. Mostly, I'm void of trail mix. Can one you old boys clue me in as to when I might see my trail mix?
Just wondering, want to make sure I'm not missing the young man.
Mid November, the forms were just submitted
Oh, right on. Thank you.
quote:
Originally posted by Wingnut
Too bad the Boy Scouts were determined not to be discriminatory by the Supreme Court
The Boys Scouts are discriminatory, and the court never said they weren't. What the court said is that they are a expressive organization; meaning they are free to express their discrimination because of their First Amendment right.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-699.ZO.html
I disagree with your statement, but I wouldn't disagree that the Boy Scouts have done plenty of good in this country; Just not for everyone.
Thank you for supporting Scouting!!
Aw, no sweat. I'm a sucker for food you can eat out of a can.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Oh, so I am like those persons in Little Dixie you criticize? You do not even know me. Oh, and since you decided to ignore my post to RW and resort to ad hominem, you are also a coward bomb thrower. Perhaps you should leave this thread, big people are communicating.
Wow, you're not even close.
I never criticized the folks of Clayton, OK, or you. "Little Dixie" is their nickname, and apparently this politician was speaking to you. Just relaying info, it's all there, nothing I said about Clayton is untrue. Go check it out yourself. And if you didn't like what the politician did, you've got a crazy way of showing it. Crazy.
I'm originally from Mena, Arkansas, which is in the Ouachita Mountains, a stone's throw from the Oklahoma border and not too terribly far from Clayton. I can say that racist attitudes still prevail in the area, and while they might not be more intense in this area than in other parts of the country, but they are definitely more out in the open. The "n" word is a commonly-heard utterance in the area. There were some racially motivated murders early last century, but I'm unaware of any more recent ones. Mena is probably 95% white, although it was closer to 99% when I was a kid (a large percentage of these whites claim some Native American ancestry), and many of the town's residents are very proud of this.
quote:
Originally posted by bugo
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Oh, so I am like those persons in Little Dixie you criticize? You do not even know me. Oh, and since you decided to ignore my post to RW and resort to ad hominem, you are also a coward bomb thrower. Perhaps you should leave this thread, big people are communicating.
Wow, you're not even close.
I never criticized the folks of Clayton, OK, or you. "Little Dixie" is their nickname, and apparently this politician was speaking to you. Just relaying info, it's all there, nothing I said about Clayton is untrue. Go check it out yourself. And if you didn't like what the politician did, you've got a crazy way of showing it. Crazy.
I'm originally from Mena, Arkansas, which is in the Ouachita Mountains, a stone's throw from the Oklahoma border and not too terribly far from Clayton. I can say that racist attitudes still prevail in the area, and while they might not be more intense in this area than in other parts of the country, but they are definitely more out in the open. The "n" word is a commonly-heard utterance in the area. There were some racially motivated murders early last century, but I'm unaware of any more recent ones. Mena is probably 95% white, although it was closer to 99% when I was a kid (a large percentage of these whites claim some Native American ancestry), and many of the town's residents are very proud of this.
How are the beheadings and suicide bombings out there in Mena? Are they as bad as they are in Clayton?
quote:
Originally posted by bugo
I'm originally from Mena, Arkansas, which is in the Ouachita Mountains, a stone's throw from the Oklahoma border and not too terribly far from Clayton. I can say that racist attitudes still prevail in the area, and while they might not be more intense in this area than in other parts of the country, but they are definitely more out in the open. The "n" word is a commonly-heard utterance in the area. There were some racially motivated murders early last century, but I'm unaware of any more recent ones. Mena is probably 95% white, although it was closer to 99% when I was a kid (a large percentage of these whites claim some Native American ancestry), and many of the town's residents are very proud of this.
Yeah, it's definitely different down there. Lovely country, but SE Oklahoma is dirt poor. Quite some time ago, I saw a PBS special about Smithville, OK, how poor it was, no running water, some didn't have electricity. I'm sure it's improved some. But still, it's another world down there, some places are almost 3rd world.
The people that like to live in that type of near solitude, are usually the ones that can't cope with the diversity that comes with higher populations, or people who have never seen a higher population. Hence, racism is just more openly accepted.
Otherwise, it's great country. The rivers are generally not polluted, great lakes, mountains, even access for hang-gliders. I don't know the people down in that corner of Arkansas much, been through Mena over to Hot Springs a few times. Camped out near Hatfield once a long time ago, on Mountain Fork. Caught a freakin Pike, sure it was only 4 inches long, but I'd never seen one of those before. Lovely country. There's something about getting out of that sandy mud soil of NE Oklahoma, and seeing mountains and pines and real rocks in a clear river.
I sound like an advertisement, the last part anway.
Channel 6 coverage of today's story angle...
http://www.kotv.com/news/topstory/?id=138632
Interfaith Community Responds To Lawmakers
AP - 10/26/2007 9:38 AM - Updated 10/26/2007 12:49 PM
TULSA, Okla. (AP) -- Remarks by some state lawmakers who rejected Qurans offered as gifts from an ethnic advisory council promote Islamophobia, mistrust and hostility, members of Oklahoma's interfaith community said Friday.
Members also said Republican state Rep. Rex Duncan's comments this week about the Quran promoted "religious bigotry" and called upon Oklahomans to tell the Sand Springs lawmaker that his views don't represent those of Oklahomans or Americans.
Duncan refused to accept the Quran, saying most Oklahomans did not "endorse the idea of killing innocent women and children in the name of ideology."
He expressed those sentiments about the Quran in a letter copied to colleagues on Monday. By Wednesday evening, at least 24 legislators had notified the panel they would return the gift to a state panel on diversity. No state funds were used to purchase the books.
"Rep. Duncan has handled this situation in a way that is disrespectful of his fellow Americans," said the Rev. Marlin Lavanhar, president of the Tulsa Metropolitan Ministries Board of Trustees. "At the centennial of our state, we must all tell Rex Duncan that his discriminatory words and his unapologetic bigotry toward his fellow American citizens do not represent our great state or our blessed country."
Lavanhar was joined at a news conference by members of the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Tulsa Interfaith Alliance and the Jewish Federation, among others.
"Today, I'm an American Muslim, speaking for our brothers," said David Bernstein, executive director of the Jewish Federation of Tulsa. "Hateful words inevitably lead to hateful actions."
Razi Hashmi, executive director of CAIR Oklahoma, said the Islamic faith condemns terrorism and acts of violence against the innocent, and at a time of international crisis, religious groups should be trying to understand each other, not "promoting mistrust and hostility."
On Friday, Duncan said he stood by his original comments, and added, "such hostile response to a refusal to accept a gift is un-American."
"It should be a wake-up call to all Oklahomans and all Americans that CAIR is a hostile organization," Duncan said. "And while they claim to be peaceful and respectful, their actions prove otherwise."
An estimated 30,000 to 50,000 Muslims live in Oklahoma.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Channel 6 coverage of today's story angle...
http://www.kotv.com/news/topstory/?id=138632
Interfaith Community Responds To Lawmakers
AP - 10/26/2007 9:38 AM - Updated 10/26/2007 12:49 PM
TULSA, Okla. (AP) -- Remarks by some state lawmakers who rejected Qurans offered as gifts from an ethnic advisory council promote Islamophobia, mistrust and hostility, members of Oklahoma's interfaith community said Friday.
Members also said Republican state Rep. Rex Duncan's comments this week about the Quran promoted "religious bigotry" and called upon Oklahomans to tell the Sand Springs lawmaker that his views don't represent those of Oklahomans or Americans.
Duncan refused to accept the Quran, saying most Oklahomans did not "endorse the idea of killing innocent women and children in the name of ideology."
He expressed those sentiments about the Quran in a letter copied to colleagues on Monday. By Wednesday evening, at least 24 legislators had notified the panel they would return the gift to a state panel on diversity. No state funds were used to purchase the books.
"Rep. Duncan has handled this situation in a way that is disrespectful of his fellow Americans," said the Rev. Marlin Lavanhar, president of the Tulsa Metropolitan Ministries Board of Trustees. "At the centennial of our state, we must all tell Rex Duncan that his discriminatory words and his unapologetic bigotry toward his fellow American citizens do not represent our great state or our blessed country."
Lavanhar was joined at a news conference by members of the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Tulsa Interfaith Alliance and the Jewish Federation, among others.
"Today, I'm an American Muslim, speaking for our brothers," said David Bernstein, executive director of the Jewish Federation of Tulsa. "Hateful words inevitably lead to hateful actions."
Razi Hashmi, executive director of CAIR Oklahoma, said the Islamic faith condemns terrorism and acts of violence against the innocent, and at a time of international crisis, religious groups should be trying to understand each other, not "promoting mistrust and hostility."
On Friday, Duncan said he stood by his original comments, and added, "such hostile response to a refusal to accept a gift is un-American."
"It should be a wake-up call to all Oklahomans and all Americans that CAIR is a hostile organization," Duncan said. "And while they claim to be peaceful and respectful, their actions prove otherwise."
An estimated 30,000 to 50,000 Muslims live in Oklahoma.
I think Duncan stepped in it again. What a fool.
He can be quiet and slink off into a dark space for a while, any time he wants. He doesn't have to keep giving interviews.
That of course means, he's either an idiot or he fully intends to take advantage of the spotlight. I'm still betting on the latter.
If you were offered a copy of the Satanic Bible, The Communist Manifesto, or Al Gore's book bound in leather with your name inbossed on it, and you were also offered the option to decline, would you?
This was an obvious trap, and unfortunately he fell for it. I'm not sure why all of these Islamic organizations feel it necessary to set publicity traps like this?
Just like the Imams who caused the scene at the airport and then tried to sue the airlines then the passengers. For god's sake, they had already alerted the media before they arrived at the airport.
All of these actions serve the simple purpose to soften the peoples reaction to objectionable acts.
This is a form of terrorism! To cause a group of people to fear a choice that they were invited to make! Despicable!
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
If you were offered a copy of the Satanic Bible, The Communist Manifesto, or Al Gore's book bound in leather with your name inbossed on it, and you were also offered the option to decline, would you?
This was an obvious trap, and unfortunately he fell for it. I'm not sure why all of these Islamic organizations feel it necessary to set publicity traps like this?
Just like the Imams who caused the scene at the airport and then tried to sue the airlines then the passengers. For god's sake, they had already alerted the media before they arrived at the airport.
All of these actions serve the simple purpose to soften the peoples reaction to objectionable acts.
This is a form of terrorism! To cause a group of people to fear a choice that they were invited to make! Despicable!
Chill out, man. It's just a book.
Message to Spoonbill (and others of such ilk):
Helloooooooo! It was A GIFT! It was a GOODWILL GESTURE!! Why is that so hard to understand?
I've received plenty of gifts that I didn't need or want. But I didn't act like an incourteous jerk and refuse them -- unless I was 4 years old, which Duncan is acting like.
Duncan is especially acting brain-damaged by lumping ALL the members of one religion into a tiny group of nutjobs. How stupid.
I know some Muslims, and guess what? They don't act like al-Qaidans. They act like AMERICANS!!!
Instead, we've got people on this forum who are describing the gift of a Quran as "a trap" and "terrorism." How you folks lost your freakin' minds? Has 9/11 made you deranged, even six years later? Have the words "professional help" been used around you?
End of rant.
Read what the Islamic Society of Oklahoma City says about waging war against unbelievers:
Does Islam command its followers to wage war against unbelievers or kill them with out provocation? Absolutely not! Unfortunately, this is a popular misconception among people living in the United States and the west in general, and the statements of a few radicals in the Muslim world don't help in ending this false idea in people' minds. In fact, Islam forbids the taking of any human life except for a just cause under the law (i.e. the Qur'an & Sunnah), that is: capital punishment for convicted murderers, fighting in wartime, or self-defense.
The ISOGOC catagorically denies that Islam commanded Muslims to wage war against unbelievers unless its justified. So with their statement in mind, let's review Chapter 9 of the Quran:
Be sure to watch the video at the end because it ties into this chapter and what is happening today throughout the world.
Historical background of Chapter 9: ...."In order to enable the Muslims to extend the influence of Islam outside Arabia, they were enjoined to crush with sword the non- Muslim powers and to force them to accept the sovereignty of the Islamic State.
...Thousands of volunteers, who were filled with the desire of sacrificing their lives for Islam, came to the Holy Prophet and requested that arrangements for weapons and conveyance be made for them so that they should join the expedition.
http://ztruth.typepad.com/ztruth/2007/10/most-of-the-cri.html
I'm confused, somehow the exploitation of Christianity during the Crusades is irrelevant, but we can go back a few centuries before that as long as we're talking about Islam?
And secondly, why go back that far? The Ottomans did a heck of a job using religion during warfare.
It's always exploitation. Going back to the Battle of Milvian Bridge my friend, that one is kind of obvious.
Overwhelmingly, religious wars are fought over something entirely different than religion. But leaders do have to keep their folks in line, and keep them going, that's where religion comes in. Even the Crusades, do you think those were really fought for religious reasons? How many times was the New World explored under the pretext of religious reasons, only to see hundreds of thousands of people slaughtered over gold? I can only think of a couple of true-religious wars, and even those I'd have to dig further to be able tell for sure. Odds are, they were about something else.
I can't believe I even have to say this - the subject matter here is Islam and the controversy over rejecting the Quran is because of violence done in the name of ISLAM.
Are you aware that Islamists have carried out nearly 10,000 attacks since 9/11? Usually there are 3-7 attacks a day. There is a website that keeps track of this.
I personally don't see the need to talk about the Crusades (weren't they largely trying to stop Islamic conquests?) because there are no Crusader terrorists blowing themselves up daily somewhere in the world.
And non of the national security measures in America and Europe are because of violent actions in the name of Christianity. Nor are there any world-wide Christian organizations seeking to create a Christianic global state.
Did I miss something here? I must be tired.
Short Answer: Islam is not the cause. It's a tool. See below for the long explanation.
The Crusades were meant to invade and conquer the "Holy Land". The wars were about land and treasure for kings, clerics, and nobility. Most wars are, just because it was in the name of Christ, or God, or Christianity...just because they were religious wars, doesn't make the primary motive religion. Religion is a tool of warfare, it's never the primary reason.
The architects of most wars use religious rhetoric. Many many Nazi's invoked "The Lord", "God", "Christ,"; it served a purpose, to keep people interested. Religion is very utilitarian for leaders.
Today, the Iraq War, the majority of citizens still supporting it are highly religious. That was done by design, it is not a coincidence.
It's the same for Islam. Hussein appealed to religion to invade Kuwait. Hussein appealed to religion to defend Iraq. Ahmadinejad appeals to religion to keep people believing there are more pressing matters than his own country's economy. Osama Bin Ladin, a very wealthy "nobel"-type tribal leader, appeals to religion for jihad against the West.
Religion itself is not a bad thing, none of them are. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, the rest, they're all fine. But they are all used as tools. It's never a Christian calling for a Crusade, it's a preacher or a pope or a king. Same with Islam, jihads are called by sultans and clerics and tribal leaders. None of these are popular religious uprisings, based solely on inherent evil within a religion.
There's no reason to dig through the Koran or Bible, in order to find out how evil Muslims or Christians are. You can find it in both cases, if that's really your goal. Both religions are tools of warfare, not the cause. And if xenophobia is not the idea, you might want to clean the slate and just start over.
MichaelC:
I see your points, but why is it that seemingly all other religions have managed to move past violence as a means of conversion? You can cite to the likes of Eric Rudolph and a handful of other freaks, but there are no concerted efforts by groups of people posing as "christians" the likes of what you see with Islam. It's simply a matter of degree.
There are nearly two dozen areas around the world with millions of radical muslims who can't live in peace with their neighbors. It's an ongoing pattern of aggression that has never ceased since the inception of the religion.
I'm tempted to say it's just cultural, but it's cross cultural and transcends borders as evidenced by the sheer number of places currently in turmoil.
Granted, people can even use hinduism to justfy violence, but why is it that Islam seems to be the catalyst of choice? If your position is really correct, and it's just justification, why don't we see violence more evenly distributed across other religions?
Honestly, I have no idea if the conferrance of the Quran to narrow-minded Oklahoma legislators was a well-timed (and intentioned) ****-bomb from followers of Islam similar to a small group of Muslims getting on an airplane and purposely causing a disturbance about a year ago or not. If it wasn't a genuine gesture, expect some sort of civil rights lawsuit in short order.
It might have been pure altruism. Then again, it might have been a set up. If I were Rex Duncan, I would have assumed set-up and burned the damn thing in my fireplace in complete silence, that's what I usually do with un-wanted gifts rather than going to the media.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
How are the beheadings and suicide bombings out there in Mena? Are they as bad as they are in Clayton?
There were lynchings in Mena early last century, but they stopped because the racists ran all the blacks out of town so there was nobody left to lynch. There haven't been any in several decades, but there have been within the last 100 years.
I went to college at UCA in Conway. Almost without fail, when I told a black person where I was from they would cringe, say "Mena?", then avoid me. Its reputation is that bad.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
MichaelC:
Plenty of reasons. There's no short answer. More obviously though...
Most of the countries are, quite lawless. Take Saudi Arabia, it's next to the end of the earth. Get out of populated areas, and the only law is tribal law. Equate that to European Nobility, and you have the Middle Ages. Nobles enforcing their own laws on their own peasants (tribesmen), largely enforced by, guess what, religion. You've got Kings interested in keeping power, and having to deal with some powerful clerics who only want more power. They're legitimacy comes from their ability to control, religion is powerful stuff.
Probably the best way to distract a populace, is to sick it on someone else. Doesn't matter who, we like to distract ourselves with Muslims or Hispanics. It's a much easier sell if you can use religion. For those folks, religion is easily used against us, Israel, Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, Armenians, Zoroastrians, another tribe, Indians, whatever. Doesn't really matter. It's very diverse and very heavily populated and very poor, and no where outside Israel and perhaps Turkey is there anything remotely close to a single stable institution of law. Take a bunch of truly poor people, "tell them God wants you to kill these 'other' people, and we'll give you money to do it, go get them." It's nothing new.
"So let's get rid of them", that's not exactly how it works. It's taken us around 1000 years, and some exclusively European ideas, and Western technologies, to get to this point. A current western system, imposed on a Middle Ages mind set, is doomed to failure. A foundation has to be built first. Being mindful, that some of the countries are not very old, and their only memories of Western Civilization are of conquest, oil, and colonialism. Also, many civilizations have developed their own paths, which aren't Western. There's no guarantee that anything imposed by us, would work or should work.
It's not that other religions have moved past Islam as far as development, Christianity with few exceptions did little to pull Western Europe out of the Middle Ages. It took people thinking instead of simply following. People creating instead of cowering in a corner. People writing, and reading, and philosophizing. And it took economic opportunity, and technological development. Christianity was not responsible for that, Christianity dragged it's heals through 1000 years of development, to where we are today. Kicking and screaming, and it still does, to this very day. Religions, are not fond of change, it threatens their legitimacy, and their ability to project power.
As for Christianity, it's dark side is certainly just as real as any other religions. It's mostly subdued, kept in check by secular society, economic opportunity, Enlightenment ideals, and law. In places it's not, Christianity is often discounted as a motivator. Where in Islamic countries, it has a tendency to be amplified, or be pushed to the level of prime motivator. Take Rwanda, where both Tutsi and Hutu were primarily Catholic. Catholicism didn't start the fight, but in all probability it was used as a catalyst in some circles, in exactly the same manner that Islam would be used as a catalyst in fights between Sunni tribesmen, or any two ethnic groups of the same religion. Yet, if Christians are slaughtering each other or someone else, we discount the Christianity part. With Islam, we amplify it.
Or Bosnia, where the Orthodox Christians were slaughtering Bosnian Muslims and Catholic Croats. Christianity was most definitely NOT the reason for that war, but it was used as a cover for ethnic cleansing. To a Muslim, looking in from the outside, it could definitely look like a crime directly out of the Bible, and directly related to inherent evil in Christianity. Which it was most certainly not.
Or the war in the DRC (Congo), no one talks about it, but it's mostly fought by Catholics and Protestants slaughtering each other. Not in the name of religion, but I'm certain it's being used as a tool.
Is it a concerted effort by Christianity to exterminate each other, and Islam and everyone else? No. And there's no concerted effort by Islam either. It's just places and variables and characters, and the way we look at it. Being silent about one, and amplifying the other.
For Islam, take the Philippines. Where legitimate grievances surround the massacre of Islamic military recruits by Catholic military recruits of the same Filipino Army in 1968, lead to open rebellion in the name of a the creation of a separate state. It's still an issue today. That movement was not caused by Islam and expanding Islam isn't the goal, Islam is the tool. The means to an end. And like most rebellions, it's not a popular uprising.
Noting, most examples of infractions attributed to religion occur in poor countries, underdeveloped countries, lawless countries, or even poorly designed countries.
That's a lot of words.
I can see why a Christian would be offended by an offer of the Quran, accompanied by a statement that the book was the exact word of God. For me it was preaching. The Quran says Jesus was not the son of God which is the whole basis of Christianity. Christians and Jews are considered on the wrong side and not the chosen one in Islam. Think about it, what are you telling a Christian when you offer them the Quran? It is shocking to me.
In America we have free speech. Rep. Duncan does not like Islam, he said so. That is his right. I believe he was also quite offended by the offer from this Muslim group who meet in a taxpayer funded building with support of the Office of Personnel Management at the meetings - also paid for by taxpayers. Is this Muslim group trying to promote Islam? Because if this is what they are doing, everyone should be calling the governor to disband this council. Muslims can invite people to their mosques to learn about Islam if they like but they should not use a governor's council to promote their religion, at all. This is wrong, wrong, wrong. It needs to be looked into more.
I believe there is a problem when you cannot speak out like Rep. Duncan did without being called an Islamophobic. This seems to be the standard response from CAIR. CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, is a group that was started from employees of the Islamic Association of Palestine which was shut down by the government for funding terrorist groups. One of CAIR's top officials has said Islam should be the top authority in America. I have the artilce if you need to see it. I believe this is the ultimate goal of many Muslim orgainzations in America.
Five of CAIR's employees have been convicted of crimes relating to terrorism. Doesn't it alarm you that this organization is trying to put the sqeeze on free speech? Isn't this as an attempt to stop people from being critical of Islam? Muslims must respect our right to dislike or disagree with their religion. Many Oklahoma Muslims came from the Middle East where no criticism of Islam is allowed - I mean you are forced to be a Muslim.
On Friday, Rep. Rex Duncan said he stood by his original comments, and added, "such hostile response to a refusal to accept a gift is un-American."
"It should be a wake-up call to all Oklahomans and all Americans that CAIR is a hostile organization," Duncan said. "And while they claim to be peaceful and respectful, their actions prove otherwise."
quote:
Originally posted by kakie
I can see why a Christian would be offended by an offer of the Quran, accompanied by a statement that the book was the exact word of God. For me it was preaching. The Quran says Jesus was not the son of God which is the whole basis of Christianity. Christians and Jews are considered on the wrong side and not the chosen one in Islam. Think about it, what are you telling a Christian when you offer them the Quran? It is shocking to me.
And the overwhelming majority of Christianity thinks Islam and Judaism are on the wrong side. They all have factions of various size that openly believe their books are the "exact words of God." It's much bigger in Christianity or Islam, than Judaism. But it's nothing new.
An Enlightened person would have found the concept quaint, or would have as least had the ability to comprehend where that concept comes from. And the overwhelming majority of our Christian legislators accepted it, choosing not to pander to fear, prejudice, or hatred.
And just as Duncan and his friends are perfectly free to say anything they want, everyone else is free to call their speech "Islamophobia." Islamophobia is an irrational fear or prejudice towards Islam and Muslims. For the most part, that moniker seems to be an appropriate description of his speech.
I'm having Brats for breakfest washed down with a nice Tsing Tao.....
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
I think you're seriously underestimating Southerners' ability to carry a grudge for 140-odd years, guido.
There's an awful lot of those "The South Will Rise Again" Confederate flag-wavers around.
That's right RW. Every day you read or hear stories about "Confederate flag-wavers" videotaping the beheading of people while praising God all the time around here. Oh, and how about those Confederate flag-wavers strapping bombs to themselves or their kids to kill the infidels in praise of God.
Yep. Those slack jawed Southerners are just like them Muslims
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
Shoot, the ones I know, down in Clayton, OK, they take pride in the fact that persons of color don't live there, and pride in their confederate flag bumper stickers. With regularity and freedom they speak of minor atrocities toward unsuspecting black folk they might have come in contact with. And, their nick-name is "Little Dixie". Seriously.
These are the type of folks this particular politician was pandering to, those and apparently people like guido.
I'm Southern born and (for the first few years of my life and presently) bred in that region, and proud of my heritage in some respects, but as for the Confederacy returning for round two, forget it. Then again, never underestimate the capacity for denial in some people....
Michal C: Are you going to PM me are where I was wrong in an earlier post about Islam? I posted a message that I would welcome it.
Can you explain to me why the Islamic Society of Tulsa would put in their August Newsletter that to die while fighting for Allah was a very good end to a Muslim's life?
Can you expalin to me why the Islamic Society of Tulsa gave out a humanatarian award to a group of 9/11 conspiracy theorists who believe it was an inside job? I believe the reason they gave the award was for their efforts for the truth.
Sorry about that, I kind of drifted off there for a bit. PM is on the way.
There is an eerie similarity between the purveyors of anti-American sentiment in the Middle East and the purveyors of anti-Muslim sentiment in America's Bible-belt.
This issue is all about perspective. When I was in junior high, I had a friend(who happened to be Muslim) that attended a local Christian church's halloween spook house. Of course, being an event put on by the church, he expected some degree of religious reference. What he, and I, did not expect, was adult church leaders cornering us in uncomfortable one-on-one questioning sessions in which they insulted both of our religions(mine being simply another sect of Christianity). That day, as 14-year old, I, a Christian, refused someone's Bible. That was offensive, that was aggressive.
Duncan refused the Quran because he is culturally ignorant of non-white, non-Protestant people. He is afraid of what he does not know or understand, and his pride will likely prevent him from making the effort to know or understand.
quote:
Duncan refused the Quran because he is culturally ignorant of non-white, non-Protestant people. He is afraid of what he does not know or understand, and his pride will likely prevent him from making the effort to know or understand.
I wouldn't necessarily say that. According to his bio, he has served in the middle east and Africa. He most likely has more exposure to non-white, non-Protestant, people that most people. Not to mention being deployed to the mid-east, he probably has had cultural training (including islamic customs) of the host countries. He may have also personally studied Islam.
I think it would be a reach to say he doesn't understand the culture when he has served time in it.
Within 2-3 hours of Rep. Duncan turning down the Quran that he was contacted by the Tulsa World? It appears the Governor's Ethnic American Council alerted the media.
Now Kakie, here we go again. Duncan sent out the email to the legislature, making it essentially public info. By the time the media came out, hundreds if not thousands of people already knew. In all likelihood, Duncan or one of his cohorts sent for the media. If not, there's no way to pin it to any one particular individual or group. And even if they did it, the words coming out of Duncan's mouth are his fault. And Duncan continued to take interviews, including television, for a week following his announcement.
The only reason you would even want to pin it to the Ethnic Council, is if Duncan's words look bad. Which in essence, by targeting the Ethnic Council for "letting it out to the media", you're finally admitting that Duncan's words reflect poorly on him and the State. Even though Duncan appeared to be perfectly fine with what he was saying.
quote:
Originally posted by Wingnut
quote:
Duncan refused the Quran because he is culturally ignorant of non-white, non-Protestant people. He is afraid of what he does not know or understand, and his pride will likely prevent him from making the effort to know or understand.
I wouldn't necessarily say that. According to his bio, he has served in the middle east and Africa. He most likely has more exposure to non-white, non-Protestant, people that most people. Not to mention being deployed to the mid-east, he probably has had cultural training (including islamic customs) of the host countries. He may have also personally studied Islam.
I think it would be a reach to say he doesn't understand the culture when he has served time in it.
I wouldn't say that either, necessarily. What Duncan did was calculated, intended to satisfy some constituents, at the cost of a minority. For most politicians, their primary job is to keep their jobs, it reflects more on the constituency than him. He could be a PhD in History and make that statement. On Duncan, it's just a reflection of lack of character.
Have you seen the Tulsa World opinion poll on attitudes toward the legislator refusing the gift?
http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/poll/default.aspx
It is very heavily against the legislator's actions.
And the KRMG poll result is different from Tulsa World's poll. What's the point...
http://krmg.com/krmgmorningnews/
Click "see results"
If you were an elected official, which poll would you take more seriously?
Our poll system is probably better than either of theirs.
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7954
Where is the conservative minded declarations of Cubs when you need them? Not that I agreed with much of what he said, but it certainly made things interesting.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Have you seen the Tulsa World opinion poll on attitudes toward the legislator refusing the gift?
http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/poll/default.aspx
It is very heavily against the legislator's actions.
Last night when I looked at the poll, it was 700 or 800 strongly agreeing with Duncan.
The World has reset or done something with those that agreed with Duncan. I know what I saw.
Somthing I find puzzeling.
When the Catholic church was acused of turning a blind eye on priests molesting children. Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans, and virtually all other christian organizations not only condemned the actions but demanded inquiry, investigation and prosecution. They pleaded for members of the faith to come forward and identify their accusers.
For years, news organizations, documentaries and all other forms of media featured programs expressing outrage over the incidents. This still continues to this day.
When Rev. Jeffs was accused of rape and became one of America's most wanted, the Church of Latter day Saints was quick to separate itself from his radical sect and make several public statements outlining the fact that he was no affiliation to the Mormon faith and pleaded with his followers to turn him in for prosecution.
But. . .On a daily basis when Islamic terrorists carryout acts against. . .well . . .virtually everyone including themselves there is no voice from the Islamic leadership pleading for people to come forward and identify the terrorists. Al Jazeera (the Arab CNN) treats the terror community's actions as legitimate. "Peaceful" leaders, we interview on the news, may show some dismay at attacks but offer no outrage or pleas for peace.
Instead they offer the suggestion that it is our fault that a 14 year old boy straps on 75lbs of explosive and blows himself up in a crowded bus. There is no crying mother, outraged at the actions of her son. No Islamic organizations setting up funds to help the victims of radical terrorists. No Imam demanding that the people who "brainwashed" this child be brought to justice. Instead we get silence.
Gimme something. Some outrage, some semblance of an attempt to put the genie back in the bottle. Only you can stop this, but only if your voice is loud enough to be heard.
Just food for thought.
Well, what you're talking about with the Muslim clerics is closer to Falwell (may he rest in pieces) preaching against whatever, or Robertson saying we should kill Chavez, or pretty much any political opinion he has.
You didn't hear Christians apologizing for Jonestown, and most of Christianity was silent as the legal system worked over Catholic Church. The Church itself resisted, as hard as it could. If you have anything close to an apologist group for Christianity, it would be something like the Interfaith Alliance, or very few other groups. There's not many.
And technically, this "guilt by association" crap only flies when we're talking about Islam. No one expects Christianity to do an about face and actually take responsibility for other segments of Christianity. But, somehow we're required to expect that out of every American Muslim.
I heard on the radio this morning that ex-Muslim, now Christian Preacher, Reza Safa and some Muslims or a Muslim group are suppose to debate in January. Reza said he all Tulsans should come to it.
He said that during his church service on 9/11 that several Muslims came and interupted his sermon called him a liar and that is how the debate idea got started.
That's all you're interested in isn't it? Anything you can use to justify discrimination towards Islam?
Seeing as how we've seen preachers molesting children, being caught in sex acts with women or men, using dope, bilking their congregations; how hard would it be to believe that this guy is a liar?
quote:
TextAnd technically, this "guilt by association" crap only flies when we're talking about Islam. No one expects Christianity to do an about face and actually take responsibility for other segments of Christianity. But, somehow we're required to expect that out of every American Muslim.
I don't believe that any Christian group approves or condones ministers that really screw up. In most cases, that are kicked out of the church and the church distances itsself from him.
On the Islamic side, when confronted with Islamic violence, few if any groups will condone it, apparently in the name of jihad. CAIR (a claimed moderate org) has been totally silent and, in fact, refused to condone violence in the name of Islam.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
That's all you're interested in isn't it? Anything you can use to justify discrimination towards Islam?
Your reply is pathetic but very typical. Reza Safa reported during a sermon on 9/11 some Muslims came into his church and interrupted it and called him a liar. I'm sure he had a number of people attending the service that witnessed this event. Safa handled to situation by challenging the Muslims to a debate as a result of their interruption. I think he handled the situation well. BTW, the date he first suggested for the debate was rejected by the Muslims.
And you call this an attempt to justify discrimnation against Islam? Safa wants to dabate them.
You don't make any sense.
Kakie, I'll have to pass on you. You've shown you're only interested in targeting Islam, and repeating religious rhetoric you've seen from televangelists. You're not interested in discussion of Islam, you're only interested in bashing it.
quote:
Originally posted by Wingnut
refused to condone violence in the name of Islam.
Response removed, and placed below.
Kakie, I'll have to pass on you. You've shown you're only interested in targeting Islam, and repeating religious rhetoric you've seen from televangelists. You're not interested in discussion of Islam, you're only interested in bashing it.
You mean you are going to give up a discussion on the aspects of Islam that troubles millions? That dominates our national news and drains our resources? I get very specific and you can't answer one aspect of what I bring up with getting defensive. Reza Safa has challenged Muslims to a debate and you bristle.
quote:
Originally posted by kakie
Kakie, I'll have to pass on you. You've shown you're only interested in targeting Islam, and repeating religious rhetoric you've seen from televangelists. You're not interested in discussion of Islam, you're only interested in bashing it.
You mean you are going to give up a discussion on the aspects of Islam that troubles millions? That dominates our national news and drains our resources? I get very specific and you can't answer one aspect of what I bring up without getting defensive. Reza Safa has challenged Muslims to a debate and you bristle.
Bristle? No, I just don't care what any televangelist has to say. None of them. I looked him up, and saw exactly where you're getting your info. And your statements make perfect sense now, I know exactly where they're coming from and why.
I already explained parts of your questions about Islam, and more specifically history through PM, and you've yet to respond.
Please continue to say whatever you want, barring some move towards reality, I see no further reason to respond to you at this point.
I already explained parts of your questions about Islam, and more specifically history through PM, and you've yet to respond.
There is no e-mail from you in my inbox other than the first one. Resend it, please.
Come on, Michael, let's discuss this issue without calling me someone who wants to put Islam down. I get specific and you handle it by saying there is no need to reply to me. Interesting.
Ok, but I don't have a second one yet. I'm looking for a response on the first PM. Primarily, the History part, that's always a good place to start.
And it needs to be more of an exchange, rather than a question and answer session.
quote:
Originally posted by Wingnut
refused to condone violence in the name of Islam.
You mean condemn right? Refused to "condemn" violence in the name of Islam?
Why should they? Is every Christian group required to condemn the actions of every other Christian group? How many Christian leaders stood up and shook a fist or two at Eric Rudolph? How many remained silent, how many were secretly giddy that Rudolph was bombing Abortion Clinics? How many denied it had anything to do with Christianity?
How many Christian groups would denounce the Klan, while at the same time denying the Klan's Christian roots?
And since we're talking about American citizens condemning global actions, how many Christians "owned" Ethnic Cleansing in Bosnia?
The truth is there is denial in Christianity about what events mean and how much responsibility Christianity should take. And there are pitfalls to ownership. The Catholic church still hasn't fully owned the fact that many of it's priests are molesters, the pitfall to owning that problem is that it might just show there is something intrinsically Evil within Catholicism.
By requiring any Islamic group to condemn the actions of any other Islamic group, you're requiring something that would never be expected of Christianity. Why should every American Muslim subject themselves to that, and why only Muslims?
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
There is an eerie similarity between the purveyors of anti-American sentiment in the Middle East and the purveyors of anti-Muslim sentiment in America's Bible-belt.
This issue is all about perspective. When I was in junior high, I had a friend(who happened to be Muslim) that attended a local Christian church's halloween spook house. Of course, being an event put on by the church, he expected some degree of religious reference. What he, and I, did not expect, was adult church leaders cornering us in uncomfortable one-on-one questioning sessions in which they insulted both of our religions(mine being simply another sect of Christianity). That day, as 14-year old, I, a Christian, refused someone's Bible. That was offensive, that was aggressive.
Duncan refused the Quran because he is culturally ignorant of non-white, non-Protestant people. He is afraid of what he does not know or understand, and his pride will likely prevent him from making the effort to know or understand.
Please. These comments don't even pass the laugh test. Use your common sense and analyze the empirical evidence before you make statements like these.
Lastly...generalize much?
Michael C wrote: How many Christian groups would denounce the Klan, while at the same time denying the Klan's Christian roots?
What is your source for this fact? It has been mentioned a few times in this thread. Incidentally, what "roots" are you referring? Is it the post civil war/reconstruction KKK, the "Birth of a Nation" KKK, the 1940s KKK, the civil rights era KKK?
Doesn't really matter does it? Are you Christian? And if so, is the Klan Christian? Today, yesterday, doesn't matter.
Many will argue that the Klan isn't Christian, strictly denying rhetoric or actions (current or past) as "Christian." It's more than typical for Christians to deny each other's Christianity outright, much less responsibility for their actions.
It's a matter of taking responsibility, people complain that Islam is not publicly denouncing Islam, when has Christianity publicly denounced Christianity? I'd argue that it's not necessarily the responsibility of either. Christianity isn't required to somehow come out in force against words or actions of other Christians. Neither is Islam, or any other religion.
quote:
It's a matter of taking responsibility, people complain that Islam is not publicly denouncing Islam,
First off, I did mean condemn. Sorry, I was in a hurry.
I didn't say that Islam has to denounce Islam, I said Islam needs to denounce the
violence done in the name of Islam. Islam is supposed to be the "Religion of Peace", right? How can they be if they won't denounce violence in their own ranks. Even their schools teach violence on Jews and Christians. The moderates (those who denounce violence) are quelled or silenced, even here in Tulsa. Remember the guy who spoke out against extremest violence and was kicked out of the mosque?
As for Christians, if I remember correctly, many did denounce the crimes done by Eric Rudolph.
As for the klan, I don't know where in the Bible that it says you are supposed to kills blacks. It's someone's interpitation which they twisted to fit their personal agenda and hatered.
I would have to see their justification (on any matter) in the Bible to consider it "Christian". Just calling something Christian, doesn't make it so. Many thought Star Wars was Christian (good side, dark side)when it was actually Buddist.
But, your getting into some technicalities that not all Christians agree on. Sure, the old Testament is History, until it's useful right? Christians pick and choose what they follow, and what is and what is not a part of their religion. The entire OT is a nebulous gray area, used to justify plenty in the name of Christianity. While the NT, what is generally accepted as Christian, doesn't go into enough details to be considered a whole text by itself. Modern Christianity has the tendency to directly contradict the NT, as much as it embraces it.
There is justification in the Bible for the Klan, there is justification for Ethnic Cleansing, just depends on what you focus on and what your preacher preaches.
What you're talking about with Muslims being removed for stirring things up at a Mosque, that sounds an awful lot like being "churched." I'm not sure what business of yours or mine it would be, people are forcibly removed for various reasons at Christian churches.
On this:
quote:
I didn't say that Islam has to denounce Islam, I said Islam needs to denounce the violence done in the name of Islam.
You can't really expect Islam as a whole, to show up in rallies and on TV denouncing violence, but it has been done mostly by scholars and clerics. Which is what you would see by Christianity, ordinary people have things to do besides protest and be on TV.
From today's story, it's amazing how people keep stepping in it:
Reynolds said that linking the gift to Oklahoma's Centennial is inappropriate since "the United States and Oklahoma were founded on Judeo-Christian values and traditions."
He said the group consists of "Muslim activists" and is not representative of the state's diversity.
"Islam simply has not played a role in our state's or country's history," he said.
<end clip>
This shows a lot of ignorance about Oklahoma's history. The state's had a lot of prominent Lebanese people since the beginnings of statehood, and a good portion of them had to be Muslims. (Just look up at the names at the old buildings in Bristow if you don't believe me.) There are Lebanese-Americans that are third- and fourth-generation in Oklahoma.
And the founders of the United States were determined to de-emphasize religion when they wrote the Constitution. That's because they had long memories about authoritarian, religious leaders in Europe.
quote:
You can't really expect Islam as a whole, to show up in rallies and on TV denouncing violence, but it has been done mostly by scholars and clerics.xt
Individuals maybe, but not any organizations.
Example...
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=37E452D3-01B9-47BB-840D-AE8FF29273A1
From the story...
Technically, there was no IFAW (
Islamo-Fascist Awareness Week)at Penn. It was renamed "Terrorism Awareness Week" following objections that the events conflicted with the Muslim Student Association's Islam Awareness Week. Moreover, in the words of local MSA chairman Samir Malik, the original designation "was very narrow-minded, wasn't respectful, and wasn't conducive to the open dialogue environment that Penn strives to foster."
The Penn College Republicans accepted the change as part of a compromise in which Penn's MSA would compose a statement condemning violence perpetrated in the name of Islam.
However, the MSA failed to uphold its end of the bargain, as its statement does not offer an unambiguous reproach of Islamic-inspired bloodshed. The text instead features lamentations that Islam is misunderstood, a quote decrying the term "Islamo-Fascism" from 9/11 "Truther" Paul Craig Roberts, and other metaphysical murk. Moreover, the Koranic ayat (5:32) put forth to allegedly denounce "violence against innocent civilians" was edited to exclude a phrase that permits the killing of those who promote "mischief in the land." Were the denizens of the World Trade Center "innocent"? Was Theo van Gogh making "mischief" when he filmed Submission? Were the Penn College Republicans?
If Islam is "misunderstood", then I guess we should accept beheadings, rape, stonings, & hangings as part of it
Most Islamic organization are busy fighting to exist right now, within the law. As long as Christian organizations attack Islam, by the creation of "Islamo-Fascist Week", political or religious rallies, TV shows that are only used as propaganda for the destruction of Islam; You can expect a fight.
No, you don't have to accept anything as part of a Religion. Most people, in this country, have enough sense to realize that infractions in the name of Christianity are the exception, rather than the rule. Though many choose not to give the same consideration to Islam. It is discrimination by definition.
And what is done in warfare, is entirely separate from Christianity or Islam. Beheadings, kidnappings, torture, bombings, or even a Christian US Soldier slaughtering an Islamic family for no defensible reason. No one makes the judgment that all of US forces are evil or that it was done in the name of Christianity, yet you seem to be particularly interested in any incident that can stereotype Islam.
All that needs to happen, is less complaining, more understanding that Islam is diverse and just like Christianity, the number of criminals committing crimes in the name of the religion is small. And religions are used as tools by clerics and political leaders and strong-men for some other goal. It's never the fault of the Religion itself.
quote:
yet you seem to be particularly interested in any incident that can stereotype Islam.
No, as before, the bottom line is I just want Islamic organizations that say they speak for Islam (CAIR, MSA, ISM, Muslim Brotherhood, etc), to denounce violence done by muslim exteremists (Islamo-facists) as unIslamic.
None will! Even when they say they will, they won't!
You can try changing the topic to slam Christians if you like and bring up all kinds of history, but it doesn't change the fact that they won't disavow non warfare violence. They just won't!
No ones changing the topic over from Islam to Christianity. And no ones "slamming" Christianity. Christianity and Islam have far more in common than they not. The only way you could see me slamming Christianity on this thread, is if you consider comparisons to Islam a "slam."
Here's the deal, large parts of this society have taken a purely discriminatory tact towards Islam. They demand that Islamic organizations speak out more, in ways no Christian would be asked. They put out propaganda and rhetoric that is untrue and harmful to Islam, for the single reason of promoting stereotypes. They preach this "invasion" of the Islamic religion in it's entirety, for the only reason of inciting Fear, the only prerequisite for Xenophobia.
You don't have to accept anything about Islam. Backing up off of it, and choosing not to focus on minor details, choosing not to continually pound the religion, I don't think that's much to ask.
quote:
Originally posted by Wingnut
You can try changing the topic to slam Christians if you like and bring up all kinds of history, but it doesn't change the fact that they won't disavow non warfare violence.
AND, name one act (meaning less than two, and more than zero) attributed to Islam, that was of "non warfare violence."
How about 9/11.
quote:
Originally posted by Wingnut
How about 9/11.
Oh, now, come on. Make it a little tougher on me.
I answered this on page 6, though not in detail. Extremely wealthy Middle Eastern strongman creates organization, allies with clerics and tribal lords, recruits excessively poor and religious zealot types, declares war on the US in response to the US troops on Saudi soil, and booyah, 911. That was an act of warfare.
Odds are, if he didn't have the specific justification, he would have come up with something else. The clerics and Bin Laden had the power, the means, and the recruits, to carry out that attack.
But it wasn't warfare. We were not at war.
Now, tell me an Islamic org that will/has denounce violence.
Meanwhile, follow this like and scroll down to where the women is going to be hanged and watch the video. ***Warning, It is very grusome!***
http://www.frontpagemag.com/
quote:
Originally posted by Wingnut
But it wasn't warfare. We were not at war.
Just because you don't know you're at war, doesn't mean you're not at war. Bin Laden and his cleric friends declared war on us quite some time ago, but we kept it quiet initially since it wasn't a country. We have the tendency to pay less attention to international nut jobs.
And if this was somehow about Islam, how do you explain that a billion or however many Muslims there are, have not attacked us yet? Islam is not now, nor has Islam ever been as a whole, at war with us. We can't even get domestic Muslim's to commit more than their fair share of crimes. If Islam is such an inherently evil religion, how do you explain that?
It's the domestic "rebel"-types that we normally take seriously, and none of them so far have been Muslim.
Michael C
I sent you a PM just a minute ago regarding your reply to a post I made here. I need you to address specifically where in my post I have misunderstood Islam. I broke it down to make it easier for you to reply exactly where you said I misunderstood Islam.
Your first reply didn't address what you said I misunderstood.
Thanks.
quote:
It's the domestic "rebel"-types that we normally take seriously, and none of them so far have been Muslim.
I guess the Fort Dix 6 weren't muslim.
I guess the 11 students that got "lost" going to Wyoming but some were found in New York at a terrorist pizza parlor weren't muslim.
The guy that drove into a crowd of people in front of a Jewish Temple wasn't muslim.
The OU bomber that frequented a mosque in Norman that some of the 9/11 hijackers attended, who had hunderd of lbs of explosives in his apartment, that accidently discharged a bomb which had ball bearings in it wasn't muslim.
The 3 guys that had hunderds of cell phones and pics of Macinaw bridge that later confessed that the phones were to be sent over to be used for bombs weren't muslim.
Not!
Some of them were nuts, some of them were Muslim.
I was thinking more in line with your typical Eric Rudolph, Timothy McVeigh, Warren Jeffs, Branch Davidian types.
All those lovely Christians. You know, by your own logic, you and all Christianity are responsible for their actions.
quote:
All those lovely Christians. You know, by your own logic, you and all Christianity are responsible for their actions.
The thing about Christianity is that I am responsible for my own actions just as they are for theirs. Each of us will stand before God alone, not as a group.
quote:
Originally posted by Wingnut
The thing about Christianity is that I am responsible for my own actions just as they are for theirs. Each of us will stand before God alone, not as a group.
No sir, under the rules of "do unto others", you have it coming. If every Muslim is to be responsible for every incident involving Islam, then you sir, as a Christian are responsible for every incident involving Christianity. You wouldn't have it any other way, according to your Bible.
Apparently, you very much desire for people to focus on every foul aspect of your religion. I'm cool with that, whatever you want.
quote:
Originally posted by Wingnut
quote:
It's the domestic "rebel"-types that we normally take seriously, and none of them so far have been Muslim.
I guess the Fort Dix 6 weren't muslim.
I guess the 11 students that got "lost" going to Wyoming but some were found in New York at a terrorist pizza parlor weren't muslim.
The guy that drove into a crowd of people in front of a Jewish Temple wasn't muslim.
The OU bomber that frequented a mosque in Norman that some of the 9/11 hijackers attended, who had hunderd of lbs of explosives in his apartment, that accidently discharged a bomb which had ball bearings in it wasn't muslim.
The 3 guys that had hunderds of cell phones and pics of Macinaw bridge that later confessed that the phones were to be sent over to be used for bombs weren't muslim.
Not!
Hey! Not all Muslems are terrorists, it's just that all terrorists are Muslems.
So how do we stop terrorism?
We attempt to diagnose the reason behind it.
Our current diagnosis is rooted in the fact that the radical voices are louder than the moderate voices. And the philosophy of the Islam is not contrary to the radical interpretation.
As is true in many aspects of society, the young and/or stupid tend to follow the loudest drum, no matter what the rhythm.
I don't believe it is possible to defeat a theocracy because the soldiers are following faith rather than a leader. This faith's followers do not fear death or recognize life as sacred.
One of the most important beliefs in civilized religions is the sanctity of life. In these faiths the penalty for murder and suicide is damnation, when you exchange this penalty, for the reward of eternal life, free beer, 73 virgins, and a new Camero, you get an army willing to die for something better, rather than build something better. After all, it's the easy way out, and the reward is guaranteed. Unfortunately there are no exit interviews for terrorists to prove this wrong.
quote:
No sir, under the rules of "do unto others", you have it coming. If every Muslim is to be responsible for every incident involving Islam, then you sir, as a Christian are responsible for every incident involving Christianity. You wouldn't have it any other way, according to your Bible.
Whoever said every muslim is responsible for everything else muslim??
How do you figure I'm responsible for everything bad done by all Christians??
I guess I'm just a slow learner here, but this is pointless. You are making no sense at all.
Spoonbill, very well said!
quote:
Originally posted by Wingnut
I guess I'm just a slow learner here, but this is pointless.
Exactly. You are hell bent on proving Islam to be evil, and in effect all Muslims saying they should speak louder, take responsibility for these actions. You purposefully ignore (ignorant by definition) everything else, except Islam in regards to terrorism, and again, the only logical explanation for most of what you posted in regards to Islam, is Xenophobia, or more closely Islamophobia, Fear of Islam. Which is not in itself bigotry, bigotry only comes into play if the Fear is fake, and you have other motives, like spreading simple hatred for example.
How else would you describe your fixation with everything negative about Islam?
quote:
Not all Muslems are terrorists, it's just that all terrorists are Muslems.
quote:
Spoonbill, very well said!
Yes, one of many simple lies that's fits exactly what you want to hear. That forms to your preconceived notions. Your ignorance of reality. The decision to spread whatever disease it is you have.
You're right, it is pointless.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
Doesn't really matter does it? Are you Christian? And if so, is the Klan Christian? Today, yesterday, doesn't matter.
Many will argue that the Klan isn't Christian, strictly denying rhetoric or actions (current or past) as "Christian." It's more than typical for Christians to deny each other's Christianity outright, much less responsibility for their actions.
It's a matter of taking responsibility, people complain that Islam is not publicly denouncing Islam, when has Christianity publicly denounced Christianity? I'd argue that it's not necessarily the responsibility of either. Christianity isn't required to somehow come out in force against words or actions of other Christians. Neither is Islam, or any other religion.
What a horrible answer. My question is where is your proof that the KKK is rooted in Christianity.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
What a horrible answer. My question is where is your proof that the KKK is rooted in Christianity.
Maybe you had a horrible question. If you want me to answer a question, ask it and stop screwing around. Just search anything on the internet for Klan literature, you'll find references. Klan literature is inundated with Protestant references.
Or try this on for size.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan
quote:
Indiana's Klansmen represented a wide cross section of society: they were not disproportionately urban or rural, nor were they significantly more or less likely than other members of society to be from the working class, middle class, or professional ranks. Klansmen were Protestants, of course, but they cannot be described exclusively or even predominantly as fundamentalists. In reality, their religious affiliations mirrored the whole of white Protestant society, including those who did not belong to any church.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Please. These comments don't even pass the laugh test. Use your common sense and analyze the empirical evidence before you make statements like these.
Lastly...generalize much?
In the future, you might try being specific. I find it ironic that you provide a personal opinion ("laugh test") as justification for explaining why my personal experience/opinion lacks empirical evidence. Generalization? Yeah, you got me there, but what about Duncan? Do you not agree also that his statements were hasty generalizations? I'm not justifying my own argumentative fallacies, I'm asking a serious question for the sake of judging whether or not you have a biased perspective. Your next question: what gives me the right to judge your perspective? Well, it is inherently obvious that if you
don't find Duncan's comments to be hastily generalized, while concurrently finding my comments to be hastily generalized, you are heavily biased.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
Our poll system is probably better than either of theirs.
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7954
You've got to be kidding. 16 total people responded to the Tulsa Now forum. Basic statistical laws have proven that sample size and error are inversely proportional.
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
You've got to be kidding. 16 total people responded to the Tulsa Now forum. Basic statistical laws have proven that sample size and error are inversely proportional.
I said "system". As in, it's less likely for someone to vote twice on our "system."
Otherwise yes, I'm kidding. I got to be both serious and a smart@$$ at the same time, nothing new, but that's how like it.
More fuel for the fire....from the front lines..
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=2306E1FD-A88C-4C24-A9B1-34BB2847F9F4
Michael C, would you clarify what you wrote in an earlier post? Please, dont get defensive because we can't learn from you when you do this. Thanks.
"Most Islamic organization are busy fighting to exist right now, within the law."
What do you mean "within the law"? What is the problem?
"As long as Christian organizations attack Islam, by the creation of "Islamo-Fascist Week", political or religious rallies, TV shows that are only used as propaganda for the destruction of Islam; You can expect a fight."
Islamo-Facist Week has to do with the strick interpretation of Islam that calls for stoning people to death, killing infidels, taxing non-Muslim with the tax of inferority (9.29) and so on. Wouldn't Muslims who don't practice this type of Islam join in with everyone to help bring pressure on the world to stop the practice of this version of Islam? Your remark is very similar to what CAIR says - its an attack on Islam. This is worrisome because your statement therefore seem to condone this version. Are you a Muslim, Michael?
"No, you don't have to accept anything as part of a Religion. Most people, in this country, have enough sense to realize that infractions in the name of Christianity are the exception, rather than the rule. Though many choose not to give the same consideration to Islam. It is discrimination by definition."
Here again you are denying that a very strick version of Islam gives rise to jihadists and there a several world-wide Islamic organization trying to take over regions of the world. They have infiltrated the U.S. We are aware of this infiltration.
And what is done in warfare, is entirely separate from Christianity or Islam. Beheadings, kidnappings, torture, bombings, or even a Christian US Soldier slaughtering an Islamic family for no defensible reason. No one makes the judgment that all of US forces are evil or that it was done in the name of Christianity, yet you seem to be particularly interested in any incident that can stereotype Islam.
Again, you lump all of Islam with the strick version and call it an attack on all of Islam or stereotying it. This is just a diversinary tactic that fails to address the problem that strick, or consevative, or literal, or primitive Islam causes. You are not addressing the fact that everyday several terrorists in the name of ISLAM kill people in different parts of the world. Everyday, Michael. Aren't they really the warriors of Islam who are promised a grade higher in paradise as stated in the Quran? Doesn't Chapter 9 in the Quran cover how to wage a war, or Chapter 8 or CHapter 31? Are you going to deny this is in the Quran?
I've heard Muslims say there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim - you are either a Muslim or you are not. Is this true?
"All that needs to happen, is less complaining, more understanding that Islam is diverse and just like Christianity, the number of criminals committing crimes in the name of the religion is small. And religions are used as tools by clerics and political leaders and strong-men for some other goal. It's never the fault of the Religion itself."
How many mosques in the U.S. do you think are under the influence of either the Saudi's or the Muslim Brotherhood? There is documented evidence that supports what I state.
<kakie wrote:
Islamo-Facist Week has to do with the strick interpretation of Islam that calls for stoning people to death, killing infidels, taxing non-Muslim with the tax of inferority (9.29) and so on.
<end clip>
Islamofascism Week exists solely to enrich David Horowitz, nothing more. He trots out the boogeyman when he needs the money, and has been known to simply make sh*t up.
And strick is strictly spelled "strict."
Kakie, You feign this open-minded, "I just want to learn" position. Would you just admit that you are scared to death of Islam? There is nothing anyone can say to change your position. I do hope that more Muslims will take a stand against violence committed in the name of their religion. Thats not the point here. Anyone can see that the statements Duncan made were mean spirited and/or ignorant generalizations about the people who believe in one of the worlds largest religions. And now many other lawmakers are rolling in the same dirt. Its an embarrassment to our state.
Remind me never to have coffee with Kakie.
quote:
Islamofascism Week exists solely to enrich David Horowitz, nothing more. He trots out the boogeyman when he needs the money, and has been known to simply make sh*t up.
Documentation, please.
quote:
Originally posted by jne
Kakie, You feign this open-minded, "I just want to learn" position. Would you just admit that you are scared to death of Islam? There is nothing anyone can say to change your position. I do hope that more Muslims will take a stand against violence committed in the name of their religion. Thats not the point here. Anyone can see that the statements Duncan made were mean spirited and/or ignorant generalizations about the people who believe in one of the worlds largest religions. And now many other lawmakers are rolling in the same dirt. Its an embarrassment to our state.
Remind me never to have coffee with Kakie.
Do you see what you are doing, Michael?
You are
refusing to answering specific questions about statements
you made by trying to turn it around on me and making it my problem. This is quite typical when Muslims are asked the tough questions about Islam. This diversionary tactic won't work anymore, Michael. Please answer the questions about what you wrote.
Here they are again:
"Most Islamic organization are busy fighting to exist right now, within the law."
What do you mean "within the law"? What is the problem?
"As long as Christian organizations attack Islam, by the creation of "Islamo-Fascist Week", political or religious rallies, TV shows that are only used as propaganda for the destruction of Islam; You can expect a fight."
Islamo-Facist Week has to do with the strick interpretation of Islam that calls for stoning people to death, killing infidels, taxing non-Muslim with the tax of inferority (9.29) and so on. Wouldn't Muslims who don't practice this type of Islam join in with everyone to help bring pressure on the world to stop the practice of this version of Islam? Your remark is very similar to what CAIR says - its an attack on Islam. This is worrisome because your statement therefore seem to condone this version. Are you a Muslim, Michael?
"No, you don't have to accept anything as part of a Religion. Most people, in this country, have enough sense to realize that infractions in the name of Christianity are the exception, rather than the rule. Though many choose not to give the same consideration to Islam. It is discrimination by definition."
Here again you are denying that a very strick version of Islam gives rise to jihadists and there a several world-wide Islamic organization trying to take over regions of the world. They have infiltrated the U.S. We are aware of this infiltration.
And what is done in warfare, is entirely separate from Christianity or Islam. Beheadings, kidnappings, torture, bombings, or even a Christian US Soldier slaughtering an Islamic family for no defensible reason. No one makes the judgment that all of US forces are evil or that it was done in the name of Christianity, yet you seem to be particularly interested in any incident that can stereotype Islam.
Again, you lump all of Islam with the strick version and call it an attack on all of Islam or stereotying it. This is just a diversinary tactic that fails to address the problem that strick, or consevative, or literal, or primitive Islam causes. You are not addressing the fact that everyday several terrorists in the name of ISLAM kill people in different parts of the world. Everyday, Michael. Aren't they really the warriors of Islam who are promised a grade higher in paradise as stated in the Quran? Doesn't Chapter 9 in the Quran cover how to wage a war, or Chapter 8 or CHapter 31? Are you going to deny this is in the Quran?
I've heard Muslims say there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim - you are either a Muslim or you are not. Is this true?
"All that needs to happen, is less complaining, more understanding that Islam is diverse and just like Christianity, the number of criminals committing crimes in the name of the religion is small. And religions are used as tools by clerics and political leaders and strong-men for some other goal. It's never the fault of the Religion itself."
How many mosques in the U.S. do you think are under the influence of either the Saudi's or the Muslim Brotherhood? There is documented evidence that supports what I state.
[:D]
You crack me up kakie.
Wont work, Michael.
Do you see what you are doing, Michael? You are refusing to answering specific questions about statements you made by trying to turn it around on me and making it my problem. This is quite typical when Muslims are asked the tough questions about Islam. This diversionary tactic won't work anymore, Michael. Please answer the questions about what you wrote.
Here they are again:
"Most Islamic organization are busy fighting to exist right now, within the law."
What do you mean "within the law"? What is the problem?
"As long as Christian organizations attack Islam, by the creation of "Islamo-Fascist Week", political or religious rallies, TV shows that are only used as propaganda for the destruction of Islam; You can expect a fight."
Islamo-Facist Week has to do with the strick interpretation of Islam that calls for jihadism, stoning people to death, killing infidels, taxing non-Muslim with the tax of inferority (9.29) and so on. Wouldn't Muslims who don't practice this type of Islam join in with everyone to help bring pressure on the world to stop the practice of this version of Islam? Your remark is very similar to what CAIR says - its an attack on Islam. This is worrisome because your statement therefore seem to condone this version. Are you a Muslim, Michael?
"No, you don't have to accept anything as part of a Religion. Most people, in this country, have enough sense to realize that infractions in the name of Christianity are the exception, rather than the rule. Though many choose not to give the same consideration to Islam. It is discrimination by definition."
Here again you are denying that a very strick version of Islam gives rise to jihadists and there a several world-wide Islamic organization trying to take over regions of the world. They have infiltrated the U.S. We are aware of this infiltration.
And what is done in warfare, is entirely separate from Christianity or Islam. Beheadings, kidnappings, torture, bombings, or even a Christian US Soldier slaughtering an Islamic family for no defensible reason. No one makes the judgment that all of US forces are evil or that it was done in the name of Christianity, yet you seem to be particularly interested in any incident that can stereotype Islam.
Again, you lump all of Islam with the strick version and call it an attack on all of Islam or stereotying it. This is just a diversinary tactic that fails to address the problem that strick, or consevative, or literal, or primitive Islam causes. You are not addressing the fact that everyday several terrorists in the name of ISLAM kill people in different parts of the world. Everyday, Michael. Aren't they really the warriors of Islam who are promised a grade higher in paradise as stated in the Quran? Doesn't Chapter 9 in the Quran cover how to wage a war, or Chapter 8 or CHapter 31? Are you going to deny this is in the Quran?
I've heard Muslims say there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim - you are either a Muslim or you are not. Is this true?
"All that needs to happen, is less complaining, more understanding that Islam is diverse and just like Christianity, the number of criminals committing crimes in the name of the religion is small. And religions are used as tools by clerics and political leaders and strong-men for some other goal. It's never the fault of the Religion itself."
How many mosques in the U.S. do you think are under the influence of either the Saudi's or the Muslim Brotherhood? There is documented evidence that supports what I state.
Do you realize the way you respond is an answer in and off itself?
lol
Keep on spinning those wheels big daddy.
And check your PM more often, ya putz.
Your unwilliness to answer questions about what you wrote leaves me to conclude you cannot be considered a realiable person to have any type of discussion about Islam. You are either ignorant of Islam or are hiding something about Islam. It is one or the other or you wouldn't be so evasive or defensive. You've been outed, IMO.
I applaud Kakie for trying to dig a little deeper with the tough questions that must be answered about Islam. More people in Tulsa need to do the same.
Hi Jeff Man,
Welcome to the food fight.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Man
Your unwilliness to answer questions about what you wrote leaves me to conclude you cannot be considered a realiable person to have any type of discussion about Islam. You are either ignorant of Islam or are hiding something about Islam. It is one or the other or you wouldn't be so evasive or defensive. You've been outed, IMO.
I applaud Kakie for trying to dig a little deeper with the tough questions that must be answered about Islam. More people in Tulsa need to do the same.
Applaud away.
I have no intention of writing an entire book to explain why you are all simple bigots. I'll let your words speak for me.
Now, if you want to throw down on Christianity, let me know. I'm a champ. There are things that probably shouldn't be said. And I'll only stay on defense as long as I want to be nice. I'm not feeling much like being nice. Not anymore, not as long as you fools are around.
And kakie, ya putz, where's my PM? You read it a couple hours ago.
Where's your sense of urgency now?
And how stupid do you have to be, to spam the last page? I'll say this one more time. I'll answer any freakin question any of you idiots have, one at a time. You want to bombard me with bull****, good luck. You can continue your bigotry on your own.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
And kakie, ya putz, where's my PM? You read it a couple hours ago.
Where's your sense of urgency now?
Michael,
You always have two choices in a debate. You can either raise your voice, or you can strengthen your argument. You have obviously chosen the former even though you were given the opportunity for the latter. This demonstrates a void in your understanding of the philosophy you are attempting to defend.
When I was in college this is what we called the conclusion of the debate.
We then went for drinks and apologized for harsh language and furrowed brows.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
And kakie, ya putz, where's my PM? You read it a couple hours ago.
Where's your sense of urgency now?
And how stupid do you have to be, to spam the last page? I'll say this one more time. I'll answer any freakin question any of you idiots have, one at a time. You want to bombard me with bull****, good luck. You can continue your bigotry on your own.
I thought you left along time ago...So your back and leaving again....
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
And kakie, ya putz, where's my PM? You read it a couple hours ago.
Where's your sense of urgency now?
Michael,
You always have two choices in a debate.
This has never been a debate, not anywhere close. It's been two people posting craziness, then posting the same stuff again. There is no discussion.
So, you're wrong. And there is a third option. Go on offense. Which I haven't chosen to do yet.
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
I thought you left along time ago...So your back and leaving again....
And I see you're still a liar, fabulous.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
And kakie, ya putz, where's my PM? You read it a couple hours ago.
Where's your sense of urgency now?
Michael,
You always have two choices in a debate.
This has never been a debate, not anywhere close. It's been two people posting craziness, then posting the same stuff again. There is no discussion.
So, you're wrong. And there is a third option. Go on offense. Which I haven't chosen to do yet.
Oh! So you're holding back. I'm disappointed.
You sneaky little rascal you.
So back on point, we'll see if the goon squad in nose bleed has calmed down or not.
Again, for the last time, you want me to answer a question, you're going to give it to me one question at a time, and you're damn well going to discuss it.
I don't have time to be bombarded by bigotry. I will answer your questions though.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
So back on point, we'll see if the goon squad in nose bleed has calmed down or not.
Again, for the last time, you want me to answer a question, you're going to give it to me one question at a time, and you're damn well going to discuss it.
I don't have time to be bombarded by bigotry. I will answer your questions though.
Bombarded by bigotry? Hey Kakie was asking about what
you wrote, buddy.
Ok, you said you would answer questions one at a time. So here goes - I'm just using one of Kakie's questions. It's a good place to start.
I somehow think you will worm you way out of anwering it but prove me wrong:
"As long as Christian organizations attack Islam, by the creation of "Islamo-Fascist Week", political or religious rallies, TV shows that are only used as propaganda for the destruction of Islam; You can expect a fight."Islamo-Facist Week has to do with the strick interpretation of Islam that calls for jihadism, stoning people to death, killing infidels, taxing non-Muslim with the tax of inferority (9.29) and so on.
Wouldn't Muslims who don't practice this type of Islam join in with everyone to help bring pressure on the world to stop the practice of this version of Islam? Your remark is very similar to what CAIR says - its an attack on Islam. This is worrisome because your statement therefore seem to condone this version.
Are you a Muslim, Michael?
quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Man
Are you a Muslim, Michael?
No, nothing to discuss there, next question.
I'm not playing with you. If you expect me to answer a question, you're damn well going ask it, it meaning singular,
one. And you're damn well going to discuss it when it's answered.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Man
Wouldn't Muslims who don't practice this type of Islam join in with everyone to help bring pressure on the world to stop the practice of this version of Islam?
I'm going to give you a pass this time Jeffrey. I'm serious about
one at a time.
First, it's a judgment call. I've been accused of diversion tactics when I reference Christianity, but what you are asking of Islam is discriminatory. You refuse to apply the same rules to Christianity.
Should they? Maybe. It's a judgment call. And maybe most of Christianity should be more vocal about Christian atrocities as well, they aren't. I don't judge that, you do. There's the difference.
Discuss...
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
So back on point, we'll see if the goon squad in nose bleed has calmed down or not.
Again, for the last time, you want me to answer a question, you're going to give it to me one question at a time, and you're damn well going to discuss it.
I don't have time to be bombarded by bigotry. I will answer your questions though.
I feel for you Michael, and it is unfair to imply that all Muslems are responsible for terrorism. I admire your drive to defend a religion that cannot be held responsible for the actions of men.
After all this post was originally about the refusal by a political leader to accept a religious text as a gift.
I personally believe that in a country that defends the separation of church and state, gifts to politicians of a religious nature should never be accepted.
A paperweight, a stapler or other items are fine, but "documents of religious doctrine" especially with the name of the politician engraved on the cover implying some form of endorsement are completely unacceptable.
As far as the direction this discussion has taken. . .
My point has allways been, that Islam is not responsible for terrorism, HOWEVER, the doctrine itself precludes Muslems from accepting secular concepts of individual freedom, material prosperity, and personal happiness outside of Islam.
Therefore the cure for radical terrorism must come from within Islamic doctrine. Simply defending all Islam and ignoring its responsibility to temper its own sword serves no purpose.
As long as Islamic doctrine restricts these simple secular concepts, it is difficult for Muslim leaders to guide thier follwers in a dirrection of peace. Even peaceful american Muslims grapple with with these concepts.
I took a year of Arab studies at TU (long before 9/11) and this was the #1 debate topic between Arab students and american students. All of these debates were focused on the concept that as Christians or Jews we were ahl al-kitab and of less importance than Muslims. The disconnect between the Western view of equality and the Islamic view is vast.
Because we still live in a time of "Multiculturalism," we feel that it is taboo to discuss these topics, or that it makes us bigots to pose the tough questions, but we are slowly healing from the politically-correct, multicultural speak of the 90's and moving more towards an ability to have frank discussions with tough questions and real answers.
So I pose this question to everyone. Why should any politician accept gifts of religious doctrine?
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
Why should any politician accept gifts of religious doctrine?
They had the right to reject it, I don't think there was a problem there. But there's nothing intrinsically evil about accepting it either.
Separation of Church and State has mostly to do with Gov't involvement in religion, and by default Religious use of Gov't property. Because State can not be in the Church business, Church is limited on what it can do as far as State business. Primarily, they can't exploit gov't funds or facilities in order to preach.
However, again, a book is a book. I wish I had one, would have taken one of the Centennial Bible's the SoBap's handed out. As long as they are paying for them, and aren't using gov't property to preach or gov't money to pay for it, there's no real argument.
If the Koran or the Bible were funded by the State, it would likely have been a clear violation.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
I thought you left along time ago...So your back and leaving again....
And I see you're still a liar, fabulous.
Looks like a search is in order......heh...
There are many Christian organizations and movements that do and have taken part in terrorism...yet we as Americans should only focus on Islam? How many Christians have taken part in a Hate Crime against a Muslim? I'm willing to bet quite a few. Christians are just as dangerous and crazy as Muslims.
Christian Identity
Promise Keepers
Operation Rescue
Phineas Priesthood
The Army of God
Aryan Nations
The Church of Jesus Christ Christian
The Institute for Historic Review
The Order
I shouldn't have to mention the Ku Klux Klan.
There are extremist nut jobs in every religion who will interpret their faith however they see fit.
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
Looks like a search is in order......heh...
What are you, a moron? Hurry up and post it already.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Man
Wouldn't Muslims who don't practice this type of Islam join in with everyone to help bring pressure on the world to stop the practice of this version of Islam?
I'm going to give you a pass this time Jeffrey. I'm serious about one at a time.
First, it's a judgment call. I've been accused of diversion tactics when I reference Christianity, but what you are asking of Islam is discriminatory. You refuse to apply the same rules to Christianity.
Should they? Maybe. It's a judgment call. And maybe most of Christianity should be more vocal about Christian atrocities as well, they aren't. I don't judge that, you do. There's the difference.
Discuss...
Michael, it would be most helpful and respectful of you to others if you would stop calling people names and using foul language. It's not very becoming.
So, if I understood you right you said that maybe Muslims should join to bring pressure on the world against the strick form of Islam.
Is that correct?
Point taken. I need to take these one at a time, and there's going to have to be discussion about them. I'm not taking a quiz, and some of this stuff has already been answered, it was just ignored. Let's keep it small and sharp, one question at a time.
quote:
Originally posted by kakie
So, if I understood you right you said that maybe Muslims should join to bring pressure on the world against the strick form of Islam.
Is that correct?
Maybe, that also means maybe not. It's a judgment call.
There's no requirement that they do, and there may be good reasons, especially in this climate, to stay silent. You look at their silence as "approval", I look at it as potentially sound strategy. If you come out in force, you feed that Christian beast, the one that demands Islam be secondary.
Tactically, silence is fairly sound. It doesn't usually get you in more trouble than you're in. And given the forces lined up against them, and their tactics, I'd advise them to remain silent, if I were asked.
Michael C: You have your hands full here, so you do not need to respond to this. But, in looking through this thread, it appears that anyone who does not agree with or share your position on Islam or your feeling about Duncan refusing the Koran is a bigot, racist, etc...How wonderful it must be to be as enlightened as you.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Michael C: You have your hands full here, so you do not need to respond to this. But, in looking through this thread, it appears that anyone who does not agree with or share your position on Islam or your feeling about Duncan refusing the Koran is a bigot, racist, etc...How wonderful it must be to be as enlightened as you.
No, anyone who would sit here and post sites that project bigotry, is probably a bigot. Anyone who would sit here and call Islam a secondary religion that should submit to the demands of our resident Christians, is likely a bigot.
And Enlightened (as in Enlightenment ideals which everyone has to a degree), doesn't mean I can't be a prick about it.
As soon as you guys want this to be a normal discussion, it will be.
quote:
Originally posted by unknown
There are many Christian organizations and movements that do and have taken part in terrorism...yet we as Americans should only focus on Islam? How many Christians have taken part in a Hate Crime against a Muslim? I'm willing to bet quite a few. Christians are just as dangerous and crazy as Muslims.
Christian Identity
Promise Keepers
Operation Rescue
Phineas Priesthood
The Army of God
Aryan Nations
The Church of Jesus Christ Christian
The Institute for Historic Review
The Order
I shouldn't have to mention the Ku Klux Klan.
There are extremist nut jobs in every religion who will interpret their faith however they see fit.
Rosie??? Is that you? I didn't know we had a celeb on the board...
Just keep ignoring the empirical evidence that proves you wrong...it's easier that way.
From Michael C
"No, anyone who would sit here and post sites that project bigotry, is probably a bigot. Anyone who would sit here and call Islam a secondary religion that should submit to the demands of our resident Christians, is likely a bigot."
WHAT?
Muslims are only 1-2% of our population, at most. Islam is most definitely a very minor religion in terms of its followers in America.
Most Muslims are born in Muslim run countries and are forced to be Muslims. They DO NOT HAVE RELIGOUS FREEDOM. There are very serious penalties - even death to switch from Islam.
Muslims are taught in the Quran their religion is superior to all other religions. What about verse 9.29? I do realize this verse was in a chapter about waging war but this tax is demanded of non-muslims in many Islamic countries.
Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
I find Islam a very troubling religion. I am expressing that concern. I've studied for a couple years now searching for its love for all and have yet to find it. In fact, the more I study it the more I do not respect it. I'm being honest.
When you respond to questions by attacking the questioner calling them a bigot, you actual help confirm how deeply troubling Islam is to me.
I;m always open to learn more and that it what I've been trying to do here but your responses only help confirm what I have studied so far.
Now remember Michael, you cannot call me names per your agreement anymore. So when you reply, keep that in mind.
quote:
Originally posted by kakie
Muslims are taught in the Quran their religion is superior to all other religions.
I am no religious scholar, but don't most religions teach that their type is superior to others?
I have never heard of a church saying their faith is not the best.
"Our God may be in last place this season, but we have some good draft choices coming up."
quote:
Originally posted by kakie
From Michael C
"No, anyone who would sit here and post sites that project bigotry, is probably a bigot. Anyone who would sit here and call Islam a secondary religion that should submit to the demands of our resident Christians, is likely a bigot."
WHAT?
I'll assume that's a question. Which part of that did you not understand?
Bigotry is bigotry. Now, if you fit either one of those two up above, then I understand your reaction. But, I can't control your reaction, and I don't care how offensive the word sounds to you. If it applies, it applies.
Now, if you want to sit here and discuss why you are a bigot, or why you are not a bigot, that's fine. I'm ready for that. Otherwise, are we done with the last question you asked?
quote:
Originally posted by kakie
Muslims are only 1-2% of our population, at most. Islam is most definitely a very minor religion in terms of its followers in America.
Islam is the worlds 2nd largest religion and many agree that it is the fastest growing religion. The world is bigger than the U.S. and until we realize this, we will continue to have many of the same problems we are having now.
quote:
Originally posted by kakie
Most Muslims are born in Muslim run countries and are forced to be Muslims. They DO NOT HAVE RELIGOUS FREEDOM. There are very serious penalties - even death to switch from Islam.
What Christian church doesn't indoctrinate their children to some degree?? And death to anyone who switches from Islam - what a bunch of alarmist crap. I happen to know people who have left Islam behind that are still standing upright.
quote:
Originally posted by kakie
From Michael C
"No, anyone who would sit here and post sites that project bigotry, is probably a bigot. Anyone who would sit here and call Islam a secondary religion that should submit to the demands of our resident Christians, is likely a bigot."
WHAT?
Muslims are only 1-2% of our population, at most. Islam is most definitely a very minor religion in terms of its followers in America.
Most Muslims are born in Muslim run countries and are forced to be Muslims. They DO NOT HAVE RELIGOUS FREEDOM. There are very serious penalties - even death to switch from Islam.
Muslims are taught in the Quran their religion is superior to all other religions. What about verse 9.29? I do realize this verse was in a chapter about waging war but this tax is demanded of non-muslims in many Islamic countries.
Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
I find Islam a very troubling religion. I am expressing that concern. I've studied for a couple years now searching for its love for all and have yet to find it. In fact, the more I study it the more I do not respect it. I'm being honest.
When you respond to questions by attacking the questioner calling them a bigot, you actual help confirm how deeply troubling Islam is to me.
I;m always open to learn more and that it what I've been trying to do here but your responses only help confirm what I have studied so far.
Now remember Michael, you cannot call me names per your agreement anymore. So when you reply, keep that in mind.
Kakie,
When dealing with the world's second largest religion, one whose members often have a proclivity to violence in the name of that religion, what do YOU think is the best course of action?
Is it best to condemn the entire religion, all aspects? That only serves to validate that this is a "holy war" between evil, ungodly and Allah hating Christianity (which is what radical Islam wants to paint us as) or is the wiser course one where we show ourselves be easily accepting of the more moderate elements of Islam. Show we show that we don't hate Islam, just those that kill the innocent under the guise of Islam. We need to show that Christianity doesn't have to be the enemy and that this isn't a holy war. Radical Islam wants to unite all Muslims in the world together for a holy war. Do you think it's a good idea to further that goal by making all Muslims are our enemies?
Look, you can always show ugly parts of the Quran, just like there are ugly parts of the Bible that most of us chose to ignore as only the product of the times in which it was written. The bible includes stonings, human sacrifice (of children!), raining frogs and an "eye for an eye". There's some pretty interesting stuff in our book too that some people firmly believe in that others do not. There are plenty of Christians that take the Bible as the inerrant word of God that think the world is 6,000 years old and some others that think that Jesus went to Utah and told us not to drink coffee.
Why don't we try to condemn the elements of Islam that would kill all infidels and support those that think that's more than a little nuts instead of grouping all of the billion followers of Islam into one and condemn them as our enemies.
A private citizen can accept or refuse a gift all they want. But these are elected officials and all of them likely have Muslims that they represent in their districts. They have symbolically all rejected the religion of a segment of their constituency and Duncan has directly denounced all followers of that religion murderers or supporters of murder.
quote:
Originally posted by kakie
From Michael C
"No, anyone who would sit here and post sites that project bigotry, is probably a bigot. Anyone who would sit here and call Islam a secondary religion that should submit to the demands of our resident Christians, is likely a bigot."
WHAT?
Muslims are only 1-2% of our population, at most. Islam is most definitely a very minor religion in terms of its followers in America.
Most Muslims are born in Muslim run countries and are forced to be Muslims. They DO NOT HAVE RELIGOUS FREEDOM. There are very serious penalties - even death to switch from Islam.
Muslims are taught in the Quran their religion is superior to all other religions. What about verse 9.29? I do realize this verse was in a chapter about waging war but this tax is demanded of non-muslims in many Islamic countries.
Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
I find Islam a very troubling religion. I am expressing that concern. I've studied for a couple years now searching for its love for all and have yet to find it. In fact, the more I study it the more I do not respect it. I'm being honest.
When you respond to questions by attacking the questioner calling them a bigot, you actual help confirm how deeply troubling Islam is to me.
I;m always open to learn more and that it what I've been trying to do here but your responses only help confirm what I have studied so far.
Now remember Michael, you cannot call me names per your agreement anymore. So when you reply, keep that in mind.
Kakie brought up some excellent points here. In The United States Islam is a minor religion in terms of its followers. This is a fact.
In Most Muslims Countries you are forced to be a Muslims. There is no religious freedom. This is a fact.
Kakie find Islam, the religion itself troubling. Not one post here that has responded has helped to ease Kakie's concerns. Not one. Instead it is bigotry for her to talk. Most Interesting.
Can we count how many times Michael C has used the word bigot or bigotry? He does nothing to help put Islam in a better light. Nothing.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Man
Can we count how many times Michael C has used the word bigot or bigotry? He does nothing to help put Islam in a better light. Nothing.
What are you, her dad?
If you want to talk about bigotry, I'm game. As soon as you get past it, we're all cool.
Like Fonzi.
I know you are hard of hearing, and maybe incapable of understanding the words I'm typing up right now. So again....
If the discussion is going to be about whether or not you are a bigot, I'm cool with that. Otherwise, if you want it to be about something else, move on.
If you really want a discussion, let's have it and stop screwing around.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Man
quote:
Originally posted by kakie
From Michael C
"No, anyone who would sit here and post sites that project bigotry, is probably a bigot. Anyone who would sit here and call Islam a secondary religion that should submit to the demands of our resident Christians, is likely a bigot."
WHAT?
Muslims are only 1-2% of our population, at most. Islam is most definitely a very minor religion in terms of its followers in America.
Most Muslims are born in Muslim run countries and are forced to be Muslims. They DO NOT HAVE RELIGOUS FREEDOM. There are very serious penalties - even death to switch from Islam.
Muslims are taught in the Quran their religion is superior to all other religions. What about verse 9.29? I do realize this verse was in a chapter about waging war but this tax is demanded of non-muslims in many Islamic countries.
Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
I find Islam a very troubling religion. I am expressing that concern. I've studied for a couple years now searching for its love for all and have yet to find it. In fact, the more I study it the more I do not respect it. I'm being honest.
When you respond to questions by attacking the questioner calling them a bigot, you actual help confirm how deeply troubling Islam is to me.
I;m always open to learn more and that it what I've been trying to do here but your responses only help confirm what I have studied so far.
Now remember Michael, you cannot call me names per your agreement anymore. So when you reply, keep that in mind.
Kakie brought up some excellent points here. In The United States Islam is a minor religion in terms of its followers. This is a fact.
In Most Muslims Countries you are forced to be a Muslims. There is no religious freedom. This is a fact.
Kakie find Islam, the religion itself troubling. Not one post here that has responded has helped to ease Kakie's concerns. Not one. Instead it is bigotry for her to talk. Most Interesting.
Can we count how many times Michael C has used the word bigot or bigotry? He does nothing to help put Islam in a better light. Nothing.
Mr. Jeff Man
Be easy on MichaelC. He clearly disagrees with Kakie's views on Islam and strongly disagrees with Christianity's views and it's historical perspective regarding Islam.
Furthermore MichaelC is obstinately convinced of the superiority and correctness of his own opinion and he is prejudiced against Kakie's opinion.
Thus the name calling.
But I wonder who would be considered the "bigot" ?
Perhaps MichaelC should choose a different word?
bigoted adjectiveobstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions.
. . .see dictionaries are fun.
Stupid english language!
quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Man
In Most Muslims Countries you are forced to be a Muslims. There is no religious freedom. This is a fact.
Document this,
Which Muslim country "forces" all residents to be Muslim? I bet you can't find two, much less "most". This is not a fact, even Iran has religous minorities that coexist.
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
Very fun:
http://www.answers.com/bigotry&r=67
Bigotry:
quote:
noun
Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion: intolerance, prejudice.
Bigot:
quote:
n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
We're not playing a game, and I'm not taking a quiz. Again, for the fourth time, for you fools that still can't comprehend it, if you want to be about whether or not you qualify as a bigot, I'm cool with that. It's your choice.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
What a horrible answer. My question is where is your proof that the KKK is rooted in Christianity.
Maybe you had a horrible question. If you want me to answer a question, ask it and stop screwing around. Just search anything on the internet for Klan literature, you'll find references. Klan literature is inundated with Protestant references.
Or try this on for size.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan
quote:
Indiana's Klansmen represented a wide cross section of society: they were not disproportionately urban or rural, nor were they significantly more or less likely than other members of society to be from the working class, middle class, or professional ranks. Klansmen were Protestants, of course, but they cannot be described exclusively or even predominantly as fundamentalists. In reality, their religious affiliations mirrored the whole of white Protestant society, including those who did not belong to any church.
First, did you even bother to read the entire Wiki article? Had you done so, you would have learned the roots of the Klan was not in Christianity--as you claimed.
As for your post, the fact that Klan literature may be "inundated" with Protestant references does not mean that its
roots are in Christianity. Hell, even your quoted part makes no mention that the Klan has its roots in Christianity.
How about you quit screwing around and produce the facts that the Klan has its roots in Christianity--as you claimed. Otherwise, stop showing either
your ignorance or bigotry towards Christians--which, in case you do not know, comprises at least 80% of our population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
As for your post, the fact that Klan literature may be "inundated" with Protestant references does not mean that its roots are in Christianity. Hell, even your quoted part makes no mention that the Klan has its roots in Christianity.
Oh, so you're asking something completely different now. Are you asking where the Biblical justification is? I'll show you if that's what you're looking for.
Otherwise, it's widely known you have to be a Protestant to be Klan.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Man
In Most Muslims Countries you are forced to be a Muslims. There is no religious freedom. This is a fact.
Document this,
Which Muslim country "forces" all residents to be Muslim? I bet you can't find two, much less "most". This is not a fact, even Iran has religous minorities that coexist.
I diagree with you. There are a number of countries that have Islam as their official religion. One is listed below. I get more if you like.
Saudi Arabia: Freedom of religion does not exist. Islam is the official religion, and all citizens must be Muslims. Religious freedom is not recognized or protected under the laws, and basic religious freedoms are denied to all but those who adhere to the state-sanctioned version of Sunni Islam. Citizens are denied the freedom to choose or change their religion, and many noncitizens, including Muslims, practice their beliefs under severe restrictions. The Government limits the practice of all but the officially sanctioned version of Islam and prohibits the public practice of other religions.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2005/51609.htm
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Man
In Most Muslims Countries you are forced to be a Muslims. There is no religious freedom. This is a fact.
Document this,
Which Muslim country "forces" all residents to be Muslim? I bet you can't find two, much less "most". This is not a fact, even Iran has religous minorities that coexist.
I don't believe they "force" you to believe in Islam as much as they punish you for deciding not to...check out human rights watch and read about religious tolerance in ME countries...I'll save you the suspense and tell you it's practically nonexistent.
quote:
Originally posted by kakie
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Man
In Most Muslims Countries you are forced to be a Muslims. There is no religious freedom. This is a fact.
Document this,
Which Muslim country "forces" all residents to be Muslim? I bet you can't find two, much less "most". This is not a fact, even Iran has religous minorities that coexist.
I diagree with you. There are a number of countries that have Islam as their official religion. One is listed below. I get more if you like.
Saudi Arabia: Freedom of religion does not exist. Islam is the official religion, and all citizens must be Muslims. Religious freedom is not recognized or protected under the laws, and basic religious freedoms are denied to all but those who adhere to the state-sanctioned version of Sunni Islam. Citizens are denied the freedom to choose or change their religion, and many noncitizens, including Muslims, practice their beliefs under severe restrictions. The Government limits the practice of all but the officially sanctioned version of Islam and prohibits the public practice of other religions.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2005/51609.htm
You kinda fell into my trap on this one.
There is the one, and they are our "friends". It is why I asked for TWO.
In the case of most other Muslim nations, they have "state" religions, but then so do many European nations. The UK has The Church of England, Ireland has Catholicism etc. That's not to mean that other religions are not oppressed to some degree in many Muslim nations, but to say that all citizens are required to be Muslim, to my knowledge only our good friends the Saudis will go that far. Well, they do and the Taliban did before we kicked them out of power.
And before we act all superior over Islam with regards to the oppression of other religions, go read about the Spanish inquisition. And then consider that for the government to brand all followers of a religion as murderers could easily be thought of as oppression. And this is exactly what has just happened here in Oklahoma.
quote:
I don't believe they "force" you to believe in Islam as much as they punish you for deciding not to...check out human rights watch and read about religious tolerance in ME countries...I'll save you the suspense and tell you it's practically nonexistent.
I don't believe you'll have that type of situation here. The gov't is secular enough, vigilant enough, strong enough, and has enough resources, to keep large religious movements in check. Only the small ones have a chance, like those kooks in San Francisco who killed themselves in order to catch a spaceship.
The Saudi's rely on religion and clerics to keep them in power. Without using Islam, they'd only have a bunch of pissed off poor people.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Man
In Most Muslims Countries you are forced to be a Muslims. There is no religious freedom. This is a fact.
Document this,
Which Muslim country "forces" all residents to be Muslim? I bet you can't find two, much less "most". This is not a fact, even Iran has religous minorities that coexist.
Um. . . That's completly correct! To be a citizen of Saudi Arabia you MUST be a muslem. They actually have a police force called the Mutaween that inforce religious law. Many offences such as converting to Christianity, Judaism, or being in possion of religious artifacts not associated with Islam carry the death pennalty. Atheism is also punishable by death.
You are correct, in Iraq you can be of another religion you just woulden't want anyone to know about it.
The constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran recognizes only Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and Zoroastrianism as official religions. No other religious practice is legally accepted in Iran. Conversion from Islam to any other religion is considered apostasy and publicizing it can result in harassment and religious persecution. Apostasy still retains a death sentence but in recent years this has not been used.
Legally Sunni Muslims are accepted as fellow Muslims, while Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians are recognised as People of the Book and have certain legal rights insofar as members of these religions are born and brought up within their religion.
Though Sufis are considered Muslims in principle by the government, divergent practices, teaching and secretive organisation have for several of these orders led to governmental distrust and harassment at various times.
For adherents of non-recognized religions, such as Bahá'ís, evangelical Christians, the Ahl-e Haqq, and Mandaeans, or converts from an Islamic background who are considered heretics, enrollment in public university programs or work in government agencies or judiciary is not permitted and can only be achieved by wrongly identifying oneself.
As Bahá'ís or Christian converts may not deny their faith, this is not acceptable to them; and they are therefore totally prevented from such participation.
Due to these restrictions on dissident religious faiths and practices, and due to the persecution of some minorities, the Iranian government has, like the government of the Shah, been severely criticized on multiple occasions by international human rights organizations, foreign governments and the United Nations.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
As for your post, the fact that Klan literature may be "inundated" with Protestant references does not mean that its roots are in Christianity. Hell, even your quoted part makes no mention that the Klan has its roots in Christianity.
Oh, so you're asking something completely different now. Are you asking where the Biblical justification is? I'll show you if that's what you're looking for.
Otherwise, it's widely known you have to be a Protestant to be Klan.
Michael C:
First, Kakie has made a very accurate observation about you:
"Do you see what you are doing, Michael? You are refusing to answer[] specific questions about statements you made by trying to turn it around on me and making it my problem...Please answer the questions about what you wrote."
Michael, you wrote on page 7 of this thread the following: "How many Christian groups would denounce the Klan, while at the same time denying the Klan's Christian roots?"
I asked you to prove that was accurate. First you produced information that was both contrived and a flat misrepresentation. Now, you accuse me of changing the subject. What you are doing is "refusing to answer[] specific questions about statements you made by trying to turn it around on me and making it my problem," which was Kakie's astute observation.
You know what, don't bother trying to prove that the Klan has "Christian roots", I know its crap.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
You know what, don't bother trying to prove that the Klan has "Christian roots", I know its crap.
Exactly. I asked what your stand was. Are you a Christian? If so, is the Klan Christian?
It's typical Christian denial to ignore the Klan's Christianity.
You ignore the Klan's "Christian" references in their own literature, you ignore the fact that you have to be a Protestant to be Klan.
If you didn't want to talk about it, you could have just shut up and moved on. I'm not interested in the Klan or it's ties to Christianity. You're the ones that are interested in discriminatory practices, all I've said all along, is don't discriminate. You want Islam to be responsible for everything some nut does, make Christianity responsible for it's own stuff. Quite fair, for most rational people.
Today in the Tulsa World I read:
..."[Governor's Ethnic American] Council chairwoman Marjan Seirafi-Pour said the intent of the council is to work with the government and others to build understanding of Islam."
In other words, they are trying to advance the religion of Islam.
If you find that advancing the religion of Islam under the Governor's Ethnic American Council is wrong, wrong, wrong, please call the Governor of Oklahoma at 800 865-5853, the Oklahoma Office of Personnel Management who provides staff and office space to this council for their meetings. Their number is 405 521-2177.
And most of all call your state legislators who can end funding for this council.
You can find your two state representatives here:
http://www.capitolconnect.com/oklahoma/default.aspx
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=071101_1_A7_hHepo67400
quote:
Originally posted by kakie
Today in the Tulsa World I read:
..."[Governor's Ethnic American] Council chairwoman Marjan Seirafi-Pour said the intent of the council is to work with the government and others to build understanding of Islam."
In other words, they are trying to advance the religion of Islam.
If you find that advancing the religion of Islam under the Governor's Ethnic American Council is wrong, wrong, wrong, please call the Governor of Oklahoma at 800 865-5853, the Oklahoma Office of Personnel Management who provides staff and office space to this council for their meetings. Their number is 405 521-2177.
And most of all call your state legislators who can end funding for this council.
You can find your two state representatives here:
http://www.capitolconnect.com/oklahoma/default.aspx
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=071101_1_A7_hHepo67400
LOL - you really are a fear mongering nutjob
LOL - you really are a fear mongering nutjob
Man, do you really think the best way to discuss something is to call someone a name?
You know it just makes Kakie's position look stronger.
quote:
Originally posted by jne
quote:
Originally posted by kakie
Today in the Tulsa World I read:
..."[Governor's Ethnic American] Council chairwoman Marjan Seirafi-Pour said the intent of the council is to work with the government and others to build understanding of Islam."
In other words, they are trying to advance the religion of Islam.
If you find that advancing the religion of Islam under the Governor's Ethnic American Council is wrong, wrong, wrong, please call the Governor of Oklahoma at 800 865-5853, the Oklahoma Office of Personnel Management who provides staff and office space to this council for their meetings. Their number is 405 521-2177.
And most of all call your state legislators who can end funding for this council.
You can find your two state representatives here:
http://www.capitolconnect.com/oklahoma/default.aspx
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=071101_1_A7_hHepo67400
LOL - you really are a fear mongering nutjob
What a thoughtful response.
quote:
Originally posted by kakie
Today in the Tulsa World I read:
..."[Governor's Ethnic American] Council chairwoman Marjan Seirafi-Pour said the intent of the council is to work with the government and others to build understanding of Islam."
In other words, they are trying to advance the religion of Islam.
If you find that advancing the religion of Islam under the Governor's Ethnic American Council is wrong, wrong, wrong, please call the Governor of Oklahoma at 800 865-5853, the Oklahoma Office of Personnel Management who provides staff and office space to this council for their meetings. Their number is 405 521-2177.
And most of all call your state legislators who can end funding for this council.
You can find your two state representatives here:
http://www.capitolconnect.com/oklahoma/default.aspx
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=071101_1_A7_hHepo67400
Since when is "understanding" a bad thing? Isn't that just what you have been doing in your study of Islam, trying to "understand" it? I would say that you have chosen to understand only the worst parts of Islam and you then to infer a lot about all Muslims based on what some believe.
And to say that "understanding" means "spread" isn't correct, those words have different meanings and to want to change one for the other is changing the meaning of the sentence.
And, the article plainly states that the Qurans were not paid for with state funds.
You know, we had a pretty good little discussion going on a few pages ago. Any chance we could get off the "Fear and Hate Islam" train, and start talking about reality?
Here is some reality....
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58295
This is stupid. "Understanding" is not the same as "advancing."
I could understand someone's reasons for murdering someone else, but that sure as hell doesn't mean I'm advancing it.
Methinks there's some lack of comprehension here.
quote:
Originally posted by Wingnut
Here is some reality....
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58295
I'm sorry, are you you too stupid to know what a Republican was? Hell yeah, their first targets were Republicans. Thanks for pointing that out Captain Obvious.
Now, can somebody who is not an idiot post. And could get somewhere around the topic anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
This is stupid. "Understanding" is not the same as "advancing."
I could understand someone's reasons for murdering someone else, but that sure as hell doesn't mean I'm advancing it.
Methinks there's some lack of comprehension here.
Heard of separation of Church and State? This council meets in a government building, the Office of Personnel Mgmt, with support staff paid for by taxpaper's dollars. They should not be advancing or helping any one understand Islam. Her term to understand Islam means to teach it - how else do you understand it? This is a clear violation of Church and State. I urge everyone to call the Governor and their state legislators!
quote:
Originally posted by kakie
Heard of separation of Church and State?
Have you? And do you have an understanding of that concept at all?
I strongly encourage you to sue the Ethnic Council and the State.
quote:
Originally posted by kakie
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
This is stupid. "Understanding" is not the same as "advancing."
I could understand someone's reasons for murdering someone else, but that sure as hell doesn't mean I'm advancing it.
Methinks there's some lack of comprehension here.
Heard of separation of Church and State? This council meets in a government building, the Office of Personnel Mgmt, with support staff paid for by taxpaper's dollars. They should not be advancing or helping any one understand Islam. Her term to understand Islam means to teach it - how else do you understand it? This is a clear violation of Church and State. I urge everyone to call the Governor and their state legislators!
They meet once a quarter in a state office building with the purpose of advising the governer on issues that relate to Muslims. How is this bad?
And, for the record, I meet with Cub Scouts twice a month in a government building (Library) and Scouts is a Christian organization. Should that be disallowed too?
quote:
Originally posted by swake
QuoteOriginally posted by kakie
QuoteOriginally posted by rwarn17588
This is stupid. "Understanding" is not the same as "advancing."
They meet once a quarter in a state office building with the purpose of advising the governer on issues that relate to Muslims. How is this bad?
This topic is being debated in other venues in the media now, and some interesting information is emerging about the Ethnic Advisory Counsel members appointed by governor Henry.
Originally the counsel was to be made up of people of diverse ethnic backgrounds. It's establishment was to provide understanding and review of numerous cultural issues that affect the Oklahoma and to provide review and insight for the education of Oklahoma Teachers, text books, and educational institutions.
This incident is causing people to question the 100% Muslim makeup of the council. Among the members are Mohammad Farzaneh who donated over $100, 000 to governor Henry and other state politicians. The other members of the counsel, mostly wealthy physicians are now being scrutinized for their donations to Henry prior to his election.
Also being examined, is evidence that the statement given to the media was prepared in advance by the group's attorney and ready for the press prior to the anticipated refusal of the Koran by the lawmakers.
Out of all of the lawmakers that refused the item, David Derby of Owasso, Guy Liebmann of Oklahoma City, Mark McCullough of Sapulpa, Mike Reynolds of Oklahoma City, Susan Winchester of Chickasha, Rex Duncan of Sand Springs and Senators Randy Brogdon of Owasso and David Myers of Ponca City, they singled out a target they felt was vulnerable.
Interestingly enough, this is far from over. Very cunning.
quote:
And, for the record, I meet with Cub Scouts twice a month in a government building (Library) and Scouts is a Christian organization.
Fyi, Scouting is not a Christian organization, although some call it a "religious" organization as justification to prevent or stop supporting it. There are various religions in Scouting. As a Scouter myself, I wouldn't really call it a religious organization, because it's not based on religion, it's based on character, citizenship and physical fitness development (the 3 aims of Scouting). Religion plays a part, but is not the basis. No doctrine is taught or preached, just "to do our duty to God and my Country".
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by kakie
Heard of separation of Church and State?
Have you? And do you have an understanding of that concept at all?
I strongly encourage you to sue the Ethnic Council and the State.
Everyone, please stop with the lawsuit stuff--at least wait until RW tells us the theory is viable.
Is this going somewhere?
If not, please move along.
quote:
Originally posted by Admin
Is this going somewhere?
Does the toilet count?
I mean, in a way, it could be defined as "somewhere".
Gotta be more specific. [:P]
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by Admin
Is this going somewhere?
Does the toilet count?
I mean, in a way, it could be defined as "somewhere".
Gotta be more specific. [:P]
Seems accurate.
quote:
Originally posted by kakie
Today in the Tulsa World I read:
..."[Governor's Ethnic American] Council chairwoman Marjan Seirafi-Pour said the intent of the council is to work with the government and others to build understanding of Islam."
In other words, they are trying to advance the religion of Islam.
How in the world do you get that they are trying to advance a religion from "build understanding of Islam"?
I get from that statement that the council is wanting to quell the irrational fear that is directed to all Muslims so that they aren't looked at suspiciously wherever they go.
But of course, I'm not looking to scapegoat any group and paint them with a broad brush either.
Sorry, seems like someone already addressed this (I don't have the time to keep up here), but my sentiment still stands.
Survival Mosque
Survival Mosque addresses issues of Muslims living in the contemporary USA. The survival kit contains elements for self protection such as the American-flag façade that communicates patriotism, gas-masque, nose filters and an umbrella that surveys one's back. The mosque is self-sufficient; the prayer rug is supplying its own energy source via photo-voltaic solar cells. It also carries different liturgical and practical features such as washing solution for ablution and for cleaning when a Muslim get spit on, ear plugs against insults, American constitution proofing rights of American Muslims, weapons and amulets, a loud-speaker with speech on tolerance held by President George W. Bush, ablution slippers, Quran, educative books and diverse communication devices. The Survival Mosque can be transformed and camouflaged into interactive bags, which communicate with each other via blue-tooth technology. The bag-speakers reflect paranoia spreading messages regarding terrorism, but they can also function as muezzins; calling for prayer at particular prayer times. Informed by problems many Muslim communities in the USA have been facing after September 11, as well as inspired by the existing flag-burkas developed during protests in France, the design of the Survival Mosque is intended as protective infrastructure. However, the overload of defensive mechanisms transforms the image of a worshiper into a militant figure. Survival Mosque challenges the way how diverse prejudices and fears to Muslims could be reversed.
http://www.mit.edu/~azra/SurvivalMosque.htm
<Spoonbill wrote:
This incident is causing people to question the 100% Muslim makeup of the council. Among the members are Mohammad Farzaneh who donated over $100,000 to governor Henry and other state politicians. The other members of the counsel, mostly wealthy physicians are now being scrutinized for their donations to Henry prior to his election.
Also being examined, is evidence that the statement given to the media was prepared in advance by the group's attorney and ready for the press prior to the anticipated refusal of the Koran by the lawmakers.
Out of all of the lawmakers that refused the item, David Derby of Owasso, Guy Liebmann of Oklahoma City, Mark McCullough of Sapulpa, Mike Reynolds of Oklahoma City, Susan Winchester of Chickasha, Rex Duncan of Sand Springs and Senators Randy Brogdon of Owasso and David Myers of Ponca City, they singled out a target they felt was vulnerable.
Interestingly enough, this is far from over. Very cunning.
<end clip>
The Muslims you named also gave money to Republican politicians. In other words, they gave to both sides.
Even if one accepts this highly dubious notion that somehow the Muslim group managed to coordinate this controversy, you still come up with this none-too-flattering conclusion:
"It's the Muslims' fault that we were exposed as stupid, bigoted and rude!
[}:)]
Is it possible to have a discussion here about this without someone using the word bigot? Discussion cannot flow when you name call. It is stupid, childish and any intelligent person can see right throught this attempt to stop the discussion.
quote:
Originally posted by kakie
Is it possible to have a discussion here about this without someone using the word bigot? Discussion cannot flow when you name call.
Nope and dumb question. You disagree with Michael C.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by kakie
Is it possible to have a discussion here about this without someone using the word bigot? Discussion cannot flow when you name call.
Nope and dumb question. You disagree with Michael C.
How clever.
He is certainly helping me raise awareness about the types questions that should be asked. If one has nothing to hide, there is no problem is answering a question. But when they are answered with name calling - well that is an answer in and of itself.
Thanks, Michael!
This thread has spiraled down into just conversation about answering or not answering each other's posts.
We are going to lock it down.
Feel free to discuss this issue in other threads.