http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870490110457542324320195600...

Joshua and Samir,

"The mosque of misunderstanding" was an editorial today in the WSJ. Some good points were made including some problematic comments by Rauf in the past.

Hope it comes up when linked.

http://www.luxlibertas.com/the-mosque-of-misunderstanding/

I know nothing of this site but it is printed since the first one is partially blocked.

regards,
pat

Bevin,

I find both parties use "partial truths" to rally friends and foes.

regards,
pat

pat travis said "I find both parties use "partial truths" to rally friends and foes."
Perhaps ALL political parties are members of the kingdom of the sword whereas the Church is supposedly a member of the kingdom of the CROSS? The Cross is a sign of LOVE hope and assurance!. Or is that the way it is understood?

All this public talk about the Mosque, Religious Freedom and the Sacredness of Ground Zero misses the point. There are good reasons to restrict the spread of mosques that have nothing to do with Ground Zero, just as there are good reasons to oppose illegal immigration that have nothing to do with racism.

I'll try to put it in one paragraph:

The USA is a nation worth preserving, but we see many trends that threaten the unique qualities of American society. Do we want the USA to be more like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or Indonesia? If we do, the best way to accomplish that is to import people from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Indonesia and let them and their institutions achieve power and influence in our communities and government; just as, if we want the USA to be more like Mexico or Colombia, we only need to import a great number Mexicans and Colombians and let them achieve power and influence in our communities and our government.

Ordinary people find that obvious, and that is why the new mosques are so disturbing, whether they're at Ground Zero, in their own neighborhoods or anywhere else. The same principle motivates the widespread objections to illegal immigrants: we don't want America to be like Mexico, yet the fears of ordinary Americans are coming true. Unless you lead a very sheltered life, you've seen it for yourself.

And please don't sing those mindless refrains, "The USA was founded on "religious freedom," and "the USA is a nation of immigrants." There is nothing about religious freedom in the constitution. Many of the colonial American communities were religious persecutors, and even at present, the federal government, through it's judiciary, unfairly and illegally restricts the religious freedom of states and local jurisdictions, often to the zealous applause of people who call themselves "progressive". And it's nothing but an empty truism that the US is a nation of immigrants. Every nation is a nation of immigrants, but until recently the US was a nation of legal immigrants and national policy provided the requisite safeguards, which are too numerous to mention here.

Only Bevin could go through everything since Obama was elected and still be singing the democrats praises.
If Bush was so bad, it should have been as easy as falling off a log to be a hero President and STILL Obama falls on his face at every turn, but it is instructive since it pretty much confirms who the true believing koolaid drinkers are.

Michael

How can you call defending the Constitution a "face plant"?

You seem as though you wish the Constitution used the phrase "freedom of the christian religion" instead of "freedom of (all) religion".

The visibility of Islam in the popular media is a positive as it brings to the surface the anti-any-religion-but-christianity/no-religion bias of the masses.

Remember, statistically 50% of the population is below average no matter what way you rank them. As someone below average in both ignorance and level of superstitious belief I feel that calls for freedom of religion will be replaced by calls for freedom FROM religion in our society.

Acquiescing to the words of those that say the Law of God trumps the Law of Man are no different when the words are instead that the the Law of Allah trumps the Law of Man.

If you don't like their call for shariah (their Law of Allah) when will you realize that its only different in the particulars, not the philosophy.

We punish the fundamentalist Mormons for religious beliefs. I have not seen the Religious Liberty arm of the church defending the Mormon's right to concurrent polygamy although not much different than the christian's serial polygamy (multiple spouses, just one at a time). Did Ellen ever defend the Mormon's? I have read almost all of her published writings and I can't remember her defending them so I doubt that even the church I grew up in is honest about their commitment to freedom of conscience/freedom of religion/freedom from religion.

I predict that the muslims will allow gay marriages at the ground zero mosque!

It would be nice if every country in the world was an ethnic and religious mixture, where everybody got along and respected each other, their political views and religious beliefs - but that's not the case.

Each nation has a history that makes it unique. The western hemisphere was settled by various national and religious groups. That's not the case in the rest of the world. Most nations mark their boundaries much like property owners mark theirs, in order to define what is theirs and what is their neighbors. Nations do the same. The reason for national boundaries is to make sure that those that call the nation their own, know the language enough to communicate with each other and understand its written laws, signs, and various communications, and be able to make intelligent decisions at the voting booths.

The US was settled by many nationalities but they all came under some kind of controls that made sure the country didn't become a haven for criminals and for those who wished us harm. There was a time when all immigrants to the US had to pass physical exams and criminal background checks. Most immigrants who came learned the language of the country they had made their own. It only makes sense since no country can't function using a conglomerate of languages in school and government etc.

When a group from a foreign nation immigrates in sufficient numbers is it OK to then permit that group to live by the laws of their country of origin. Can the US judicial system suspend their legal basis (the US Constitution) and permit any group to substitute another legal system? That is exactly what is happening in Great Britain with regard to Sharia law. Is the US prepared to let that happen?

That is exactly what is happening in Great Britain with regard to Sharia law.

Sirje

Why? Because the UK has, over time, allowed another group that has a long history of refusing to assimilate- the jews- to operate their own religious courts for certain things like divorce. That was a HUGE mistake, and now Britain is in a catch-22.

Bummer, but its not the fault of the muslims to expect to be treated in a way similar to that of their ancient rivals, the jews, have been in the UK.

Do they go back and get rid of the jewish religious courts or leave them be and allow the muslim courts to settle certain matters under sharia law?

keafan,
Whatever the reason for the situation in the UK, is the US prepared to follow suite? Would it be logical to expect a group to be given such a privilege? How far should the US go in accomodating any specific group?

Keafan

That is exactly the same logic applied by the British when they stopped and searched citizens on the streets of Boston. They reasoned it was in the common interest to protect British citizens (which we were at the time) from the the "terrorists . They called them "rebels" but it amounts to the same thing by a different name. For the Tories this was a very real fear and I'm sure they supported the searches and seizures.

My point is that the 4th amendment was put in place to address this situation which was very recent in our country's memory. It was to prevent unwarranted invasion of privacy by the government.

As to your advice. I did seek legal counsel from several sources and was advised repeatedly that in the present climate of fear of terrorism, I could not expect to get an unbiased hearing anywhere in the United States. I doubt the Japanese who were interned during World War II had any meaningful legal recourse either. As I said, fear trumps the constitution.

All that being said, my point was about the situation as it relates to the 1st amendment, the mosque in New York, and the climate of fear affecting the ability to even think in terms of 1st amendment rights. My statement regarding the 4th amendment was meant by way of example and not to start a new thread about the 4th amendment.

Just a point of interest but native Americans have a separate legal system in place here in the good old USA already. They have their own police and are not subject to the laws the rest of us are IF they are on tribal lands. That is one of the reasons you can buy fireworks, booze, and cigarettes without tax and that wouldn't be allowed elsewhere. Is it possible that the Sharia Laws might be allowed in designated areas??? Food for thought.
Fred

David
There is no need to convince us that Islam is a religion with little appeal to those of us raised on Western, liberal values. It is a religion that is still struggling--not very successfully--to rid itself of its homicidal certainties in religious matters. But the issue, here in the US, is whether we should extend the Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom to Muslims, the way we do to practitioners of all other religions.

As long as religious believers abide by the laws of the land, the Founders of this nation decided, they are free to worship as they want. All religions have a certain amount of craziness built into them--craziness that is held in check by our legal system--and I don't think either Adventists or Mormons or Scientologists should take it for granted that their particular brand of faith would pass muster with those baying for the blood of Muslims, if it came to that. Before Adventist conservatives embraced the intolerant religious (and political) Right, they believed, in fact, that these were the end-time forces that were going to plot their destruction.

As to the demonic intentions of Muslims in Western lands, we know little, but I doubt most Muslim expatriote groups are very different from most fundamentalist Christian groups that also spawn ideologically motivated killers from time to time.

The idea that Muslims are moving to Europe and the US in order to make these continents part of the Muslim world is a reincarnation of the 19th century Protestant fever vision that the Pope was sending millions of Italians and Irish people to this country in order to reclaim the US for the papacy. To the 19th century apocalypticists, such as EGW, the Inquisition was right around the corner.

Muslims in Western lands are eventually going to become westernized. Our Western ideals of democracy and tolerance are much more appealing to all people than the austere desert morality of Islam. That is why the Taliban turned into a homicidal movement: without the sword they were unable to control even their own people. But it seems as if the people of the Right have lost faith in the values that our culture is built on.

I hope the Muslim cultural center gets built, even though it was hit by the landing wheels of a 9/11 plane (!). We need places which function as inter-cultural and inter-religious meeting places.

>>> Just a point of interest but native Americans have a separate legal system in place here in the good old USA already.

Point of order, Fred - those lands are Indian Country - they issue their own passports and the US of A recognizes those passports as valid.

/Bevin

Muslims in Western lands are eventually going to become westernized. Our Western ideals of democracy and tolerance are much more appealing to all people than the austere desert morality of Islam. That is why the Taliban turned into a homicidal movement: without the sword they were unable to control even their own people. But it seems as if the people of the Right have lost faith in the values that our culture is built on.

***********

Well said, Aage!

Thanks...

Frank

Muslims all to often demand respect and sensitivity from us. But they don't grant those things to others. Their obvious tactics and their ignoring of our feelings and pain show us the real nature of Islam. This group is NOT a moderate group. Even the name Cordoba is a tacit insult and a reminder that they colonized Spain. Christians in Islamic nations suffer terrible persecution and Muslims don't see anything wrong with it. We have nothing to teach Islam about hatred, it is already an expert.

keafan:

Thanks for responding, and sorry I took so long (I've been unable to connect to Spectrum for a day or two).

You quote the 1st amendment, but apparently without reading it. The amendment prohibits Congress from passing legislation that restricts the free exercise of religion. It says nothing about state and local jurisdictions. (The topic in this blog is, of course, a local issue.)

Local jurisdictions have routinely, and legally, restricted religion. For one example, states have always been free to restrict traditional Mormons from practicing polygamy, even though polygamy used to be a major part of the Mormon religion (and still is, for some).

And you can provide your own examples of the judiciary restricting the practice of religion, often basing their interference on a preposterously devious reading of the 1st amendment. An amendment that prevents Congress in Washington from restricting religion, they say, prevents Baptists from praying at public school football games in Alabama.

To quote Henry James: "...imbeciles [are apt] to be in great places, people of sense in small..."

Regarding your putting Muslim and Jewish law on an equal footing (your post to Sirje regarding Sharia in Britain), you seem to miss a big difference:
Jewish law is part of our heritage, our law is partly based on Jewish principles (Moses isn't all over the Supreme Court for nothing), and is, for the most part, compatible with our laws and customs. Muslim law, on the other hand, is not part of our tradition, and much of it is incompatible with (and in some details, repugnant to) our morals and customs. As I say, a big difference.

"Even the name Cordoba is a tacit insult and a reminder that they colonized Spain."

And were it not for the Muslims, we would not have Aristotle and the Greek philosophers which they discovered and translated, and preserved for benefit of everyone. It was the Arab Muslims who gave us the alphabet and many other benefits that we use today. That they have been warlike is certainly not singular, as Christians have had such propensities, too. It was the Christians who forced both Muslims and Jews to be converted "conversos" or be expelled from Spain in the late 15th and early 16h century, so each race and religions has it own sordid history. You probably have heard of Torquemada? Was he a Muslim?

Sharia law does not operate in the UK. I don't know who told you that it did. But it doesn't. Nor do Jews have their own separate courts.

Four falsehoods in 4 sentences. WOW.

1. Sharia law does not operate in the UK.

Sharia law is used to settle some civil cases in the UK and the rulings are upheld by British courts.

2. I don't know who told you that it did.

I have never discussed this with anyone so nobody "told me" anything.

BBC News has been my browser "homepage" for about ten years. I have read about the jewish Beth Din courts and the muslim's references to those legal jewish rabbinical courts when arguing for the shariah courts.

For example, from 2006:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6190080.stm

You are welcome to prove the BBC story wrong, but I assign a fairly high level of belief to the general accuracy of their reporting of UK news. I believe, with a much higher level of certainty, their multiple stories on this issue over the years than I believe your apparently prejudiced, unsupported assertions.

3. But it doesn't.

Stating a false assertion multiple times does not make it true.

4.Nor do Jews have their own separate courts.

Ridiculously false. Beth Din is the name of the jewish courts in the UK.

Jewish courts are in daily use in Britain, and have been for centuries.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7233040.stm

Can you do teh google? Try - UK jewish beth din courts - and begin your education of the subject that is evidently a stranger.

I would never pretend that we are just one big happy family who all share similar values. There are many Muslims who don't share our values of secularism and tolerance. Probably most, in fact that live outside western countries. And it is certainly a conversation worth having to decide how best to preserve those values in our culture.

Right now in this point of history, those who practice Christianity *and* live in first world countries generally do also support values of tolerance and freedom and that's good. We should ask how it is that we've gotten here and the answer isn't because we are Christian and they aren't. Even a brief look at how Christians have behaved up until quite recently shows that they were every bit as prone to imperialism, theocracies and converting by the sword - in fact that *was* Christianity basically until the late 19th century.

Some assume now that Muslims are a monolithic threat to our values but they are not monolithic. It begins to smack of arrogance to be telling Muslims what they believe. I've talked to some and read many who have argued against the views of Islam David has portrayed above and I'm not about to tell them they don't know what they are talking about. Of course what he describes does fit some in our country and probably even many in certain countries. We can disagree with those who hold those values without insisting that they are the only face of Islam.

Muslims are quite capable of appreciating tolerance and freedom and as long as we do a reasonable job of assimilating them - just like every other immigrant group we've been scared of and ended up assimilating - we will be fine. As long as the vast majority continues to hold on to those values and doesn't toss them away while running around panicked ("Religious freedom for everyone but Muslims because they are so scary!"), our cultural values will endure.

It does smack of arrogance, not to mention stupidity, to tell Muslims what they believe, so I don't. I let them tell me what they believe. Here's what they say:

"Islam is a 'total way of life.' It has provided guidance in every sphere of life, from individual cleanliness, rules of trade, to the structure and politics of the society. Islam can never be separated from social, political, or economic life, since religion provides moral guidance for every action that a person takes. The primary act of faith is to strive to implement God's will in both private and public life. Muslims see that they, themselves, as well as the world around them, must be in total submission to God and his Will. Moreover, they know that this concept of His rule must be established on earth in order to create a just society."

"As we have mentioned, in Islam God is acknowledged the sole sovereign of human affairs, so there has never been a distinction between religious and state authority. In Christendom, the distinction between the two authorities are said to be based upon records in the New Testament of Jesus, asking his followers to render unto Caesar what was his and unto God what was His. Therefore throughout Christian history until the present times, there have always been two authorities: ‘God and Caesar’, or ‘the church and state.’ Each had its own laws and jurisdictions, each its own structure and hierarchy. In the pre-westernized Islamic world there were never two powers, and the question of separation never arose. The distinction so deeply rooted in Christendom between church and state has never existed in Islam."

"The vision of an Islamic state and the purpose of its political authority is to implement the divine law. Thus, the ideal Islamic state is a community governed by the Law revealed by God. This does not entail that such a state is necessarily a theocracy under direct rule of the learned men of religion, nor is it an autocracy that vests absolute power in the ruler. The function of the Islamic state is to provide security and order so that Muslims can carry out both their religious and worldly duties. The Caliph is the guardian of faith and the community. His role is not so much checked by the ulama (religious scholars), but enhanced by them because they provide him religious and legal counsel. He also appoints judges who resolve disputes in accordance with Islamic Law. There is a certain level of flexibility in regards to the system of governance and its establishment in Islam, however, religion must be implemented fully into state and society."

Again, the implementation of Sharia law is demanded by Islam --not by "Islamism," "Islamic fundamentalism", a "tiny band of extremists," etc.--but by mere Islam. Under mainstream Islam, the purpose of the state is to implement Sharia law.

In theory, Islam can be compatible with a republican form of government as long as the democratically elected legislators pass only laws compatible with sharia:

"In order to discuss productively the topic of democracy, one must first understand the origins and meanings of the concept itself. But,for the sake of brevity, it can be said that . . . Islamic thought does conform to some of [democracy's] aspects. One such aspect is the fact that Muslims have a right to appoint their rulers, hold them accountable and, when need be, to remove them from office. Islam does not, however, empower the system of government with the right to absolve or change the legislation of the religion in society, nor does it leave them the right of creation of novel legislations. Rather, legislation is the right of God alone, and religion must be pivotal in deciding the validity of any new law. Bypassing this right of God amounts to the unforgivable sin of polytheism, for it [deviates] from the basis of the belief in the Oneness of God that He and only He has the right of legislation. What this means is that the people or their elected officials do not have a right to make permissible [halal] what God has forbidden, or to declare forbidden [haraam] what God has made permissible. Both in granting them such a right and then following their legislation is their elevation, making them lords like God, and this is what is meant by polytheism. No-one has the right to change the Law of God, and His Law is superior to and supersedes all man-made laws."

Since it is basically insane to imagine that Islam could ever be compatible with Western insitutions and values, our elites have simply chosen to ignore what Islam is. They have chosen to invent out of their own imaginations an Islam that doesn't have a dominant jurisprudential/political component. But this is a form of denial that is itself madness.

Let's ban Catholic churches within 10,000 feet of playgrounds.

How about SDA churches can't be withing 10,000 feet of Catholic churches.

Christian churches should be banned from the Americas, India and Africa based on their papal bulls endorsing genocide and theft by the christian explorers..

And religious people cannot talk to minors without written permission from the minor's parents.

IMO, those moves would be supported by more evidence than denying the muslim's desire to build a water slide, etc out of sight of the WTC site.

Keafan,

You asked me several questions earlier that I did not answer due to the site being down.

I believe in the 1st Amendment and also how the 14th has been interpreted guaranteeing "religious rights" to all citizens of the US which can not be violated by state law.

I believe that the center has a constitutional right to be placed at the proposed site but question the wisdom of it for those wishing to create better dialogue. As I have previously suggested a plaque might be appropriate condemning the terroist act of 9/11 by "extereme Islamic radicals."

The law prohibits the US from being by law a Christian nation...likewise an Islamic nation. Christians, Jews, Muslems,and all citizens must abide by the laws of the state not specifically guaranteed if against the Const/Ammendments.

It was the US that declared polygamy incompatible despite the allowed LDS practice originally. Religious belief does not carry "without limits" privileges that counter civil law. These areas are subject to court interpretation upon suit of the violated.

The fact that any religion says the state law does not correspond to "God's law" does not allow violation without potential penalty. Moral actions are ultimately decided by the state and prevailing civil law subject to appeal.

Hopefully this adequately answers your questions.

regards,
pat

David
You argue that "Islam could [n]ever be compatible with Western insitutions and values." Voltaire made the same point about the Christian church. If Christians could be persuaded to stop burning people on the stake, there is hope for even the most ardent islamist, too. As Keafan points out, the Torah is not very different from Sharia law. You and most Conservative Christians don't flinch at the OT death penalty for homosexuality and minor Sabbath infractions, unless I'm very wrong. If I have understood you correctly you just believe that these hideous punishments both were and are justified, only that in these NT times we have to wait until the Second Coming before they are carried out. In other words, the Christian argument over Sharia law is only over the issue of time. Muslims believe that these punishments should be meted out in the here and now; Christians believe we should wait.

Or have I missed hearing you say that the death penalty for homosexuality and sabbath infractions was in and of itself an abomination?

The difference between Islam and Christianity today is the Enlightenment. We embraced it, they never did. And that has made all the difference.

>>> If they ever decided to get tough and insist on U.S. passports, I can't imagine that the Iroquois would stand a chance in court.

http://indigenousissuestoday.blogspot.com/2007/12/legal-status-of-native...

Which court?

The USA can certainly refuse to accept the Iroquois passports as allowing entry into the USA.

My children have USA, Australia, AND New Zealand citizenship. When they come into the USA, they must use their USA passports. That does not mean their NZ passports are invalid.

/Bevin

Pat, the cross of Christ was a banner carried by the Crusaders.

Where and when did Christians cease using the sword after the cross?

Aage, I think the Muslims whom I quoted, who are trying to explain Islam to Western English speakers, understand the differences between Islam and Christianity very well. They understand the implications of Jesus' directive to "render unto to ceasar that which is ceasar's and unto God that which is God's," to wit, that Jesus acknowledged the separation between civil and ecclesiastical authority, and they understand there is no such separation in Islam.

Despite Jesus' words, the civil and ecclesiastical authority in Christendom came to be conjoined under Constantine in the early Fourth Century, and remained closely entertwined for over 1000 years, until after the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, and a good deal of bloodshed. But Jesus' few words on the topic made possible a Christianity consistent with the church/state separation we have achieved, for example, in the U.S. with the First Amendment and similar provisions in all the state constitutions.

This separation between religion and civil government is anathema to Islam. Some people have said that Islam needs a reformation, but a reformation returns to the source documents and sweep away traditional accretions. Such a "reformation" would not ease the problem of Islam one iota, because all of its source documents insist on sharia law, and enjoin the faithful to extend the domain of sharia by violent conquest. Islam needs not a reformation, but a re-formulation, and that could only be achieved, if at all, by a civilizational war fought for that very purpose.

The intelligent, well educated Muslims I quoted are not ashamed of Islam, and they are trying their best to explain it to us. They want us to understand what Islam is. We, especially our elites, don't want to understand it, because it is bad news, completely intractable and insoluble. Politicians don't like those kind of situations, so they ignore, deny, distort and lie about them.

David
If separation of church and state is the difference between these two religions (it isn't by the way, I come from a country which still has a state church--Lutheran), then why do Christian Americans want to render us more alike by restricting religious freedom in the US, as if we were another intolerant Muslim country?

Our most cherished values, encapsulated in the US Constitution and the UN's Declaration of Human Rights, do not come from either the Bible or the Koran--although it is possible, with some good will, to incorporate them into these two religions. That's apparently what the Cordoba project is all about--making peace between western culture and Middle Eastern religions. I think it's a good idea.

I would suggest you read the NYT bestseller: "Because They Hate" by Brigitte Gabriel for a "candid" look inside Islam and its goals and methods!!! We as "Christians" always tend to project our values and methods onto others which makes it difficult to really see what is going on until it has happened. That is not "fear mongoring" but looking honestly at what is going on. It is not a pretty picture!!! What part of spreading the gospel to the world is unclear?!? That doesn't give us license to "hate" or not love the Muslims!! If you look at what Islam is doing in Africa I can't imagine any group that is less tolerant of "infidels" and more aggressive in pursuing their goals than Islam. To deny that reality is just "nuts" in my opinion. How do we deal with that reality effectively is open to discussion. It is interesting to me that those who "castigate" Christianity bring up the "Inquisition, Crusades and Biblical stories" in the very distant past rather than looking at more recent history. I haven't noted any "stonings" "beheadings" "honor killings" being the accepted methods of punishment in the civilized world recently. (Aage please don't bring up the witch "burnings" as a rebuttal as this was quite long ago). Is Christianity perfect?? NO
Is Christianity a better alternative than Islam?? Absolutely IMO
All the best to you all !!
Fred

Muslims are quite capable of appreciating tolerance and freedom and as long as we do a reasonable job of assimilating them...

***********

Why is it that in the time following 9/11, France endured Muslim riots and violence in their streets, but the United States, the country that was targeted by Muslim extremists, experienced none? Could it be because of the pronounced intolerance in France towards Muslims, that persists to this day? Could it be because of the systematic exclusion of Muslims from upward mobility in French society, that helped keep most of them stuck permanently in the ranks of the underprivileged and in poverty?

When a group of people experience discrimination and the voicelessness and powerlessness that are sure to accompany it, they often feel that they are left with little recourse to effect change outside of violent means. Witness the racial riots of the 60's in the U.S.

Our recent history with Muslims living in the U.S. post 9/11 has been one noticeably absent of such widespread unrest. Could that be because of our practice of religious tolerance and acceptance, and of a socio-economic assimilation without any class or ethnic barriers put in place against Muslims or any ethnic or religious minority as a group?

The attitudes that are being put on display throughout our nation, seem to indicate that a dark change is taking place, or maybe more accurately, they reveal a popular mindset that has barely lurked under the surface for nearly a decade, but is now being stoked and exploited to gain political capital. Inevitably, a continual playing and preying upon the public's fears, and the accompanying escalation of intolerance it would cause, could end up becoming a self fulfilling prophecy. If we continue down this road over a period of time, we could actually create the very conditions that would help cause some form of violent backlash.

Why nurture what is ultimately against our values, and what has been seem to cause problems elsewhere/

Thanks....

Frank

FactCheck has a nice analysis of the situation.

The Republicans are seriously misrepresenting the situation to try to make political capital.

Furthermore the Republicans are advocating violating the Constitution.

What the country needs is a political party that
- one that is intellectually honest
- one that fiscally responsible

Stunningly, the Democrats are closer to this than the Republicans. It used to be the Republicans. They have lost their way.

/Bevin

Aage

When McCain selected Sarah to be his running mate I spent about 10 hours googling, reading, and watching videos that I found of her being anointed, etc.

Then I researched the location of the county headquarters of the Obama/Biden campaign, signed up (I am an Independent), and started knocking on doors.

The evidence is compelling that she is a Dominionist. Joel's Army. Assembly of God.

People are worked up about Islam while simultaneously voting for the taliban-like Sarah.

A friend of mine, an American citizen who's a Muslim and Turkish ethnic, is involved in developing this project. I should point out that one of her other projects is developing a curriculum for the training of female Imams that will be offered at the Union Theological Seminary in NYC. She could face execution in some countries for the work she does. To associate terrorism with her or with the likes of this cultural center is simply ludicrous. I believe the greatest terroristic and destructive cultural force in American history has been the pervasive culture of ego. It has killed and terrorized more Americans than any Muslim movement ever has. This ego has led us to forget that we've been "building" ground zeros around mosques since 2003. Because of this emic perspective the first defense, when confronting our own demons is to project them outward and find "worse" ones elsewhere. It is a Modus Operandi of avoidance, and until we start having a serious conversation about how destructive a force American ego has been and remains to this nation, then we'll all be held back.

Former House Leader Dick Armey said on NBC a few days ago that the Muslims should "have good taste" and not offend community feelings. If that were the advisable path, black people in America would still be sitting in the back of the bus and drinking from other water fountains. If Armey were correct, why then don't we prevent Lutheran churches from being built in the proximity of synagogues even though that church in Germany sold out to the Nazis, killing their own? At some point, you have to step away from the crazies who inhabit any religion or political persuasion and not give in to the fear and hate. You have to be an American in the truest sense -- defend that which is not what you believe but their right to believe it -- defend their property rights so that yours are defended. The statue of lady justice at the Supreme Court building is blindfolded. She doesn't know whether the people who want to build a house of worship are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Zoroastrian or Manichean. The protects the rights of all...

(The above are thoughts collected from some of my friends in discussion on this issue)

Having witnessed first hand those planes hit the towers and the people jumping from the 100 story windows from a vantage point that is, curiously, closer than the proposed cultural center, and then subsequently fearing for my life when the South Tower initially teatered toward my apartment before collapse, I know what it is to be suspicious of anyone wearing a turban. Understand that for 6 months after 9/11 I was not only suspicious of them, I hated them - all of "them". Thankfully, now I can honestly say that if I were Muslim and I wanted to dispel misinformation about myself as a Muslim, the place I would start first is where I was most grossly misrepresented.

I think we owe the majority of Muslims that much at very least.

Bevin says, "David, being a literal reader of the Bible, naturally uses the same approach to the Koran and understands/sees the literal-minded group but doesn't see the other group."

There is truth in Bevin's observation. I am a believer and I do appreciate the motivational power of faith, and of belief that a religious text is the inspired word of God. I do think believing Christians are in a better position to understand the danger of Islam than cultural Christians.

Cultural Christians don't take their own religious tradition very seriously, and are likely to project their own unbelief onto the followers of another religious tradition. And it is true that there is little to fear from nominal or cultural Muslims who aren't really believers. Rather, it is Muslims who take the Qur'an and hadith seriously who are candidates to become radicalized and pose a threat.

I think our own cultural elites, precisely because they are largely ignorant of religion--including our own Christian heritage--and think everyone is really just motivated by money and power, are almost defenseless to the threat of Islam. They simply do not understand the mindset of the true believer, and think everyone has a price, everyone can be placated and bought off somehow or other.

This is why the billionaire mayor of NYC is so intent on appeasing the Islamists by allowing the mosque to built right near Ground Zero. He's just sure that if we only give in to all their demands, they won't kill us. Or at least they'll kill us last. (Winston Churchill: "An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile hoping it will eat him last.")

Bevin, the problem is not "extremists", the problem is Islam itself in its mainstream forms and those Muslim believers who take it seriously.

The reason we can never seem to find Muslim leaders who are moderates is that Islam itself is not moderate in any way, shape or form. And while many cultural Muslims are moderates, once a Muslim becomes steeped enough in Islam to be a "Muslim leader" he isn't moderate anymore.

Contrary to your assertion of equivalence (which is an oft-repeated mantra of our cultural elites, including such feckless post-Christian "Christian" leaders as the Archbishop of Canterbury) no one faces a threat from "extremist" Christians. Christianity itself is a peaceful religion, and when Christians steep themselves in the Bible and other Christian literature, they are more likely to imbibe those aspects of Christianity that make them harmless to their fellow men.

Only the bastardized version of Christianity that held sway during the middle ages produced Christians who marched out and waged war in the name of Christianity and under its banner. Medieval Catholic Christianity and Islam are mirror images of each other in many ways, almost identical where it concerns violent aggression to promote the faith. In fact, the Catholicism of that period was worse than Islam; Islam was actually more tolerant, in theory and often in practice, than was the medieval papacy.

Well, there. You got me to say something nice about Islam.

Add President Bush to my list as his multiple quips referencing God as authorizing his war and use of the term CRUSADE to describe the "war on terror" showed to me his label as a dangerous christian.

From the Christian Science Monitor, September 19, 2001:

President Bush's reference to a "crusade" against terrorism, which passed almost unnoticed by Americans, rang alarm bells in Europe. It raised fears that the terrorist attacks could spark a 'clash of civilizations' between Christians and Muslims, sowing fresh winds of hatred and mistrust.

"We have to avoid a clash of civilizations at all costs," French foreign minister Hubert Vedrine said on Sunday. "One has to avoid falling into this huge trap, this monstrous trap" which he said had been "conceived by the instigators of the assault."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html

Keafan, I just responded to the Timothy McVeigh question on the other thread. McVeigh was not a Christian and didn't do what he did in the name of Christianity. He isn't an analog to Muslim jihadist violence.

Vernon Howell a/k/a David Koresh wasn't a Christian, he was a non-Christian cult leader. But even as a cult leader, he was minding his own business when the feds attempted their bungling raid on his compound. He didn't inflict aggressive violence on outsiders, and should have been arrested when he was away from his compound, which he frequently was.

The murderer of Dr. Tiller, Scott Roeder, was not a Christian and didn't do what he did in the name of Christianity. He was an untreated schizophrenic and was involved with anti-government activism, ala McVeigh, and anti-abortion activism (which doesn't always have any religious affiliation).

Scott Bentley, from what I can tell from the SPLC article, is just a Christian pastor who uses martial analogies. We do, too. Have you ever sung "Onward Christian Soldiers"? He has tattoos, but so does David Asscherick (although Asscherick stopped getting them after he became a Christian). Neither he nor his congregants have been violent or advocated violence.

I'm amazed by the bizarre stretches people will make to try to find violent Christians.

Fr. Jim

There is a reason that Bloomberg is more tolerant than many. As a Jew, he, and his race have known persecution longer than any group in the world and that is why one finds Jews the most tolerant of any group: they know what it's like to be persecuted.

That is why Roman Catholics should exercise more tolerance.

On Bunker Hill in Boston, there was an anti-Catholic riot and in 1834 local Protestant men, drunk with alcohol and paranoia, burned the convent. Then the following night, they found the sacred altar tabernacle hidden under a rose bush and burned it, too. Public opinion, represented by the jury, acquitted the ringleaders and for more than a decade the state legislature refused to pay indemnification.

Anti-Catholic natavism was rampant in the U.S. in the 19th century, and as late as the 1960's a Catholic teenage immigrant dating a Southern Baptist girl in Alabama, heard the preacher ridicule President John F. Kennedy as a "papist and "fish eater."

In the 1930s, when the Nazis were murdering Jews, American Jewish and ecumenical leders pressed FED to lift immigration quotas or allow desperate German and Austrian Jews to come as refugees. Southern and Western legislaters were adamantly opposed. In a 1928 Fortune magazine poll, 86 percent of Americans agreed that there should be no emergency quota increases to aid "German, Austrian and other refugees."

We all know the results.

The above is from an article in today's Washington Post by
Edward Schumacher-Matos.

Those who do not know history are bound to repeat. Do we never learn? It was Catholics a century ago, who will it be next?

How soon we forget the times we heard generalizations about our own faith that we knew were not true regarding what we knew about ourselves and our friends in the faith. Remember the burning we felt when we heard such things and knew they were unrepresentative of us? Maybe there are Muslims who are now experiencing the same feelings, only we are the ones causing them to feel this way.

I remember the shame I felt when I read in a church paper of how local elders of a white church in my denomination in the south locked arms across the doorway to prevent a visiting black family from worshiping with them. I knew this was not the experience I had with my faith, but still I felt shame that anyone in my denomination would act this way. Perhaps not every Muslim is interested in shouting "Allah Akbar!" and killing innocents. Is it possible that some Muslims can feel shame like I felt without having to abandon their faith? I have not abandoned my faith but neither have I followed the example of those southern elders.

David is well versed in the "No True Scotsman" argument. It seems currently, no "true" Christian can act violently in the name of Christianity and no "true" Muslim can ever renounce political and cultural violence.

Elaine
As an apropos of what you write concerning the US refusing to admit German Jews before the holocaust, I remember an American joke book published before WWII, which I found in the library of the SDA sanitarium at Lillehammer, Norway in the early 70s.

Joke: What's the fastest thing on Earth?
Answer: A kike on a bike in the Reich.

There are many people of faith who bemoan the secularization of America and the disintegration of values. In reality, our values are better today than they were in good old days when Protestantism was the religion of the land and anti-semetism and racism were considered material for jokes.

The opposite of the "no true Scotsman" argument seems to be that a religion's source documents, teachings, and doctrines can have absolutely no effect whatsoever on that religion's adherents, and that ideology can never matter in motivating people to do, or not do, monstrous things. It isn't true.

I am reminded of my friend Sam. Sam’s father owned an engineering and heavy construction company; he was politically well connected and his company prospered greatly from no-bid multi-billion dollar government contracts to build roads and renovate public buildings and monuments.

Sam’s mother and father were divorced when Sam was only 5 years old; his mother remarried and had 4 more children. Five years later, when Sam was 10, his father died in a plane crash, but Sam’s inheritance was held in trust until he reached age 21.

Sam acted as a sort of nanny or second father to his half-siblings. Sam liked to watch TV shows like “Bonanza,” and a show about a horse called “Fury.”

When Sam was 14, he experienced a religious awakening. He quit watching TV so much and took on a more serious demeanor, and begain to try to get closer to God. He was rarely angry, but he could get angry when he saw a transgression, especially of a sexual nature. One time, one of his half-brother’s friends brought a pornographic magazine to a café, and Sam made it clear that neither he and nor his half-brothers would ever again have anything to do with the boy who brought the magazine.

Sam did not drink, smoke, gamble, or indulge in sexual sins, and he strongly disapproved of suggestive popular music. But Sam wasn’t anti-social: he organized a sort of glee club, in which he and his schoolmates sang, and he played football with his friends, although out of modesty, he didn’t wear short pants. Sam was basically a normal teenager, who liked to go mountain climbing and hunting, and liked to ride horses and drive fast cars.

At university, Sam majored in economics, preparing to take a job in the family construction business, but he was really much more interested in religion, and he often had friends over at his house, discussing religion. He formed a religious charity on campus, and became more and more interested in religion.

Like many wealthy and powerful men, who are not bound by the bourgeois notions of morality that us poor men have to live by, Sam’s father had many women. A lot of women. Sam could have been the same way. After his 21st birthday, he inherited several million dollars, and he could have pursued a "playboy" lifestyle, and acquired women like his father did. But Sam strongly disapproved of that type of behavior. He wanted to get married and stay married, and have a stable, long-lasting marriage. And that is just what he did.

Sam’s father was often away on business, supervising his far-flung construction empire, and didn’t spend much time with his children. Sam wanted things to be different with his family. So he spent time with his children, often taking them to the beach, trying to raise them to be independent and capable people. He home schooled his children, bringing tutors into the house to tutor them, and gave them strong religious instruction.

Sam worked for several years in the family construction business, but ultimately the life of a millionaire construction magnate did not appeal to Sam. He wanted to do something special for God, even if it meant becoming a martyr. So Sam set out on a religious mission to a foreign country, a mission that placed his life in jeopardy. Sam survived that mission, and it increased and strengthened his feeling of being called to do a special work for God. With his fortune, Sam was able to establish a sort of foundation to fund independent religious missions. He decided to make this his life's work.

David

The false belief that gentiles are now Israel leads to many extremist christians reading themselves into the commands that the hebrews claimed their God told them to do.

As for most of your other comments I think the fallacy of The Big Lie has been in use.

I find it difficult to believe that you actually believe some of the things you write as they are so far removed from what people term "reality" that its more plausible your joking us in order to not concede a point.

Keafan, everything I've written about Osama bin Ladin is true, except that I gave the impression he married only one woman. Of course, he married four women, but in this detail he was again living up to the highest standards of piety in his religious tradition, and far excelling his father's standard. Muhammad bin Ladin also never had more than four wives at a time, but by serially divorcing and remarrying, married a total of 22 women, by whom he had 54 children.

By contrast, Osama has never divorced any of his wives. After 9/11, when he was holed up who knows where, one of his wives divorced him, and he replaced her, but obviously his standards of sexual propriety far exceed his father's.

I'm not sure where you think I'm deviating from "reality" so I can't really respond to that. Increasingly, it seems to me that the liberal mind has no real curiosity. To the contrary, there seems to be a determined effort not to learn about and understand things like Islam, because knowing some facts about it might cause you to deviate from pre-determined liberal cliches and bromides, like the absolute equivalence of all religions and all cultures.

Interesting poll:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/08/islamic_cultur...

>>> Muslims constantly demand tolerance and sensitivity. It's about time they started showing those virtues

This from a representative of an organization that claims it is The Only Church. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19692094/
Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches

>>> In their own countries they kill Christians for sport.

ONE reputable cite needed for such a huge accusation.

>>> You don't see Muslims protesting it in the streets, it takes a cartoon to accomplish that

Nor do I see significant numbers of Christians in the streets defending the rights of gays and Muslims

/Bevin

After reading the link above on Pope Benedict's pronouncement, it looks like Adventism has it own Benedict in Ted Wilson--a call to return to the past before Vatican II.

David said:
"The opposite of the "no true Scotsman" argument seems to be that a religion's source documents, teachings, and doctrines can have absolutely no effect whatsoever on that religion's adherents, and that ideology can never matter in motivating people to do, or not do, monstrous things. It isn't true."

Of course it isn't true and no one here has even tried to make that argument. Ideology matters enormously.

It's quite true that it has been awhile since Christians, in large numbers, have attempted to spread their religion by the sword. However, we have secularized our violence and we are still a violent society both domestically and militarily. We don't wage war in the name of Christianity (rifle sights engraved with scripture not withstanding) but Christian men and women still use their ideology to justify violence against our enemies real and imagined. Most of our military is Christian as is most of our nation and that fact is not lost on non-Christians around the world.

We may think there is no link between Christianity and our murder rate, our bombing of civilians, our preemptive invasion of a Muslim country and retaliatory invasion of another, and our supplying of the world with weapons but others see it differently. We are still Christians acting that way, even if we aren't doing it in the name of Christianity. Christian people tortured terrorist suspects - just not in the name of Christianity. Al-Qaeda might do it in the name of Islam, but either way, neither is acting very peacefully.

In theory, one could argue that Christianity is a more peaceful religion. But when its practitioners are invading countries, dropping bombs on civilians, torturing, and generally advancing self-interest violently when necessary, it is a stretch to pretend Christians are peaceful and Islam is not.

Jesus did embrace pacifism and Mohammed did not. But Christians have not embraced pacifism for the most part and still use their Christian ideology to justify violence. You say your religious book says to turn the other cheek and carry an enemy's cloak? Yes but I'd put money on a bet that you don't follow that and nor do you expect other Christians to follow that. We have to fight back against our enemies after all - we'll just say we aren't doing it in the name of Christianity and that way we can pretend we aren't really Christians doing it. Jesus' sayings make for a handy thing to trot out when trying to defend Christianity's honor but very few people take them seriously enough to actually literally follow them.

I would add that I am not trying to make the argument that we are "just as bad" as some Muslim nations or that Christians are just as violent right now in this time of history. I just think it has much more to do with other circumstances that shape the ideology rather then the clear cut defining of Christian ideology=good and peaceful, Islam ideology=bad and violent.

continued...

Me: “This would appear to be written on Karl’s letterhead.”

Mary: “Hank didn’t have any paper.”

Me: “I have a hunch that if we checked we’d find this is Karl’s handwriting.”

John: “Of course, Hank dictated it.”

Me: “I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?”

Mary: “Not now, but years ago he would talk to some people.”

Me: “I thought you said he was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the crap out of people just because they’re different?”

Mary: “It’s what Hank wants, and Hank’s always right.”

Me: “How do you figure that?”

Mary: “Item 7 says, ‘Everything Hanks says is right.’ That’s good enough for me!”

Me: “Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up.”

John: “No way! Item 5 says, ‘Hank dictated this list himself.’ Besides, item 2 says, ‘Use alcohol in moderation,’ item 4 says, ‘Eat right,’ and item 8 says, ‘wash your hands after going to the bathroom.’ Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too.”

Me: “But 9 says, ‘Don’t Drink,’ which doesn’t quite go with item 2, and 6 says, ‘The moon is made of green cheese,’ which is just plain wrong.”

John: “There’s no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you’ve never been to the moon, so you can’t say for sure.”

Me: “Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock…”

Mary: “But they don’t know if the rock came from the Earth, or from outer space, so it could just as easily be green cheese.”

Me: “I’m not really an expert, but I think the theory that the moon came from the Earth has been discounted. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn’t make it cheese.”

John: “Aha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!”

Me: “We do?”

Mary: “Of course we do, Item 5 says so.”

Me: “You’re saying Hank’s always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That’s circular logic, no different than saying, ‘Hank’s right because he says he’s right.’”

John: “Now you’re getting it! It’s so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank’s way of thinking.”

Me: “But…oh, never mind. What’s the deal with wieners?”

Mary blushes.

John says: “Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It’s Hank’s way. Anything else is wrong.”

Me: “What if I don’t have a bun?”

John: “No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong.”

Me: “No relish? No Mustard?”

Mary looks positively stricken.

John shouts: “There’s no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!”

Me: “So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?”

Mary sticks her fingers in her ears:

Mary: “I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la.”

John: “That’s disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that…”

Me: “It’s good! I eat it all the time.”

Mary faints. John catches her.

John: “Well, if I’d known you were one of those I wouldn’t have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the shit out of you I’ll be there, counting my money and laughing. I’ll kiss Hank’s ass for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater.”

With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.

Yesterday I saw some film footage of a demonstration in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. A group of Christians was picketing to keep a Muslim group from building a new sanctuary (they had outgrown the old one). The Christian interviewed said loudly 'We are Christians here, and we don't want them. They are our enemies...'. At that moment I felt truly ashamed to be called a Christian. In an effort to distance myself from hate and follow the Jesus I love, what other word works? Christ-follower? Jesus Freak? Ideas, anyone?