Mark Helprin (WSJ): The World Trade Center Mosque and the Constitution
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
by Kendall Harmon
Mosques have commemoratively been established upon the ruins or in the
shells of the sacred buildings of other religions—most notably but not
exclusively in Cordoba, Jerusalem, Istanbul, and India. When sited in
this fashion they are monuments to victory, and the chief objection to
this one is not to its existence but that it would be near the site of
atrocities—not just one—closely associated with mosques because they
were planned and at times celebrated in them.
Building close to Ground Zero disregards the passions, grief and
preferences not only of most of the families of September 11th but,
because we are all the families of September 11th, those of the
American people as well, even if not the whole of the American people.
If the project is to promote moderate Islam, why have its sponsors so
relentlessly, without the slightest compromise, insisted upon such a
sensitive and inflammatory setting? That is not moderate. It is
aggressively militant.
Disregarding pleas to build it at a sufficient remove so as not to be
linked to an abomination committed, widely praised, and throughout the
world seldom condemned in the name of Islam, the militant proponents
of the World Trade Center mosque are guilty of a poorly concealed
provocation. They dare Americans to appear anti-Islamic and intolerant
or just to roll over.
Read it all.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704147804575455503946170176.html
randy
<jwshe...@satx.rr.com>
Mark Helprin (WSJ): The World Trade Center Mosque and the Constitution
by Kendall Harmon
"Mosques have commemoratively been established upon the ruins or in the
shells of the sacred buildings of other religions—most notably but not
exclusively in Cordoba, Jerusalem, Istanbul, and India. When sited in
this fashion they are monuments to victory, and the chief objection to
this one is not to its existence but that it would be near the site of
atrocities—not just one—closely associated with mosques because they
were planned and at times celebrated in them."
Interesting, and a good point. These structures are placed where they were
placed to *make a political point.* Nothing should be placed at Ground Zero
for political purposes, particularly by those of the faith for whom the
destruction took place. It has nothing to do with attacking that faith. It
has only to do with preventing a monument going up to celebrate the
destruction of American property.
randy
John Manning
The Park 51 community center is *NOT* located at ground zero. It's *two
blocks* away.
And your statement that it's, "a monument going up to celebrate the
destruction of American property" is pure fabricated horse shit.
Park 51 will be a community center to serve people of *ALL* faiths. It
will include a 500-seat auditorium, theater, performing arts center,
fitness center, swimming pool, basketball court, childcare area,
bookstore, culinary school, art studio, food court, AND a prayer room.
"It will strive to promote inter-community peace, tolerance and
understanding locally in New York City, nationally in America, and
globally,"[16] and have stated that it is modeled on the noted
Manhattan Jewish community and cultural center, the 92nd Street Y...
"Protests were initially sparked by a campaign launched by bloggers
Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, critics of Islam and founders of the
group Stop Islamization of America. Geller has also been identified as
publishing a blog which "is replete with attacks on Islam and unfounded
claims about President Obama."
"Before Geller's campaign, response to the Park51 project was not
pronounced, and even conservative commentators provided largely positive
coverage."
Emma
>
>>"It will strive to promote inter-community peace, tolerance and
>understanding locally in New York City, nationally in America, and
>globally,"[16] and have stated that it is modeled on the noted
>Manhattan Jewish community and cultural center, the 92nd Street Y...
>
Those who support this building seem keen to persuade
everyone else that it does not have extremist connections.
What if you could be convinced that it does have extremist
connections? What then?
--
Emma
http://www.britsattheirbest.com/
http://www.royal.gov.uk/
http://www.findmadeleine.com/home.html
John Manning
> In article <TIqdnVgBfPcwYubR...@giganews.com>, John Manning says...
>>> "It will strive to promote inter-community peace, tolerance and
>> understanding locally in New York City, nationally in America, and
>> globally,"[16] and have stated that it is modeled on the noted
>> Manhattan Jewish community and cultural center, the 92nd Street Y...
>>
>
> Those who support this building seem keen to persuade
> everyone else that it does not have extremist connections.
> What if you could be convinced that it does have extremist
> connections? What then?
>
Yeah - What if it turns out that Park 51 is an evil plot from Martians
who want to take over the world? What then?
Emma
I see.
You don't want to answer the question, do you?
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
> In article <XYudnZr8qqvjkeHRnZ2dnUVZ_tidn...@giganews.com>, John Manning says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Emma wrote:
> >>In article <TIqdnVgBfPcwYubRnZ2dnUVZ_rCdn...@giganews.com>, John Manning says...
> >>>> "It will strive to promote inter-community peace, tolerance and
> >>> understanding locally in New York City, nationally in America, and
> >>> globally,"[16] and have stated that it is modeled on the noted
> >>> Manhattan Jewish community and cultural center, the 92nd Street Y...
>
> >> Those who support this building seem keen to persuade
> >> everyone else that it does not have extremist connections.
> >> What if you could be convinced that it does have extremist
> >> connections? What then?
>
> >Yeah - What if it turns out that Park 51 is an evil plot from Martians
> >who want to take over the world? What then?
>
> I see.
> You don't want to answer the question, do you?
>
Zero Mosque Imam)
Posted by John Schulenburg on Thursday, August 12, 2010, 12:18 PM
There's been so much information that's come out about Feisal Abdul
Rauf and his plans for the mosque at Ground Zero, I figured I gather
all the evidence and put it here in one place for people to digest.
As you may know, a massive $100 million dollar, 13 story mosque and
Islamic center is scheduled to go up at Ground Zero, where the World
Trade Center was brought down in the name of Islam. And yes, I
consider a place where landing gear from one of the planes went
through 2 stories of the building to be a part of "ground zero", so
please don't bring the argument that it's not actually "ground zero".
After you see everything here, it will be pretty hard to deny that the
Imam behind this mosque project is nothing but an Islamist
supremacist.
Now let me first say that I do believe Muslims if obeying the law,
have the right to build this mosque at or near ground zero even if
it's done in disgustingly bad taste. The point is not about the
"right" to build here though. The point is to expose the people behind
the project. In this case Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf who is also the Imam
of Masjid al-Farah, a New York City mosque. Rauf is also the leader of
the American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA), a New-York based
nonprofit run by Rauf and his wife, Daisy Khan, since 2005. ASMA is
the group behind the Cordaba House. (httip: JoshuaPundit)
Let's start with his views about the terrorist organization, Hamas.
He was interviewed by Aaron Klein and when asked to acknowledge that
Hamas is a terror organization, he refused to comment on his position.
Listen to his own words here.
NY Post -- The imam behind plans to build a controversial Ground Zero
mosque yesterday refused to describe Hamas as a terrorist
organization.
According to the State Department's assessment, "Hamas terrorists,
especially those in the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, have conducted
many attacks, including large-scale suicide bombings, against Israeli
civilian and military targets."
Asked if he agreed with the State Department's assessment, Imam Faisal
Abdul Rauf told WABC radio, "Look, I'm not a politician.
"The issue of terrorism is a very complex question," he told
interviewer Aaron Klein.
[...]
Asked again for his opinion on Hamas, an exasperated Rauf wouldn't
budge.
"I am a peace builder. I will not allow anybody to put me in a
position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary or
as an enemy," Rauf said, insisting that he wants to see peace in
Israel between Jews and Arabs.
He also thinks America should be more "sharia compliant". This is from
a sub-chapter of his book:
In sub-chapter America: A Sharia-Compliant State, Rauf states "(w)hat
I am demonstrating is that the American political structure is Shariah
compliant, for a "state inhabited predominantly by Muslims neither
defines nor makes it synonymous with an Islamic state. It can become
truly Islamic only by virtues of a conscious application of the
sociopolitical tenets of Islam to the life of the national, and by an
incorporation of those tenets in the basic constitution of the
country." By the same token, a state that does incorporate such
sociopolitical tenets has become a de facto Islamic state even if
there are no Muslims in name living there, for it expresses the ideals
of the good society according to Islamic principles. For America to
score even higher on the "Islamic" or "Shariah Compliance" scale,
America would need to do two things: invite the voices of all
religions to join the dialogue in shaping the nation"s practical life,
and allow religious communities more leeway to judge among themselves
according to their own laws" 86).
Also 11 days after the 9-11 attacks, he said on 60 minutes that the
USA's policies were an accessory to the 9-11 attacks and that Bin
Laden was "made in the USA"
Bradley: Are you in any way suggesting that we in the United States
deserved what happened?
Faisal: I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened,
but united states policies were an accessory to the crime that
happened.
Bradley: You say that we're an accessory? How?
Faisal: Because we have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives
dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden
is made in the USA.
He also said according to an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald,
that the USA and the West, in order to stop terrorism, must
acknowledge the harm they've done to Muslims.
The US and the West must acknowledge the harm they have done to
Muslims before terrorism can end, says an Islamic cleric invited to
Sydney by Premier Bob Carr.
"The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians.
But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden
and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets."
In 2009 at the Huffington Post he wrote a post claiming that
"Muhammad has been known as the first feminist" and that "Gender
equality is an intrinsic part of Islamic belief." In the same article
he also said that Islam supports democracy and that "religious freedom
is at the core of Islam". Of course all of this we know is false and
an outright lie when you take a closer look at the Muslims world, how
they treat apostates, women, adulterers, etc.
But yea, there's still more...
via Walid Shoebat
On March 24, 2010, Abdul Rauf is quoted in an article in Arabic for
the website Rights4All entitled "The Most Prominent Imam in New York:
'I Do Not Believe in Religious Dialogue.'"
Yes, you read that correctly and, yes, that is an accurate translation
of Abdul Rauf. And Right4All is not an obscure blog, but the website
of the media department of Cairo University, the leading educational
institution of the Arabic-speaking world.
He's also directly tied to the Islamist flotilla that tried to break
the Israeli blockade of Gaza:
The imam behind a proposed mosque near Ground Zero is a prominent
member of a group that helped sponsor the pro-Palestinian activists
who clashed violently with Israeli commandos at sea this week.
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is a key figure in Malaysian-based Perdana
Global Peace Organization, according to its Website.
Perdana is the single biggest donor ($366,000) so far to the Free Gaza
Movement, a key organizer of the six-ship flotilla that tried to break
Israel's blockade of the Hamas-run Gaza Strip Monday.
Nine passengers aboard the largest ship died in clashes with Israeli
commandos, and a new confrontation loomed today, when another Free
Gaza Movement ship was due to reach Gaza waters in defiance of Israel.
Here's a direct link to the Perdana Global Peace Organization's
website highlighting Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.
There's even more, if you want to keep going. Check this out from
National Review's Andy McCarthy to see his relationship with other
radical organizations.
So what can further be said?
Should we just roll over and allow this Imam to build his massive
mosque at Ground Zero?
hattip WeaselZippers and JoshuaPundit for the references
John Manning
> In article <XYudnZr8qqvjkeHR...@giganews.com>, John Manning says...
>> Emma wrote:
>>> In article <TIqdnVgBfPcwYubR...@giganews.com>, John Manning says...
>>>>> "It will strive to promote inter-community peace, tolerance and
>>>> understanding locally in New York City, nationally in America, and
>>>> globally,"[16] and have stated that it is modeled on the noted
>>>> Manhattan Jewish community and cultural center, the 92nd Street Y...
>>>>
>>> Those who support this building seem keen to persuade
>>> everyone else that it does not have extremist connections.
>>> What if you could be convinced that it does have extremist
>>> connections? What then?
>>>
>>
>> Yeah - What if it turns out that Park 51 is an evil plot from Martians
>> who want to take over the world? What then?
>>
>
> I see.
> You don't want to answer the question, do you?
>
>
Considering the easily available facts on the matter, it's a stupid
question.
randy
"John Manning"
randy
>> Interesting, and a good point. These structures are placed where they
>> were placed to *make a political point.* Nothing should be placed at
>> Ground Zero for political purposes, particularly by those of the faith
>> for whom the destruction took place. It has nothing to do with attacking
>> that faith. It has only to do with preventing a monument going up to
>> celebrate the destruction of American property.
> The Park 51 community center is *NOT* located at ground zero. It's *two
> blocks* away.
That's pretty close!
> And your statement that it's, "a monument going up to celebrate the
> destruction of American property" is pure fabricated horse shit.
Your opinion, I assure you. Apparently 70% of Americans agree with me.
"A CNN/Opinion Research poll released last week found that nearly 70 percent
of Americans opposed the mosque plan, while 29 percent approved."
http://www.salon.com/wires/us/2010/08/18/D9HLV4FG0_us_ground_zero_mosque_poll/index.html
> Park 51 will be a community center to serve people of *ALL* faiths....
If you're going to serve all faiths, why don't you *ask* those faiths? The
Christian faith, to which I belong, would suggest this mosque be placed
somewhere else, where the wrong signal is not being sent. Of course, your
idea of "interfaith" is to do what *your faith* suggests, right?
randy
Newsguy
jwshe...@satx.rr.com says...
>
<snip>
>
>He also thinks America should be more "sharia compliant". This is from
>a sub-chapter of his book:
>
>In sub-chapter America: A Sharia-Compliant State, Rauf states "(w)hat
>I am demonstrating is that the American political structure is Shariah
>compliant, for a "state inhabited predominantly by Muslims neither
>defines nor makes it synonymous with an Islamic state. It can become
>truly Islamic only by virtues of a conscious application of the
>sociopolitical tenets of Islam to the life of the national, and by an
>incorporation of those tenets in the basic constitution of the
>country." By the same token, a state that does incorporate such
>sociopolitical tenets has become a de facto Islamic state even if
>there are no Muslims in name living there, for it expresses the ideals
>of the good society according to Islamic principles. For America to
>score even higher on the "Islamic" or "Shariah Compliance" scale,
>America would need to do two things: invite the voices of all
>religions to join the dialogue in shaping the nation"s practical life,
>and allow religious communities more leeway to judge among themselves
>according to their own laws" 86).
>
This is bullshit. You either can't read English with
comprehension, or you can, but are willfully lying
about what is clearly written in Rauf's piece,
thus promoting character assassination.
Obviously it's the later case.
Hannity pulled the same crap you're pulling here,
and this will be plain to anyone who reads this:
Hannity distorts Rauf's words to fearmonger about Sharia law
http://mediamatters.org/research/201008260002
There isn't even any doubt that you are a liar.
You are only credible as a propagandist.
Now, you will probably defend yourself by calling
MediaMatters a useful idiot lamestream media propaganda
arm of the Obamafascist occupation government, or whatever
nonsensical catchphrases are popular these days in your circle,
and will insist that your other equally distorted "facts" about
Raum have been ignored by me. Who's got time to deconstruct
all the lying propaganda you lovingly craft and copy from other
slandering liars -- it's enough for anyone to know that if you
can't be trusted to accurately portray the simple concept
of this bit, you cannot be trusted to be truthful or accurately
when it comes to any aspect about this issue.
Newsguy
>
>
>> And your statement that it's, "a monument going up to celebrate the
>> destruction of American property" is pure fabricated horse shit.
>
>Your opinion, I assure you. Apparently 70% of Americans agree with me.
>"A CNN/Opinion Research poll released last week found that nearly 70 percent
>of Americans opposed the mosque plan, while 29 percent approved."
>http://www.salon.com/wires/us/2010/08/18/D9HLV4FG0_us_ground_zero_mosque_poll/index.html
>
Citizens are free to express their opinion and to protest
-- perhaps the protests will persuade those who want
to build the Park51 project not to do so. Perhaps not.
However, citizens are not free to demand that the fact
that they are in the majority warrants the government
to suspend the Bill of Rights.
As an aside, it would not surprise me to learn that if
the CNN poll were adjusted to eliminate those who
believe that President Obama is a Muslim, the result
would be a dead heat or better.
Newsguy
>
>In article <YMCdnV3IO7jDAeHR...@wavecable.com>, randy says...
>>
>>
>>> And your statement that it's, "a monument going up to celebrate the
>>> destruction of American property" is pure fabricated horse shit.
>>
>>Your opinion, I assure you. Apparently 70% of Americans agree with me.
>>"A CNN/Opinion Research poll released last week found that nearly 70 percent
>>of Americans opposed the mosque plan, while 29 percent approved."
>>http://www.salon.com/wires/us/2010/08/18/D9HLV4FG0_us_ground_zero_mosque_poll/index.html
>>
>
>Citizens are free to express their opinion and to protest
>-- perhaps the protests will persuade those who want
>to build the Park51 project not to do so. Perhaps not.
>
>However, citizens are not free to demand that the fact
>that they are in the majority warrants the government
>to suspend the Bill of Rights.
>
See now, here's a good example of the American Way...
Bikini-Clad Strippers Take On Church in Ohio
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/27/bikini-clad-strippers-protest-church-ohio/#content
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
Jihadwatch
A very revealing AP puff piece on the horrors that "moderate" Muslims
are supposedly experiencing in America today. "NYC mosque debate will
shape American Islam," by Rachel Zoll for AP, August 29 (thanks to all
who sent this in):
NEW YORK - Adnan Zulfiqar, a graduate student, former U.S. Senate aide
and American-born son of Pakistani immigrants, will soon give the
first khutbah, or sermon, of the fall semester at the University of
Pennsylvania. His topic has presented itself in the daily headlines
and blog posts over the disputed mosque near ground zero.
What else could he choose, he says, after a summer remembered not for
its reasoned debate, but for epithets, smears, even violence?
And whose fault is that, exactly? Mosque supporters have consistently
smeared mosque opponents as racists, bigots, hatemongers,
"Islamophobes" -- the usual array of charges levied at those who are
leading the fight to raise awareness of the jihad and Islamic
supremacism, but it was a new thing to see these charges levied
promiscuously at the 70% of Americans who oppose the mosque.
As he writes, Zulfiqar frets over the potential fallout and what he
and other Muslim leaders can do about it. Will young Muslims conclude
they are second-class citizens in the U.S. now and always?
No one, of course, is saying the Muslims are or should be second-class
citizens in the U.S. We have raised legitimate questions about the
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's support for Sharia and Hamas, and about the
symbolism of the Ground Zero mosque as a triumphal mosque. None of
this has anything to do with Muslims being second-class citizens. It
is simply asking that they accord to non-Muslims the consideration and
respect that they demand for themselves. It is asking that they not
engage in activity that amounts to sedition, in working to replace the
Constitution with a system of laws that would deny basic liberties,
and asking law enforcement and government authorities to be cognizant
of the nature of Sharia and how it is at variance with those
liberties.
"They're already struggling to balance, `I'm American, I'm Muslim,'
and their ethnic heritage. It's very disconcerting," said Zulfiqar,
32, who worked for former U.S. Sen. Max Cleland, a Georgia Democrat,
and now serves Penn's campus ministry. "A controversy like this can
make them radical or become more conservative in how they look at
things or how they fit into the American picture."...
Threat noted. But why would it do that? Islamic supremacists and
Leftists know: no matter how much they lie about the words, deeds, and
positions on various questions of mosque opponents, and no matter how
much they defame and smear them, those who oppose the mosque are
never, never going to strap bombs on themselves and blow themselves up
at the next hand-wringing meeting about "Islamophobia." In other
words, some people, no matter how hard you push them, never become
"radicalized." Why is it that adherents of the Religion of Peace who
supposedly reject the version of Islam of Al-Qaeda and its ilk as a
twisting and hijacking of their peaceful religion might nevertheless
adopt that version of Islam as their own if they believe that some
people are being mean to them?
Eboo Patel, an American Muslim leader and founder of Interfaith Youth
Core, a Chicago nonprofit that promotes community service and
religious pluralism, said Muslims are unfortunately experiencing what
all immigrant groups endured in the U.S. before they were fully
accepted as American. Brandeis University historian Jonathan D. Sarna
has noted that Jews faced a similar backlash into the 1800s when they
tried to build synagogues, which were once banned in New York....
Yes, yes, of course. You may recall from the histories of those days
that Jews in New York loudly proclaimed that they were there to take
over, and numerous Jews in New York engaged in terror plotting. You
remember the Fort Hood jihad shooting, the Arkansas recruiting center
jihad shooting, the Christmas underwear bomb jihad attempt, the Times
Square jihad car bomb attempt, the Fort Dix jihad plot, the North
Carolina jihad plot, the Seattle jihad shooting, the JFK Airport jihad
plot, and on and on. No, wait! Those weren't plots by 19th-century
Jews in New York, but by 21st-century Muslims all over the U.S.! My
mistake!
And no, the point is not that all Muslims in America are responsible
for these and other jihad plots. The point is that when the Ground
Zero imam and so many other Muslim leaders support Sharia, refuse to
condemn Hamas and/or other jihad terror groups, and are manifestly
dishonest, it makes the demand that Americans assume that they are
different from the Muslims who were responsible for those jihad plots
seem like sheer bullying, and a refusal to engage the legitimate
concerns that people have about Sharia and the intentions of the
Ground Zero mosque organizers.
Patel believes American Muslims are on the same difficult but
inevitable path toward integration.
"I'm not saying this is going to be happy," Patel said. "But I'm
extremely optimistic."
Yet, the overwhelming feeling is that the controversy has caused
widespread damage that will linger for years.
No, all the jihad terror, all the supremacist declarations, all the
lies and all the smears have caused widespread damage that will linger
for years. And the Muslim advocacy groups behind the lies and smears,
such as CAIR, just don't care about that damage -- because they can
turn around after causing it and exploit any resulting "backlash" to
reinforce their claim to privileged victim status.
American Muslim leaders say the furor has emboldened opposition groups
to resist new mosques around the country, at a time when there aren't
enough mosques or Islamic schools to serve the community....
Actually there are large mosques being built all over, for Muslim
communities that have neither the numbers nor the money to sustain
them. And that, too, raises questions that if you dare to ask, you're
accused of "Islamophobia."
U.S. Muslims who have championed democracy and religious tolerance
question what they've accomplished. If the "extremist" label can be
hung on someone as apparently liberal as the imam at the center of the
outcry, Feisal Abdul Rauf, then any Muslim could come under attack.
Feisal supports women's rights, human rights and interfaith outreach.
Oh, and Hamas.
"The joke is on moderate Muslims," said Muqtedar Khan, a University of
Delaware political scientist and author of "American Muslims, Bridging
Faith and Freedom." "What's the point if you're going to be treated
the same way as a radical? If I get into trouble are they going to
treat me like I'm a supporter of al-Qaeda?"...
What's the point? Did he really ask that? How about this for a point:
Muslims should not support Al-Qaeda because of human decency. Because
of respect for human life. Because of the importance of human rights.
Because the "radicals" are perpetrating great evil, murdering innocent
people and working for the subjugation of women and non-Muslims, and
the extinguishing of the freedom of speech and the freedom of
conscience. And apparently all that is just fine with Muqtedar Khan,
if you make him angry.
That's "moderation"?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/08/nyc-mosque-debate-will-shape.html#comments
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
> In article <i5ifn302...@drn.newsguy.com>, Newsguy says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <YMCdnV3IO7jDAeHRnZ2dnUVZ_h6dn...@wavecable.com>, randy says...
>
> >>> And your statement that it's, "a monument going up to celebrate the
> >>> destruction of American property" is pure fabricated horse shit.
>
> >>Your opinion, I assure you. Apparently 70% of Americans agree with me.
> >>"A CNN/Opinion Research poll released last week found that nearly 70 percent
> >>of Americans opposed the mosque plan, while 29 percent approved."
>
> >Citizens are free to express their opinion and to protest
> >-- perhaps the protests will persuade those who want
> >to build the Park51 project not to do so. Perhaps not.
>
> >However, citizens are not free to demand that the fact
> >that they are in the majority warrants the government
> >to suspend the Bill of Rights.
>
> See now, here's a good example of the American Way...
>
Also,
Greg Gutfeld To Open A Gay Bar Next To Ground Zero Mosque To Cater To
“Islamic Gay Men”
randy
"Newsguy"
randy
> Citizens are free to express their opinion and to protest
> -- perhaps the protests will persuade those who want
> to build the Park51 project not to do so. Perhaps not.
> However, citizens are not free to demand that the fact
> that they are in the majority warrants the government
> to suspend the Bill of Rights.
Nobody is suggesting suspension of the Bill of Rights. Is that what you're
suggesting? If so, then you're just arguing with yourself. Nobody is
suggesting the suspension of individual liberties. However, there are
matters of zoning, of public consideration, of considering the *majority
viewpoint* that is part of American politics, and part of justice for the
society as a whole. If you deny this you are a minority of one, and cannot
expect your opinion to even be heard above the clamor of those who want
justice for America--not just for the individual terrorist.
> As an aside, it would not surprise me to learn that if
> the CNN poll were adjusted to eliminate those who
> believe that President Obama is a Muslim, the result
> would be a dead heat or better.
You would be wrong. The percentage of those who believe President Obama is a
Muslim is 18% or a little higher. The fact the number is that high is a
testimony to how far out in left field Obama is with regard to conventional
Christianity. He doesn't smell like a Christian, look like a Christian, or
talk like a Christian. His actions and his words suggest he wants to be a
peacemaker bridging the gap between the Christian West and the Moslem Middle
East. This in itself is not a bad goal. But to do it at the expense of
social justice, at the expense of reasonable Western values, is just plain
crazy. It would be like catering to terrorists, or caving to imperialists.
Islam has for centuries been a religion of conquest, of evangelism by force.
America must meet force with force, and only afterwards negotiate in good
faith once it is clear we will not cave to tyranny.
randy
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
"Nobody is suggesting suspension of the Bill of Rights. Is that what
you're
suggesting? If so, then you're just arguing with yourself. Nobody is
suggesting the suspension of individual liberties. However, there are
matters of zoning, of public consideration, of considering the
*majority
viewpoint* that is part of American politics, and part of justice for
the
society as a whole. If you deny this you are a minority of one, and
cannot
expect your opinion to even be heard above the clamor of those who
want
justice for America--not just for the individual terrorist."
Australian Islamist Monitor
Do you call someone critical of Communism or Catholicism a ‘racists’?
I suspect nobody of sound mind would expose himself to ridicule for
such folly. Every educated person knows these nouns refer to
doctrines
or religious ideologies, not genetically defined sub-sections of
humanity. But in disregard of simple facts, increasingly we hear the
term ‘racists’ hurled at whoever speaks critical about the religious
doctrine of Islam, and the Islamisation of our communities:
“You don’t like Islam? Oh, you are SUCH A RACIST!”
Would we see a similar barrage of verbal flak each time some half-
clever comedian pokes vile fun at born-again Christians and orthodox
Jews? Are there cries of “Racist”’ and “Bigot!” every time some
drooling nutter smears an effigy of Jesus on the cross with his
excrements, to the enchanted ‘oohhs’ and ‘aahhs’ of our precious
intelligentsia?
How is it our noble artists, spirited comedians and enchanted
academicos can ridicule the Pope, Jehovah, Krishna, Vishnu and
Manitou
to their heart’s content, while we just smirk, shrug and get on with
life? How come any two-bob media tart can swing her self-righteous
cat’o’nine at the people of Israel for defending their fragile
homeland, and spittle her cheap anti-Semite vile without the
slightest
fear of backfire? As a matter of fact, hardly anybody in our
enlightened society will raise an eyebrow about such expressions of
free speech. It is in fact one of the great achievements of our
western culture, that we allow any brain artist to climb on his
little
soap box and lambast, mock and criticise the living daylight out of
anyone and everything. Just kindly refrain from wielding knifes or
throwing Molotov cocktails.
Our cultural elitists may even shower the soiler of religious symbols
with a $20,000 grant - as long as he remembers to insert the words
‘thought-provoking’ and ‘multicultural’ in his grant application
form.
But dare you mention the ‘I’ or ‘M’ word!
Oh, what an abhorrent racist and bigoted xenophobe you are!
They even throw in the increasingly popular ‘Islamophobe’ for good
measure.
But nothing tops the servile PC lunatics in Victoria from concocting
a
‘Racial and Religious Tolerance Act (2001)’ to protect noisy imams
and
their precious sheep from undue critique.
Interesting times we live in, indeed.
http://www.islammonitor.org/index.php/confronting-islam/179/uploads/d...
Randy,
You are dealing with a PC funnymentalist,
facts don't matter to him. He needs to pay
the tax for being a non-muslim.
Sura
9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture
as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which
Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of
Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
Jim
Ps 92:6 - A brutish man knoweth not;
neither doth a fool understand this.
randy
<jwshe...@satx.rr.com>
"randy"
Randy,
You are dealing with a PC funnymentalist,
facts don't matter to him. He needs to pay
the tax for being a non-muslim.
Sura
9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture
as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which
Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of
Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
Right Jim. Then we should get the 20,000 dollar grant to immerse his holy
doctrines in animal excrement and call it art and free speech. And so we
will find ourselves politically correct and respected by all, but that poor
hypocrite.
randy
John Manning
Comparative cherry-picking of scriptures:
Here's an assortment of atrocities in the scriptures of another religion.
Let's see.
- Genicide
- Mass murder of unarmed prisoners
- Infanticide
- Sex slavery
Numbers 31:1-54 - Under God's direction, Moses' army defeats the
Midianites. They kill all the adult males, but take the women and
children captive.
When Moses learns that they left some live, he angrily says: "Have you
saved all the women alive? Kill every male among the little ones, and
kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the
women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive
for yourselves."
So they went back and did as Moses (and presumably God) instructed,
killing everyone except for the virgins. In this way they got 32,000
virgins -- Wow!
randy
"John Manning"
randy
> Comparative cherry-picking of scriptures:
> Here's an assortment of atrocities in the scriptures of another religion.
> Let's see. - Genicide - Mass murder of unarmed prisoners - Infanticide -
> Sex slavery
Judaism and Christianity both depict God as lord and master over the human
race. Some of the things He did would be unthinkable for uninspired human
beings to do. I would not try to rationalize away religions that do these
things simply because I think they are "inspired." Yet in the history of
these religions, their founders appear to be righteous men, and worth
consideration. Do you give it due consideration, or is your mind made up?
randy
John Manning
It's astonishing that despicable hateful bigots like you can defend the
obvious and blatant horrific atrocities of one religion as "inspired" -
and then in the samr breath, aggressively and viciously attack any
aspect of the religion of someone you hate that you find disagreeable.
That's what morally blind and ethically bankrupt ignorant hateful rabid
bigots like you do however.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
> randy wrote:
>
> > <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com>
> > "randy"
>
> > Randy,
> > You are dealing with a PC funnymentalist,
> > facts don't matter to him. He needs to pay
> > the tax for being a non-muslim.
> > Sura
> > 9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture
> > as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which
> > Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of
> > Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
>
> > Right Jim. Then we should get the 20,000 dollar grant to immerse his
> > holy doctrines in animal excrement and call it art and free speech. And
> > so we will find ourselves politically correct and respected by all, but
> > that poor hypocrite.
> > randy
>
> Comparative cherry-picking of scriptures:
>
> Here's an assortment of atrocities in the scriptures of another religion.
>
you feel free to criticize Christianity, but attack any
criticism of Islam. It is known as the ye olde double standard.
You are guilty as charged, but then you are compliant
with Sharia law.
Jim
The Dhimmi: Jews & Christians Under Islam [Paperback]
Bat Ye'or (Author), David Maisel (Author)
72 of 74 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars An excellent source book for those interested in
Islam, June 16, 1999
By Ped...@aol.com (USA) - See all my reviews
This review is from: The Dhimmi: Jews & Christians Under Islam
(Paperback)
The history of Jews and Christians living under Islam is not widely
known. When thinking of it at all, one looks to the glories of Islamic
Spain or to the Ottoman Empire. The general historical reality is
different from these however. Bat Ye'or provides an excellent overview
of this history in the first part of her book and a wide variety of
source documents in the second.
Here we learn of the religiously sanctioned forced conversions, daily
humiliations, massacres, oppression, inequitable taxation, and the
like, which eventually led to the near disappearance of the extensive
Christian and Jewish communities which had flourished throughout the
Near East and North Africa prior to the advent of Islam.
As "dhimmi" (people of the contract) Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians
and others of the accepted religions had no rights of citizenship
within a Muslim state. As "protected peoples" they had no right to
self-defense. They were at best tolerated and at all times living
without security - subject to the law but not protected by it.
For example, Jews and Christians are specifically accused in the
Qur'an of having falsified God's word. In past Islamic societies
therefore, Jews and Christians were considered to be willfully and
knowingly adhering to a lie. As religiously convicted liars, they were
given no standing in courts of law and could be convicted of crimes on
the unsupported word of two Muslim males. The abuses of this system
were extensive.
All-in-all, Bat Ye'or's two books ("The Dhimmi" and "The Decline of
Near Eastern Christianity under Islam") do much to re-illuminate the
forgotten history of Jews and Christians under Islam. They deserve a
wide readership.
As an aside here to prove the non-partisanship of my review, it's
worth pointing out that the historical behavior of Christian societies
toward indigenous Jews and heretics was no better.
randy
"John Manning"
randy
> It's astonishing that despicable hateful bigots like you can defend the
> obvious and blatant horrific atrocities of one religion as "inspired" -
> and then in the samr breath, aggressively and viciously attack any
> aspect of the religion of someone you hate that you find disagreeable.
> That's what morally blind and ethically bankrupt ignorant hateful rabid
> bigots like you do however.
You don't sound like the friendly sort, yourself.
randy
John Manning
No respectable decent person would be friendly with an ignorant hateful
rabid bigot like you.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
Glad you can respect those who don't
agree with you.
Jim
Mt 5:47 - And if ye salute your brethren only,
what do ye more than others?
do not even the publicans so?
Emma
Oh please. You freely admit that you are the bigot.
It's there in the archives.
You defend Islam for the same reason that our resident
holocaust denier - Terry Cross - defends Islam.
It has nothing to do with respect for the religion
and everything to do with your hatred of Israel and
Jews.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
> In article <pIidnbtxn7EmF-PRnZ2dnUVZ_tOdn...@giganews.com>, John Manning says...
JEW-HATRED OR STUPIDITY OR BOTH?
by Paul Eidelberg
The world's fixation on a Palestinian state is symptomatic of a
worldwide disease. Some would diagnose this disease as Jew-hatred.
Others would call it stupidity. Still others would say both. Let's
focus on stupidity, which, after all, accounts for much of human
history.
It would take heavy tomes to document all the stupidity evoked by the
Palestinian state issue. Still, let's enumerate some points: first,
about the Arabs in question, and second, geostrategic considerations.
The Arabs in question:
1. There is no Palestinian language and no Palestinian culture. The
Arabs in question are part of the Sunni Arab majority of the Middle
East.
2. The Arabs don't really want a separate independent state.
3. They lack the habits, the temperament, and skills required for
independent and responsible statehood — as some of the following
points make obvious:
4. They indoctrinate their children to hate Jews and Israel.
5. They train children to be jihadists.
6. They have used children as human bombs.
7. They elected a variety of thugs to rule over them.
8. They venerate a religion whose followers have slaughtered some 270
million human beings since the time of Muhammad.
Turning to geostrategic considerations:
9. There isn't enough room between the River Jordan and the
Mediterranean for two viable states. More than two million Arabs
restricted to 2,323 square miles of Judea and Samaria (the "West
Bank), and another million Arabs squeezed into 141 square miles in
Gaza, is a formula for economic stagnation and discontent — a cauldron
of envious hatred of Israel fueled by one or another terrorist goup.
10. The imagined state would be a constant threat to Jordan.
11. The imagined state would be split by Fatah and Hamas.
12. The imagined state, consisting of a dozen rival tribes and clans
from the Middle East and North Africa, would invite Iran to quell any
internal disturbance.
Now, please indulge my frankness: Aren't you tired of being reminded
of the poor "Palestinians" whose charming media call for "Death to
Israel" and "Death to America"?
Alternatively, aren't you tired of being reminded that the US Joint
Chiefs of Staff warned that Israel must retain the Judean and Samarian
highlands, the Jordan Rift, Gaza, the Golan Heights, etc., to avoid
catastrophic attacks from its enemies?
Aren't you tired of hearing that the conflict in question is not a
territorial conflict but an ideological conflict? This is so obvious
that one might reasonably conclude that President Obama and his Middle
East advisers are either Pavlovian idiots or Pavlovian Jew-haters
responding to a bell called "Israel."
Prof. Paul Eidelberg is a political scientist, author and lecturer. He
is the founder and President, Foundation for Constitutional Democracy,
a Jerusalem-based think tank for improving Israel's system of
governance. Contact him at eide...@foundation1.org This essay was
distributed may 21 2009.
John Manning
> In article <pIidnbtxn7EmF-PR...@giganews.com>, John Manning says...
>> randy wrote:
>>> "John Manning" randy
>>>
>>>> It's astonishing that despicable hateful bigots like you can defend
>>>> the obvious and blatant horrific atrocities of one religion as
>>>> "inspired" - and then in the samr breath, aggressively and viciously
>>>> attack any aspect of the religion of someone you hate that you find
>>>> disagreeable. That's what morally blind and ethically bankrupt
>>>> ignorant hateful rabid bigots like you do however.
>>> You don't sound like the friendly sort, yourself.
>>> randy
>>
>> No respectable decent person would be friendly with an ignorant hateful
>> rabid bigot like you.
>
> Oh please. You freely admit that you are the bigot.
> It's there in the archives.
>
Now you ARE lying, Ms Emma. That was *past* tense.
It was *you yourself* who recently pointed out that I had apologized for
my past bigotry. You even quoted part of the apology itself.
Here is an excerpt of what I can find of a discussion of my apology on
Usenet:
"She forced me to see, by her sincere - though harsh at times -
efforts, that my bigotry was wrong about Jewish people. I am grateful
to her for that. How can I claim that God loves all of His children,
when I myself *exclude* a whole group of His children?
AND,
"The troll Willytex has actually done me a
favor here by allowing me to, once again,
further acknowledge my misguided, bigotted
inclusion of all Jewish people with the
extremist policies of its radicals in power.
It is a human failure to blame an entire
people for the actions of a few. I was
guilty of that."
> You defend Islam for the same reason that our resident
> holocaust denier - Terry Cross - defends Islam.
Along with despicably attempting to define me as someone I don't know
and also comparing me with holocaust deniers, you're attempting to
conflate standing up against ignorant hateful bigotry toward a whole
people - with the defense of the behaviors of a fractional minority.
That's like condemning all of Christianity for Timothy McVeigh or the Ku
Klux Klan or abortion clinic bombers or murderers of abortion doctors.
> It has nothing to do with respect for the religion
> and everything to do with your hatred of Israel and
> Jews.
>
Now, Emma the bigoted loser in a previous discussion desperately resorts
to more outrageous fabrications. That's what bigots like you do when
called on your OWN bigotry and are too cowardly to admit it.
Your lack of personal integrity is glaring, Emma.
For The Record with regard to Israel and the Jewish people:
I'm against the unjust actions and policies the Israeli government has
implemented - i.e. Israel's gross human rights abuses against the
Palestinians, gross inequity in the legal treatment of Arab Israelis and
Palestinians, Israel's grossly disproportionate documented war crimes
and Israel's long term incremental theft of Palestinian lands.
That does NOT mean that I'm anti-Israel itself, or anti-Jewish or
anti-Semitic. It means that I'm against the policies of the Israeli
government.
REPEAT: That does NOT mean that I'm anti-Israel itself, or anti-Jewish
or anti-Semitic. It means that I'm against the policies of the Israeli
government.
There are huge numbers of Israelis IN ISRAEL and Jews around the world,
particularly in the USA, *who share* my views.
Similarly...
As a U.S. citizen, I was a bitter opponent of the Bush administration
and their actions and policies at home and around the world in the name
of the USA, particularly with regard to the invasion of Iraq.
That does NOT mean that I was or am anti-USA or anti-American.
Emma
>
>Emma wrote:
>>
>> Oh please. You freely admit that you are the bigot.
>> It's there in the archives.
>
>
>Now you ARE lying, Ms Emma. That was *past* tense.
>
>It was *you yourself* who recently pointed out that I had apologized for
>my past bigotry. You even quoted part of the apology itself.
>
>Here is an excerpt of what I can find of a discussion of my apology on
>Usenet:
>
>"She forced me to see, by her sincere - though harsh at times -
>efforts, that my bigotry was wrong about Jewish people. I am grateful
>to her for that. How can I claim that God loves all of His children,
>when I myself *exclude* a whole group of His children?
>
>AND,
>
>"The troll Willytex has actually done me a
>favor here by allowing me to, once again,
>further acknowledge my misguided, bigotted
>inclusion of all Jewish people with the
>extremist policies of its radicals in power.
>It is a human failure to blame an entire
>people for the actions of a few. I was
>guilty of that."
Frankly, that doesn't mean a lot when you just
carry on in the same bigotted fashion.
Look at your post on here the other day about
Mormons!
>> You defend Islam for the same reason that our resident
>> holocaust denier - Terry Cross - defends Islam.
>
>
>Along with despicably attempting to define me as someone I don't know
>and also comparing me with holocaust deniers, you're attempting to
>conflate standing up against ignorant hateful bigotry toward a whole
>people - with the defense of the behaviors of a fractional minority.
>
>That's like condemning all of Christianity for Timothy McVeigh or the Ku
>Klux Klan or abortion clinic bombers or murderers of abortion doctors.
There are people who defend the Ground Zero mosque
on religious liberty grounds (wrongly, IMO), there
are people who defend it on Constitutional grounds
etc. and then there are people who defend it on
political and prejudiced grounds.
I think you are the latter.
>> It has nothing to do with respect for the religion
>> and everything to do with your hatred of Israel and
>> Jews.
>>
>
>
>Now, Emma the bigoted loser in a previous discussion desperately resorts
>to more outrageous fabrications. That's what bigots like you do when
>called on your OWN bigotry and are too cowardly to admit it.
>
>Your lack of personal integrity is glaring, Emma.
Could you try widening your vocabulary a little?
Let's see if you can drop the "bigot" word and yet still
manage to compose a sentence. Bet you can't!
>For The Record with regard to Israel and the Jewish people:
>
>I'm against the unjust actions and policies the Israeli government has
>implemented - i.e. Israel's gross human rights abuses against the
>Palestinians, gross inequity in the legal treatment of Arab Israelis and
>Palestinians, Israel's grossly disproportionate documented war crimes
>and Israel's long term incremental theft of Palestinian lands.
>
>That does NOT mean that I'm anti-Israel itself, or anti-Jewish or
>anti-Semitic. It means that I'm against the policies of the Israeli
>government.
>
>REPEAT: That does NOT mean that I'm anti-Israel itself, or anti-Jewish
>or anti-Semitic. It means that I'm against the policies of the Israeli
>government.
Yet you called the Jewish people "a pile of sh*t.",
and you also admitted elsewhere to being prejudiced against Jews.
So you'll have to excuse me if I suspect there is
more behind your anti-Israel politics than you
would like to admit.
--
**Emma in the UK, not EU**
randy
"John Manning"
> For The Record with regard to Israel and the Jewish people: I'm against
> the unjust actions and policies the Israeli government has implemented -
> i.e. Israel's gross human rights abuses against the Palestinians, gross
> inequity in the legal treatment of Arab Israelis and Palestinians,
> Israel's grossly disproportionate documented war crimes and Israel's long
> term incremental theft of Palestinian lands. That does NOT mean that I'm
> anti-Israel itself, or anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic. It means that I'm
> against the policies of the Israeli government.
And Mr. Manning, I don't consider myself a bigot either, even though you
slanderously accuse me of that. I have Moslem relatives, a sister-in-law,
and a couple of her children. I have had pleasant relations with Moslems in
my life, and do not hate them in the least. And yet, you hypocritically
accuse me of being a bigot because of my political views while you at the
same time protest that you are viewed as a bigot because of your political
views.
There are very good reasons for interpreting what God did in the Old
Testament in a more pleasant way than you depict it. Most Americans do not
view the Old Testament stories as the work of a divine Bigot, but rather,
the product of blessing a holy society in the midst of an unholy
culture--the very things that Moslems claim for themselves!
If you want special treatment, then afford it for others. If you do want to
accept someone labeling you a "bigot," then feel free to engage it in
yourself. At least you will know then how wrong it is!
randy
randy
"John Manning"
randy
>> You don't sound like the friendly sort, yourself.
> No respectable decent person would be friendly with an ignorant hateful
> rabid bigot like you.
I'm neither rabid nor a bigot. You do sound a bit "rabid" yourself (I don't
mean this as a "tit for a tat").
The issue of Israel's conquest of Canaan in the Old Testament, and the issue
of the modern State of Israel, are *debatable issues,* and the term "bigot"
is thrown about a bit too quickly. In theory, if the culture of ancient
Canaan was despicably wicked, and if the young nation of Israel was ripe for
reform and for entering into a holy pact with a holy God, then the massacre
of Canaanites by order of that holy God could be justified--not by the acts
of imperfect men, but rather, by judgment of a perfect, sinless God.
As far as the modern state of Israel, the matter of forming boundaries is a
political process that is best achieved by negotiations involving reasonable
people who look at the facts honestly and fairly. The Jews have a culture
that does not always easily blend with the Islamic culture. So the idea of
two states side by side is not reasonable, in my opinion, considering the
size of the territories in question, and considering on balance how much
real estate is available to Moslems and how much is available to Jews. The
Muslims seem to "want it all" in the Middle East, whereas the Jews seem to
only want a "little." The Moslems do not want the Jews to have "any"
political control at all, though residence would be granted them under
Moslem control.
You see the problem?
randy
John Manning
I see it gets a little uncomfortable for you when the truth about is
pointed out. Good!
> Let's see if you can drop the "bigot" word and yet still
> manage to compose a sentence. Bet you can't!
>
The word 'bigot' is very uncomfortable for you, isn't it? That's because
it accurately describes you.
>
>> For The Record with regard to Israel and the Jewish people:
>>
>> I'm against the unjust actions and policies the Israeli government has
>> implemented - i.e. Israel's gross human rights abuses against the
>> Palestinians, gross inequity in the legal treatment of Arab Israelis and
>> Palestinians, Israel's grossly disproportionate documented war crimes
>> and Israel's long term incremental theft of Palestinian lands.
>>
>> That does NOT mean that I'm anti-Israel itself, or anti-Jewish or
>> anti-Semitic. It means that I'm against the policies of the Israeli
>> government.
>>
>> REPEAT: That does NOT mean that I'm anti-Israel itself, or anti-Jewish
>> or anti-Semitic. It means that I'm against the policies of the Israeli
>> government.
>
>
> Yet you called the Jewish people "a pile of sh*t.",
> and you also admitted elsewhere to being prejudiced against Jews.
>
I apologized for my ugly bigotry about ten years ago - as you already
know - yet you continue to dishonestly try to use it.
Like I said: Your lack of personal integrity is glaring, Emma.
> So you'll have to excuse me
There is no excuse for your blatant hateful bigotry against the Muslims.
if I suspect there is
> more behind your anti-Israel politics than you
> would like to admit.
>
Your desperate efforts to hide your OWN bigotry behind attacking me with
your baseless innuendo and your discredited accusations are laughably
transparent, Emma.
You're a classic bigot who hates Islamic people. You simply can't admit it.
Seeker
What are you talking about Randy? Those leaders in the quoted storys
were evil and ordered evil to be done. Don't let the fact that
something is in the Bible keep you from using your mind.
Seeker
[...]
> >That's like condemning all of Christianity for Timothy McVeigh or the Ku
> >Klux Klan or abortion clinic bombers or murderers of abortion doctors.
>
> There are people who defend the Ground Zero mosque
> on religious liberty grounds (wrongly, IMO), there
> are people who defend it on Constitutional grounds
> etc. and then there are people who defend it on
> political and prejudiced grounds.
There is no Ground Zero mosque. There are several mosques within a
few blocks of ground zero. Some of them were built before the twin
towers were built. The fact is that when someone buys a property they
can build whatever city ordinance allows there. Ground Zero doesn't
make everything within a certain radius "holy ground".
> I think you are the latter.
How can we discriminate against muslims? If the owners of the
property in question wanted to build a Calvary Chapel should others
have the power to stop that?
[...]
John Manning
>
> "John Manning"
> randy
>>> You don't sound like the friendly sort, yourself.
>
>> No respectable decent person would be friendly with an ignorant
>> hateful rabid bigot like you.
>
> I'm neither rabid nor a bigot. You do sound a bit "rabid" yourself (I
> don't mean this as a "tit for a tat").
>
> The issue of Israel's conquest of Canaan in the Old Testament, and the
> issue of the modern State of Israel, are *debatable issues,* and the
> term "bigot" is thrown about a bit too quickly. In theory, if the
> culture of ancient Canaan was despicably wicked, and if the young nation
> of Israel was ripe for reform and for entering into a holy pact with a
> holy God, then the massacre of Canaanites by order of that holy God
> could be justified--not by the acts of imperfect men, but rather, by
> judgment of a perfect, sinless God.
>
In other words, as described in Numbers 31:1-54,
genocide
mass murder of helpless prisoners
infanticide
and, sex slavery
are justified in *your* mind bebause you think it was the "judgment of a
perfect, sinless God."
That, in *my* mind is dangerously psychopathic, sociopathic, sadistic
and morally egregious.
That kind of thinking is the central the problem with religious
extremists. They justify their horrific atrocities and crimes against
humanity with their self-serving perverse claims of Divine sanction.
> As far as the modern state of Israel, the matter of forming boundaries
> is a political process that is best achieved by negotiations involving
> reasonable people who look at the facts honestly and fairly. The Jews
> have a culture that does not always easily blend with the Islamic
> culture. So the idea of two states side by side is not reasonable, in my
> opinion, considering the size of the territories in question, and
> considering on balance how much real estate is available to Moslems and
> how much is available to Jews.
There are 47 countries with a majority of Muslims that co-exist
peacefully with other cultures all over the world.
What's the problem with Israel being unable to co-exist with Muslims?
You tell me.
The Muslims seem to "want it all" in the
> Middle East, whereas the Jews seem to only want a "little."
You are suggesting that all the Palestinians turn over their lands to
Israel!?!
The Moslems
> do not want the Jews to have "any" political control at all,
Right. The Palestinians DO NOT want the Israeli's to have "any"
political control at all OVER THEM.
But the Israeli's not only have political control over the Palestinians
they have military control over them.
though
> residence would be granted them under Moslem control.
>
Nonsense. It's the other way around. In fact it's Israel that controls
the Palestinians.
Why would the Palestinians want to have the Jews control them at all!?!
Why would ANY people want to have OTHERS control them!?!
> You see the problem?
> randy
Independent nations are just that; independent. They don't want to be
occupied by or controlled by or policed by or walled-in by other nations.
Borders should be set *fairly* and *justly* as they were originally
meant to be set.
As it is, Israel sytematically, incrementally steals Palestinian lands.
Why?
When they do that, don't you think it pisses off the Palestinians who
have lived on those lands for generations!?!
Where in the rest of the whole world do you see other nations
systematically and incrementally stealing Muslim lands like that?
How do you answer the following, Randy?
[NOTE that the article below is from the *Israeli* Newspaper Haaretz -
it's NOT Palestinian propaganda]
Secret Israeli database reveals full extent of illegal settlements -
http://www.vfp143.org/lit/Gaza/Secret_Israeli_database_reveals_full_extent_of_illegal_settlement.pdf
Watch one of the ways the Israeli's are stealing land from the
Palestinians:
-Inside Israeli land grabs- :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HVa47DvwC0
Seeker
> "John Manning"
> randy
>
> >> You don't sound like the friendly sort, yourself.
> > No respectable decent person would be friendly with an ignorant hateful
> > rabid bigot like you.
>
> I'm neither rabid nor a bigot. You do sound a bit "rabid" yourself (I don't
> mean this as a "tit for a tat").
>
> The issue of Israel's conquest of Canaan in the Old Testament, and the issue
> of the modern State of Israel, are *debatable issues,* and the term "bigot"
> is thrown about a bit too quickly. In theory, if the culture of ancient
> Canaan was despicably wicked, and if the young nation of Israel was ripe for
> reform and for entering into a holy pact with a holy God, then the massacre
Sure by evil people who serve an evil god. Are you going to justify
evil deeds? The invasion of Canaan is of course propaganda written by
men. It probably never happened but actual atrocities that did happen
needed divine support in order to help them be accepted.
>--not by the acts
> of imperfect men, but rather, by judgment of a perfect, sinless God.
They ~were~ the acts of imperfect men. That the men blame God for
what they did doesn't make it right.
> As far as the modern state of Israel, the matter of forming boundaries is a
> political process that is best achieved by negotiations involving reasonable
> people who look at the facts honestly and fairly.
And there are no sides involved in the 50 year plus conflict that can
be fair. It's a mess.
> The Jews have a culture
> that does not always easily blend with the Islamic culture. So the idea of
> two states side by side is not reasonable, in my opinion, considering the
> size of the territories in question, and considering on balance how much
> real estate is available to Moslems and how much is available to Jews. The
> Muslims seem to "want it all" in the Middle East, whereas the Jews seem to
> only want a "little."
Seems to? You over generalize. Both sides have extremists. Both
sides have crossed the line from time to time.
> The Moslems do not want the Jews to have "any"
> political control at all, though residence would be granted them under
> Moslem control.
>
> You see the problem?
Yes, your ideas are contradictory.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
"There are 47 countries with a majority of Muslims that co-exist
peacefully with other cultures all over the world."
The Bloody Borders Of Islam
Published: Dec 6, 2002
WASHINGTON - Is Islam an inherently violent religion? And there is no
denying the fact, stated most boldly by Samuel Huntington, author of
``The Clash of Civilizations?,'' that ``Islam has bloody borders.''
From Nigeria to Sudan to Pakistan to Indonesia to the Philippines,
some of the worst, most hate- driven violence in the world today is
perpetrated by Muslims and in the name of Islam.
In Pakistan, Muslim extremists have attacked Christian churches,
killing every parishioner they could. Just last month in Lebanon, an
evangelical Christian nurse, who had devoted her life to caring for
the sick, was shot three times through the head, presumably, for
``proselytizing.''
On the northern tier of the Islamic world, even more blood flows - in
Pakistani-Kashmiri terrorism against Hindu India, Chechen terrorism in
Russian-Orthodox Moscow and Palestinian terrorism against the Jews.
(The Albanian Muslim campaign against Orthodox Macedonia is now on
hold.) And then of course there was Sept. 11 - Islamic terrorism
reaching far beyond its borders to strike at the heart of the satanic
``Crusaders.''
Until they speak, the borders of Islam will remain bloody.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/838321/posts
Emma
Seeker says...
>
>On Sep 2, 7:28=A0am, Emma <e...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>[...]
>> >That's like condemning all of Christianity for Timothy McVeigh or the Ku
>> >Klux Klan or abortion clinic bombers or murderers of abortion doctors.
>>
>> There are people who defend the Ground Zero mosque
>> on religious liberty grounds (wrongly, IMO), there
>> are people who defend it on Constitutional grounds
>> etc. and then there are people who defend it on
>> political and prejudiced grounds.
>
>There is no Ground Zero mosque. There are several mosques within a
>few blocks of ground zero. Some of them were built before the twin
>towers were built. The fact is that when someone buys a property they
>can build whatever city ordinance allows there. Ground Zero doesn't
>make everything within a certain radius "holy ground".
Actually, I think it does make it a different sort
of area. I've been there. It moved me.
I didn't get the same feeling from, say, Central
Park. To me, that area did feel sacred.
There are lots of reasons against building a mosque
there. If the city doesn't take those factors
into consideration then I think the city is wrong.
When I go back to that wonderful city, I will be so
disgusted to see that particular mosque. It would
symbolise appeasement and turning your backs on your
own people. Those aren't American values, as far as
I know them.
>How can we discriminate against muslims? If the owners of the
>property in question wanted to build a Calvary Chapel should others
>have the power to stop that?
>
I don't know if you're anti-Mormon like Mr Mannering,
but if Mormons had slaughtered 3000 people in the name
of their religion then I would have no problem with
banning a Mormon temple there.
I see that as common decency; the victims must come
first.
Emma
>
>Emma wrote:
>>
>
>> Let's see if you can drop the "bigot" word and yet still
>> manage to compose a sentence. Bet you can't!
>>
>
>The word 'bigot' is very uncomfortable for you, isn't it? That's because
>it accurately describes you.
>
If you're only going to make personal attacks rather than
fight your corner, then I would like you to be a bit
more creative with your insults. It gets boring otherwise.
>if I suspect there is
>> more behind your anti-Israel politics than you
>> would like to admit.
>>
>
>
>Your desperate efforts to hide your OWN bigotry behind attacking me with
>your baseless innuendo and your discredited accusations are laughably
>transparent, Emma.
>
>You're a classic bigot who hates Islamic people. You simply can't admit it.
>
I hate Islam. I'll happily admit that.
But there is no "Islamic people" to hate.
They aren't an ethnic group. They can easily
become Christians.
So I don't really understand
what you mean when you say I hate the Islamic
people. Who are they? Iranians? Pakistanis?
Nigerians? Yemenis? They are all very different.
I hate Islam because it's incapable of reform IMO,
and it's incompatible with democracy and freedom.
John Manning
Emma has the perverse idea that the Towers were taken down by Islam.
They weren't. They were taken down by a small group of radical
extremists headed by Osama bin laden.
Bin Laden had been *kicked out* of his own Islamic country, Saudi Arabia
because his radical political views were REJECTED by the Muslim run
nation. In fact, the only Islamic country that would accept Osama bin
Laden was Afhganistan where he was harbored by the equally radical
fundamentalist Taliban.
Emma hates Muslims. That's why she is unable to recognize the distinction.
Americans, who have been misinformed and propagandized non-stop by a
right wing fearmongering media, similarly can't make that distinction.
By Emma's standards, all of Christianity should be condemned because of
extremist radical Christians like mass bomber Timothy McVeigh, the Ku
Klux Klan, abortion clinic bombers or murderers of abortion doctors.
Emma
>
>>
>
>Emma has the perverse idea that the Towers were taken down by Islam.
>They weren't. They were taken down by a small group of radical
>extremists headed by Osama bin laden.
If it wasn't for Islam, those towers would still
be standing. Islamic theology inspired those terrorists.
They thought they were going straight to Paradise.
>Bin Laden had been *kicked out* of his own Islamic country, Saudi Arabia
>because his radical political views were REJECTED by the Muslim run
>nation. In fact, the only Islamic country that would accept Osama bin
>Laden was Afhganistan where he was harbored by the equally radical
>fundamentalist Taliban.
The Saudis have their own extremist Islam.
>Emma hates Muslims. That's why she is unable to recognize the distinction.
>
>Americans, who have been misinformed and propagandized non-stop by a
>right wing fearmongering media, similarly can't make that distinction.
>
>By Emma's standards, all of Christianity should be condemned because of
>extremist radical Christians like mass bomber Timothy McVeigh, the Ku
>Klux Klan, abortion clinic bombers or murderers of abortion doctors.
>
I'm not condemning all of Islam though. How could I,
since some of it was plagiarized from Christianity?
John Manning
Don't play stupid, Emma. I've already said the following twice:
There are approximately 1.5 billion people who practice the various
versions of Islam and call themselves Muslims. I'd call them the "Muslim
people."
If you hate Islam, you hate the Muslim people. You're a bigot.
John Manning
> In article <fpmdneXjWvM_kx3R...@giganews.com>, John Manning says...
>> Emma has the perverse idea that the Towers were taken down by Islam.
>> They weren't. They were taken down by a small group of radical
>> extremists headed by Osama bin laden.
>
> If it wasn't for Islam, those towers would still
> be standing. Islamic theology inspired those terrorists.
> They thought they were going straight to Paradise.
>
Mainstream Islam condemns what Bin Laden and his gang did and does -
just like mainstream Christianity condemns what McVeigh, the KKK and
abortion clinic bombers do.
>
>> Bin Laden had been *kicked out* of his own Islamic country, Saudi Arabia
>> because his radical political views were REJECTED by the Muslim run
>> nation. In fact, the only Islamic country that would accept Osama bin
>> Laden was Afhganistan where he was harbored by the equally radical
>> fundamentalist Taliban.
>
> The Saudis have their own extremist Islam.
>
Israel has its own extremist Jews.
The USA has its own extremist Christians.
>
>> Emma hates Muslims. That's why she is unable to recognize the distinction.
>>
>> Americans, who have been misinformed and propagandized non-stop by a
>> right wing fearmongering media, similarly can't make that distinction.
>>
>> By Emma's standards, all of Christianity should be condemned because of
>> extremist radical Christians like mass bomber Timothy McVeigh, the Ku
>> Klux Klan, abortion clinic bombers or murderers of abortion doctors.
>>
>
> I'm not condemning all of Islam though. How could I,
> since some of it was plagiarized from Christianity?
>
Now you're lying again. In your last post you flat out said:
"I hate Islam. I'll happily admit that."
There are approximately 1.5 billion people who practice the various
forms of Islam and call themselves Muslims. I'd call them the "Muslim
people."
If you hate Islam, you hate the Muslim people. You're a bigot, Emma.
Emma
>
>> Emma says...
>> I hate Islam. I'll happily admit that.
>> But there is no "Islamic people" to hate.
>> They aren't an ethnic group. They can easily
>> become Christians.
>> So I don't really understand
>> what you mean when you say I hate the Islamic
>> people. Who are they? Iranians? Pakistanis?
>> Nigerians? Yemenis? They are all very different.
>>
>> I hate Islam because it's incapable of reform IMO,
>> and it's incompatible with democracy and freedom.
>>
>
>Don't play stupid, Emma. I've already said the following twice:
>
>There are approximately 1.5 billion people who practice the various
>versions of Islam and call themselves Muslims. I'd call them the "Muslim
>people."
I know you've said it twice, but it still doesn't make any
sense. There are people who practise Islam but there are
no "Muslim people" as in an ethnic group.
For instance, Jews are an ethnic group. They become Jews
via their mother. If your mother is a Jew, then you
are Jewish too. Jews don't stop being Jews when they
convert to another religion.
When Muslims convert, they stop being Muslims. So they
aren't an ethnic group.
In the UK, Jews are legally an ethnic group, but Muslims
are not.
>If you hate Islam, you hate the Muslim people. You're a bigot.
>
You hate Mormonism. Are you a bigot?
There are some religions that practise child abuse.
I hate those too. Is that bigotry?
Emma
>
>Emma wrote:
>>In article <fpmdneXjWvM_kx3R...@giganews.com>, John Manning says...
>>> Emma has the perverse idea that the Towers were taken down by Islam.
>>> They weren't. They were taken down by a small group of radical
>>> extremists headed by Osama bin laden.
>>
>> If it wasn't for Islam, those towers would still
>> be standing. Islamic theology inspired those terrorists.
>> They thought they were going straight to Paradise.
>>
>
>
>Mainstream Islam condemns what Bin Laden and his gang did and does -
>just like mainstream Christianity condemns what McVeigh, the KKK and
>abortion clinic bombers do.
>
What is mainstream Islam exactly?
Worrying numbers of the public in some
Muslim states actually support things like
suicide bombers.
>>> Bin Laden had been *kicked out* of his own Islamic country, Saudi Arabia
>>> because his radical political views were REJECTED by the Muslim run
>>> nation. In fact, the only Islamic country that would accept Osama bin
>>> Laden was Afhganistan where he was harbored by the equally radical
>>> fundamentalist Taliban.
>>
>> The Saudis have their own extremist Islam.
>>
>
>
>Israel has its own extremist Jews.
>
>The USA has its own extremist Christians.
My point was that although Bin Laden is
not accepted everywhere, that doesn't mean that Islam
is moderate in those States.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not condemning all of Islam though. How could I,
>> since some of it was plagiarized from Christianity?
>>
>
>
>Now you're lying again. In your last post you flat out said:
>"I hate Islam. I'll happily admit that."
Yes.
I'm saying that aspects of it are taken from
Christianity, and those are the parts that I'm
obviously okay about.
Overall, I think it's a poor religion though.
Seeker
> In article <fd435605-465a-4368-b297-483cfe552...@m15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Seeker says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sep 2, 7:28=A0am, Emma <e...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >[...]
> >> >That's like condemning all of Christianity for Timothy McVeigh or the Ku
> >> >Klux Klan or abortion clinic bombers or murderers of abortion doctors.
>
> >> There are people who defend the Ground Zero mosque
> >> on religious liberty grounds (wrongly, IMO), there
> >> are people who defend it on Constitutional grounds
> >> etc. and then there are people who defend it on
> >> political and prejudiced grounds.
>
> >There is no Ground Zero mosque. There are several mosques within a
> >few blocks of ground zero. Some of them were built before the twin
> >towers were built. The fact is that when someone buys a property they
> >can build whatever city ordinance allows there. Ground Zero doesn't
> >make everything within a certain radius "holy ground".
>
> Actually, I think it does make it a different sort
> of area. I've been there. It moved me.
> I didn't get the same feeling from, say, Central
> Park. To me, that area did feel sacred.
So not mosques within what distance? One mile, two, more or what do
you think would be the right distance?
> There are lots of reasons against building a mosque
> there. If the city doesn't take those factors
> into consideration then I think the city is wrong.
>
> When I go back to that wonderful city, I will be so
> disgusted to see that particular mosque.
If you passed it on the street you probably won't recognize it as a
mosque unless you looked it up before hand and memorized it's
appearance.
> It would
> symbolise appeasement and turning your backs on your
> own people.
I don't see why. Our people have been for religious freedom, and
freedom in general for hundreds of years.
> Those aren't American values, as far as
> I know them.
>
> >How can we discriminate against muslims? If the owners of the
> >property in question wanted to build a Calvary Chapel should others
> >have the power to stop that?
>
> I don't know if you're anti-Mormon like Mr Mannering,
> but if Mormons had slaughtered 3000 people in the name
> of their religion then I would have no problem with
> banning a Mormon temple there.
I am not anti-Mormon, though they do make for a great go-to example
for many of the questions I ask. I mostly use them for convenience.
However you did not answer the question I asked. Should protesters
have the right to prevent the owners of a building from putting in a
Calvary Chapel?
> I see that as common decency; the victims must come
> first.
So then would you agree that no new Christian churches should be build
in Oklahoma City since Christians murdered 168 people there in an act
of terrorism?
Emma
Seeker says...
>
>>
>> >There is no Ground Zero mosque. =A0There are several mosques within a
>> >few blocks of ground zero. =A0Some of them were built before the twin
>> >towers were built. =A0The fact is that when someone buys a property they
>> >can build whatever city ordinance allows there. =A0Ground Zero doesn't
>> >make everything within a certain radius "holy ground".
>>
>> Actually, I think it does make it a different sort
>> of area. I've been there. It moved me.
>> I didn't get the same feeling from, say, Central
>> Park. To me, that area did feel sacred.
>
>So not mosques within what distance? One mile, two, more or what do
>you think would be the right distance?
That's a matter for debate and consultation with the
victims' families.
>> It would
>> symbolise appeasement and turning your backs on your
>> own people.
>
>I don't see why. Our people have been for religious freedom, and
>freedom in general for hundreds of years.
I was talking about appeasement though.
Have you been for appeasement?
>> Those aren't American values, as far as
>> I know them.
>>
>> >How can we discriminate against muslims? If the owners of the
>> >property in question wanted to build a Calvary Chapel should others
>> >have the power to stop that?
>>
>> I don't know if you're anti-Mormon like Mr Mannering,
>> but if Mormons had slaughtered 3000 people in the name
>> of their religion then I would have no problem with
>> banning a Mormon temple there.
>
>I am not anti-Mormon, though they do make for a great go-to example
>for many of the questions I ask. I mostly use them for convenience.
>However you did not answer the question I asked. Should protesters
>have the right to prevent the owners of a building from putting in a
>Calvary Chapel?
I'm not sure what you're asking. What's significant
about a Calvary Chapel?
How does it relate to this?
>> I see that as common decency; the victims must come
>> first.
>
>So then would you agree that no new Christian churches should be build
>in Oklahoma City since Christians murdered 168 people there in an act
>of terrorism?
Islamic terrorism is on an entirely different scale.
We're not talking about an isolated incident in the US.
If there was a worldwide problem connected to Oklahoma
then you might have a point.
Islamic terrorism is similar to Nazism.
Seeker
> In article <b271613f-30e0-4923-9a7e-ea36738d5...@m15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Seeker says...
[...]
> >So not mosques within what distance? One mile, two, more or what do
> >you think would be the right distance?
>
> That's a matter for debate and consultation with the
> victims' families.
So if they agree to no mosques within New York state then you would be
okay with that. Surely you see why this is not fair.
> >> It would
> >> symbolise appeasement and turning your backs on your
> >> own people.
>
> >I don't see why. Our people have been for religious freedom, and
> >freedom in general for hundreds of years.
>
> I was talking about appeasement though.
> Have you been for appeasement?
We have turned much of the Middle East into a rubble pile. There has
been no appeasement and whether or not another mosque is within two
blocks of the WTC site will not change the behavior of extreme
terrorists. Appeasement isn't an issue.
> >> Those aren't American values, as far as
> >> I know them.
>
> >> >How can we discriminate against muslims? If the owners of the
> >> >property in question wanted to build a Calvary Chapel should others
> >> >have the power to stop that?
>
> >> I don't know if you're anti-Mormon like Mr Mannering,
> >> but if Mormons had slaughtered 3000 people in the name
> >> of their religion then I would have no problem with
> >> banning a Mormon temple there.
>
> >I am not anti-Mormon, though they do make for a great go-to example
> >for many of the questions I ask. I mostly use them for convenience.
> >However you did not answer the question I asked. Should protesters
> >have the right to prevent the owners of a building from putting in a
> >Calvary Chapel?
>
> I'm not sure what you're asking. What's significant
> about a Calvary Chapel?
It's turning the tables. Looking at the same problem from a different
perspective. If Christians were being discriminated against perhaps
it looks different than Muslims.
> How does it relate to this?
Religious discrimination is religious discrimination regardless if it
is against Muslims or Christians.
> >> I see that as common decency; the victims must come
> >> first.
>
> >So then would you agree that no new Christian churches should be build
> >in Oklahoma City since Christians murdered 168 people there in an act
> >of terrorism?
>
> Islamic terrorism is on an entirely different scale.
It might not look that way if you lived in the Middle East in one of
the villages that has been turned into rubble by the US.
> We're not talking about an isolated incident in the US.
There was only one 9-11.
> If there was a worldwide problem connected to Oklahoma
> then you might have a point.
> Islamic terrorism is similar to Nazism.
You are treating all muslims as if they are part of the isolated
extremist group who is responsible for the destruction on 9-11.
John Manning
> In article <K6adnepAU8uwiR3R...@giganews.com>, John Manning says...
>>> Emma says...
>>> I hate Islam. I'll happily admit that.
>>> But there is no "Islamic people" to hate.
>>> They aren't an ethnic group. They can easily
>>> become Christians.
>>> So I don't really understand
>>> what you mean when you say I hate the Islamic
>>> people. Who are they? Iranians? Pakistanis?
>>> Nigerians? Yemenis? They are all very different.
>>>
>>> I hate Islam because it's incapable of reform IMO,
>>> and it's incompatible with democracy and freedom.
>>>
>> Don't play stupid, Emma. I've already said the following twice:
>>
>> There are approximately 1.5 billion people who practice the various
>> versions of Islam and call themselves Muslims. I'd call them the "Muslim
>> people."
>
> I know you've said it twice, but it still doesn't make any
> sense. There are people who practise Islam but there are
> no "Muslim people" as in an ethnic group.
>
One doesn't have to belong to a specific ethnic or genetic group to be a
member of a religion, Emma - OR to be a target of hatred and bigotry
like yours simply because they are a member of that religion.
> For instance, Jews are an ethnic group. They become Jews
> via their mother. If your mother is a Jew, then you
> are Jewish too. Jews don't stop being Jews when they
> convert to another religion.
>
> When Muslims convert, they stop being Muslims. So they
> aren't an ethnic group.
>
> In the UK, Jews are legally an ethnic group, but Muslims
> are not.
>
Ethnicity hasn't anything to do with it. Muslims are the people of the
Islamic faith. You know, those people whom you hate. Your semantic
gymnastics are nonsense designed to hide your ugly hatred and bigotry
toward Muslims.
>
>> If you hate Islam, you hate the Muslim people. You're a bigot.
>>
>
> You hate Mormonism. Are you a bigot?
I've never said that I hate Mormonism or Mormons. ALL of my family on my
mother's side [my mother herself was a Mormon - God rest her soul] are
Mormons.
I certainly did not and do not hate my mother or our Mormon relatives
that go back to the origins of the Mormon Church.
I HAVE pointed out the extensively documented evils and illegalities in
the history of its founder, Joe Smith Jr, and the incongruities of
Mormon claims for historical facts such as as in their Book of Mormon.
I also point out and compare the undeniable gross contradictions between
the doctrines in Mormonism that they claim are legitimate to mainstream
Biblical Christianity that the Mormon Church attempts to keep quiet from
the public.
I've also railed against the uninvited imposition of the Mormon [LDS]
Church politically, socially and economically against the wishes of others.
In reality, most Mormons are decent good people who don't have a clue
about the ugly details of their history because they are never directly
told about any of it in their meetings.
I have a good knowledge of Mormonism because I lived in Mormon Utah for
over 35 years and studied it extensively - even having attended BYU for
a short period of time.
> There are some religions that practise child abuse.
> I hate those too. Is that bigotry?
Child abuse is a crime, Emma. Are you really that desperate to expect
anyone to accept your nonsense comparison as relevant here?
When are you going to apologize for your bigotry and hatred toward
Muslims, Emma?
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
"One doesn't have to belong to a specific ethnic or genetic group to
be a
member of a religion, Emma - OR to be a target of hatred and bigotry
like yours simply because they are a member of that religion."
Agreed, but when a person continually puts down
a nation(i.e. Israel) that many want to make disappear, it
reminds me of a movement in the thirties.
America First Committee
The America First Committee (AFC) was established in September 1940.
The America First National Committee included Robert E. Wood, John T.
Flynn and Charles A. Lindbergh. Supporters of the organization
included Burton K. Wheeler, Robert R. McCormick, Hugh Johnson, Robert
LaFollette Jr., Amos Pinchot, Hamilton Fish and Gerald Nye.
The AFC soon became the most powerful isolationist group in the United
States. The AFC had four main principles: (1) The United States must
build an impregnable defense for America; (2) No foreign power, nor
group of powers, can successfully attack a prepared America; (3)
American democracy can be preserved only by keeping out of the
European War; (4) "Aid short of war" weakens national defense at home
and threatens to involve America in war abroad.
John T. Flynn played a major role in the organization's publicity
campaigns. This included one advertisement that read: "The Last War
Brought: Communism to Russia, Fascism to Italy, Nazism to Germany.
What Will Another War Bring To America?"
In April 1941, Father Charles Coughlin endorsed the America First
Committee in his journal, Social Justice. Although Coughlin was one of
America's most popular political figures at the time, his open Anti-
Semitism made his endorsement a mixed blessing.
Supporters of the America First Committee in the Senate attempted to
defeat the administration's Lend Lease proposal. Gerald Nye, Burton K.
Wheeler, Hugh Johnson, Robert LaFollette Jr., Henrik Shipstead, Homer
T. Bone, James B. Clark, William Langer, and Arthur Capper, all voted
against the measure but it was passed by 60 votes to 31.
In a speech in Des Moines, Iowa, Charles A. Lindbergh claimed that the
"three most important groups who have been pressing this country
toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt
administration". Soon afterwards Gerald Nye argued "that the Jewish
people are a large factor in our movement toward war." These speeches
resulted in some people claiming that the America First Committee was
anti-Semitic.
The AFC influenced public opinion through publications and speeches
and within a year the organization had 450 local chapters and over
800,000 members. The AFC was dissolved four days after the Japanese
Air Force attacked Pearl Harbor on 7th December, 1941.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAfirstC.htm
John, I believe you are flirting with the oldest bigotry
in history. No one is talking about wiping out 1 billion
Muslims, but look at the attacks on Jews on this
newsgoup alone, and I don't see you attacking it, just
those who defend the right of the Jewish people to
have self-determination. Self awareness is difficult
for all of us, maybe even you.
Jim
Jer 17:9 - The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately wicked: who can know it?
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
I notice how you differentiate the ideology of Mormanism
from Mormans. Well Spencer does the same with Islam
and Muslims.
The market place of ideas is where differences in
ideologies should be sorted out, not by using the
ad hominem fallacy.
Jim
Isa 1:18 - Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD:
though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow;
though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
randy
"John Manning"
randy
>> The issue of Israel's conquest of Canaan in the Old Testament, and the
>> issue of the modern State of Israel, are *debatable issues,* and the term
>> "bigot" is thrown about a bit too quickly. In theory, if the culture of
>> ancient Canaan was despicably wicked, and if the young nation of Israel
>> was ripe for reform and for entering into a holy pact with a holy God,
>> then the massacre of Canaanites by order of that holy God could be
>> justified--not by the acts of imperfect men, but rather, by judgment of a
>> perfect, sinless God.
> In other words, as described in Numbers 31:1-54, genocide mass murder of
> helpless prisoners infanticide and, sex slavery are justified in *your*
> mind bebause you think it was the "judgment of a perfect, sinless God."
Not at all. You're assuming, perhaps, that there is no perfect, sinless God
capable of judging the human race in masses, in large societal blocks. In
reality, the weather, and acts of nature, do just this, when hurricanes,
earthquakes, and the like bring mass death to mankind. Either you think God
has the right to indulge His justice in this way, or not. I believe that
despite the existence of real victims in this process, overall the process
is just, and the result of human rebellion against the ways of God. The
existence of victims can be laid at the feet of men, who think there is no
God that we should be accountable to. As a result we get nature run amok,
without the protection of God who knows *His ways* is the only way that will
bring protection and provision for mankind.
>> As far as the modern state of Israel, the matter of forming boundaries is
>> a political process that is best achieved by negotiations involving
>> reasonable people who look at the facts honestly and fairly. The Jews
>> have a culture that does not always easily blend with the Islamic
>> culture. So the idea of two states side by side is not reasonable, in my
>> opinion, considering the size of the territories in question, and
>> considering on balance how much real estate is available to Moslems and
>> how much is available to Jews.
> There are 47 countries with a majority of Muslims that co-exist peacefully
> with other cultures all over the world.
That is debatable. The very existence of these nations is the product of
centuries of violent Islamic expansionism. Wouldn't you be at "peace" with
your captors?
> What's the problem with Israel being unable to co-exist with Muslims? You
> tell me.
The Muslims want to squeeze as many Muslims into the Jewish state as
possible so as to wrest political control away from Israel. The problem with
coexistence between Israel and surrounding Islamic states is that those same
Islamic states have never fully accepted the existence of Israel, and have
repeatedly attacked the Jewish state to protest its existence. I'm grateful
that countries like Egypt have made some overtures towards Israel, and have
at least a semblance of peace with the Jewish state. So I suggest that
Palestinian aspirations be a matter of annexation by Egypt or by Jordan.
States or political groups that are largely protecting of terrorists should
not be involved in the so-called "peace process" at all.
> The Muslims seem to "want it all" in the
>> Middle East, whereas the Jews seem to only want a "little."
> You are suggesting that all the Palestinians turn over their lands to
> Israel!?!
I'm suggesting Palestinians allow their lands to be annexed by the State of
Israel. That will allow them to keep their lands in peace.
> The Moslems
>> do not want the Jews to have "any" political control at all,
> Right. The Palestinians DO NOT want the Israeli's to have "any" political
> control at all OVER THEM.
So that's how you define it, that *any* political control Israel has amounts
to illegitimate control over Moslems? Yes, that's how Moslems basically
define human rights in the Middle East, as human rights for Moslems, and no
political power for either Jews or Christians.
> Why would the Palestinians want to have the Jews control them at all!?!
As I said, the Palestinians are driven largely by Moslems who do not want
Israel to exist at all. If they want to live in an Islamic state, live in an
Islamic state, and let Israel be a Jewish state. Or they can enjoy Moslem
rights as part of the Jewish state.
randy
randy
"Seeker"
randy
> The issue of Israel's conquest of Canaan in the Old Testament, and the
> issue
> of the modern State of Israel, are *debatable issues,* and the term
> "bigot"
> is thrown about a bit too quickly. In theory, if the culture of ancient
> Canaan was despicably wicked, and if the young nation of Israel was ripe
> for
> reform and for entering into a holy pact with a holy God, then the
> massacre
> of Canaanites by order of that holy God could be justified . . .
"Sure by evil people who serve an evil god. Are you going to justify
evil deeds? The invasion of Canaan is of course propaganda written by
men. It probably never happened but actual atrocities that did happen
needed divine support in order to help them be accepted."
I understand that is what you believe, and what you *want* to believe. As
for me, I believe the biblical account, and accept the rationale behind the
conquest of Canaan. It remains a testimony to the rights of a just God, who
judges at times individuals and at other times entire societies. It is a
witness to the ultimate judgment of God over the lives of all men,
determining how and where they will spend eternity.
We are way too casual about the mass number of deaths that take place every
day in the world, thinking it is just random fate or some such thing. In
reality, all of this is the result of a just God judging mankind while they
attempt to prove themselves capable of surviving without God.
And we really need to take note of the fact *all* men die, whether by
natural causes or some disease. The universal reality of death really should
make us pause, if we believe in God at all, and ask the question, Is there
really justice in all this? If indeed justice is meted out by God based on
whether mankind responds to Him as our ultimate need or rejects Him for some
notion of self-autonomy, then indeed the human race gets what it deserves,
because it largely does pursue self-autonomy. A seemingly random Nature is
precisely what we deserve, with all of its death and destruction.
> As far as the modern state of Israel, the matter of forming boundaries is
> a
> political process that is best achieved by negotiations involving
> reasonable
> people who look at the facts honestly and fairly.
"And there are no sides involved in the 50 year plus conflict that can
be fair. It's a mess."
Yes, it's a mess. But I don't have a clue why you say there are no "sides?"
> The Jews have a culture
> that does not always easily blend with the Islamic culture. So the idea of
> two states side by side is not reasonable, in my opinion, considering the
> size of the territories in question, and considering on balance how much
> real estate is available to Moslems and how much is available to Jews. The
> Muslims seem to "want it all" in the Middle East, whereas the Jews seem to
> only want a "little."
"Seems to? You over generalize. Both sides have extremists. Both
sides have crossed the line from time to time."
I don't think it's an overgeneralization to say that Moslems largely want an
end to the Israeli state, whereas most Jews in the Jewish State would be
satisfied with only their own autonomous State. In other words, I don't find
Jewish extremists to be expansionist in the sense of wanting to destroy
surrounding Arab or Moslem states in the same way some of those Islamic
states want to destroy them. If "expansionist" is defined as simply wanting
to obtain defensible borders or wanting to possess the ancient territory of
Israel, then I would have to say you're comparing conquest with the desire
for self-autonomy.
randy
randy
"Seeker"
randy
> Judaism and Christianity both depict God as lord and master over the human
> race. Some of the things He did would be unthinkable for uninspired human
> beings to do. I would not try to rationalize away religions that do these
> things simply because I think they are "inspired." Yet in the history of
> these religions, their founders appear to be righteous men, and worth
> consideration. Do you give it due consideration, or is your mind made up?
"What are you talking about Randy? Those leaders in the quoted storys
were evil and ordered evil to be done. Don't let the fact that
something is in the Bible keep you from using your mind."
I only believe the Bible because it conveys a good spirit and has sound
reasons for justifying actions that only seem extreme to us. In reality, we
face mass destruction every day, somewhere in the world. God gave us an idea
of the *basis* for such seemingly-random destruction. It is not really
"random" at all, but rather, is the product of men who feel (like Stephen
Hawking) that there is no place for God in our life. We have given ourselves
a cold, random universe that abandons us when we need help.
randy
Emma
>
>Emma wrote:
>>
>> I know you've said it twice, but it still doesn't make any
>> sense. There are people who practise Islam but there are
>> no "Muslim people" as in an ethnic group.
>>
>
>
>One doesn't have to belong to a specific ethnic or genetic group to be a
>member of a religion, Emma - OR to be a target of hatred and bigotry
>like yours simply because they are a member of that religion.
I said there is no "Islamic people" and there isn't.
By using that term, you make them sound like an ethnic
group and that is inaccurate.
I suspect you're trying to put Muslims on a par with
Jews by making them sound like a persecuted minority.
Nonsense.
>> For instance, Jews are an ethnic group. They become Jews
>> via their mother. If your mother is a Jew, then you
>> are Jewish too. Jews don't stop being Jews when they
>> convert to another religion.
>>
>> When Muslims convert, they stop being Muslims. So they
>> aren't an ethnic group.
>>
>> In the UK, Jews are legally an ethnic group, but Muslims
>> are not.
>>
>
>
>Ethnicity hasn't anything to do with it. Muslims are the people of the
>Islamic faith. You know, those people whom you hate. Your semantic
>gymnastics are nonsense designed to hide your ugly hatred and bigotry
>toward Muslims.
I don't hate the Islamic people, because there is no
such thing. I happen to like the Muslims who oppose
the Ground Zero mosque, for instance. They are fine by me.
>>
>> You hate Mormonism. Are you a bigot?
>
>
>I've never said that I hate Mormonism or Mormons.
> ALL of my family on my
>mother's side [my mother herself was a Mormon - God rest her soul] are
>Mormons.
>
>I certainly did not and do not hate my mother or our Mormon relatives
>that go back to the origins of the Mormon Church.
>
>I HAVE pointed out the extensively documented evils and illegalities in
>the history of its founder, Joe Smith Jr, and the incongruities of
>Mormon claims for historical facts such as as in their Book of Mormon.
>
>I also point out and compare the undeniable gross contradictions between
>the doctrines in Mormonism that they claim are legitimate to mainstream
>Biblical Christianity that the Mormon Church attempts to keep quiet from
>the public.
>
>I've also railed against the uninvited imposition of the Mormon [LDS]
>Church politically, socially and economically against the wishes of others.
>
>In reality, most Mormons are decent good people who don't have a clue
>about the ugly details of their history because they are never directly
>told about any of it in their meetings.
>
>I have a good knowledge of Mormonism because I lived in Mormon Utah for
>over 35 years and studied it extensively - even having attended BYU for
>a short period of time.
Ah, I see. You have an axe to grind.
I've seen a whole lot of foul mouthed posts from
you about Mormonism in the archives.
It's okay not to like Mormonism. I don't care for it
much either. But it's not okay to condemn others
for not liking Islam.
You call all criticism of Islam "bigotry", but reserve
the right to condemn other religions yourself.
That is rank hypocrisy.
>> There are some religions that practise child abuse.
>> I hate those too. Is that bigotry?
>
>
>Child abuse is a crime, Emma. Are you really that desperate to expect
>anyone to accept your nonsense comparison as relevant here?
>
>When are you going to apologize for your bigotry and hatred toward
>Muslims, Emma?
You use the pc Fundamentalist/Hypocrite definition of
bigotry, which basically means Islam is beyond criticism.
Fooey!
I will criticize Islam as much as I blooming well please!
Someone posted a video of Pat Condell in another thread
and he said that if Fundamentalist Islam was a political ideology,
nobody would give it the time of day. But, because it hides
behind religion, it gets protection. Good point.
It's actually Nazism by another name. Why should it be
protected simply because it invokes the name of God?
Emma
Seeker says...
>
>On Sep 2, 4:04=A0pm, Emma <e...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <b271613f-30e0-4923-9a7e-ea36738d5...@m15g2000yqm.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Seeker says...
>[...]
>> >you think would be the right distance?
>>
>> That's a matter for debate and consultation with the
>> victims' families.
>
>So if they agree to no mosques within New York state then you would be
>okay with that. Surely you see why this is not fair.
You're implying that all the victim's families are
unreasonable people.
>> >> It would
>> >> symbolise appeasement and turning your backs on your
>> >> own people.
>>
>> >I don't see why. =A0Our people have been for religious freedom, and
>> >freedom in general for hundreds of years.
>>
>> I was talking about appeasement though.
>> Have you been for appeasement?
>
>We have turned much of the Middle East into a rubble pile. There has
>been no appeasement and whether or not another mosque is within two
>blocks of the WTC site will not change the behavior of extreme
>terrorists. Appeasement isn't an issue.
I think it is. If you allow a mosque near the site,
then your enemies will take that to mean that America
is crippled by political correctness. It will be seen
as weakness and encourage further attacks.
>>
>> >I am not anti-Mormon, though they do make for a great go-to example
>> >for many of the questions I ask. I mostly use them for convenience.
>> >However you did not answer the question I asked. Should protesters
>> >have the right to prevent the owners of a building from putting in a
>> >Calvary Chapel?
>>
>> I'm not sure what you're asking. What's significant
>> about a Calvary Chapel?
>
>It's turning the tables. Looking at the same problem from a different
>perspective. If Christians were being discriminated against perhaps
>it looks different than Muslims.
I don't see it as discrimination. Nobody is forbidding
mosques or rounding up Muslims.
Lots of people have made the argument that Catholic nuns
moved away from the Auschwitz site. That doesn't mean that
everyone blames Catholicism for the holocaust. It just means
that Catholicism has to forfeit certain rights in acknowledgment
of *some* of its members' actions during that time.
>> >> I see that as common decency; the victims must come
>> >> first.
>>
>> >So then would you agree that no new Christian churches should be build
>> >in Oklahoma City since Christians murdered 168 people there in an act
>> >of terrorism?
>>
>> Islamic terrorism is on an entirely different scale.
>
>It might not look that way if you lived in the Middle East in one of
>the villages that has been turned into rubble by the US.
The US is not - as so many posters are always telling me -
an officially Christian country. That war was not fought in the
name of Christianity.
>> We're not talking about an isolated incident in the US.
>
>There was only one 9-11.
9/11 was connected to terrorism around the world.
>> If there was a worldwide problem connected to Oklahoma
>> then you might have a point.
>> Islamic terrorism is similar to Nazism.
>
>You are treating all muslims as if they are part of the isolated
>extremist group who is responsible for the destruction on 9-11.
>
Actually, no I'm not.
If I thought that, then I would be suggesting that America
rounds up all the Muslims.
Seeker
> In article <4fa2bf82-1131-4bb3-a1dd-d78357135...@y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Seeker says...
>
>
>
> >On Sep 2, 4:04=A0pm, Emma <e...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> In article <b271613f-30e0-4923-9a7e-ea36738d5...@m15g2000yqm.googlegroups=
> >.com>,
> >> Seeker says...
> >[...]
> >> >So not mosques within what distance? =A0One mile, two, more or what do
> >> >you think would be the right distance?
>
> >> That's a matter for debate and consultation with the
> >> victims' families.
>
> >So if they agree to no mosques within New York state then you would be
> >okay with that. Surely you see why this is not fair.
>
> You're implying that all the victim's families are
> unreasonable people.
Actually I have not. I was asking about the limits you would wish to
put on the situation. My question was about you. Historically the
families of the 9-11 victims have given split decision just like any
diverse group would.
In my example I assigned a decision to them, not because it is what
they would make, but because I'm trying to illustrate that the people
building the cultural center are not the people who caused 9-11.
> >> >> It would
> >> >> symbolise appeasement and turning your backs on your
> >> >> own people.
>
> >> >I don't see why. =A0Our people have been for religious freedom, and
> >> >freedom in general for hundreds of years.
>
> >> I was talking about appeasement though.
> >> Have you been for appeasement?
>
> >We have turned much of the Middle East into a rubble pile. There has
> >been no appeasement and whether or not another mosque is within two
> >blocks of the WTC site will not change the behavior of extreme
> >terrorists. Appeasement isn't an issue.
>
> I think it is. If you allow a mosque near the site,
There are already several mosques near the site.
> then your enemies will take that to mean that America
> is crippled by political correctness. It will be seen
> as weakness and encourage further attacks.
Al Quada already sees us like that. We are not going to change their
minds. They saw us like that back when Clinton was in office. They
saw us like that before they attacked the Cole or the US African
embassies.
> >> >I am not anti-Mormon, though they do make for a great go-to example
> >> >for many of the questions I ask. I mostly use them for convenience.
> >> >However you did not answer the question I asked. Should protesters
> >> >have the right to prevent the owners of a building from putting in a
> >> >Calvary Chapel?
>
> >> I'm not sure what you're asking. What's significant
> >> about a Calvary Chapel?
>
> >It's turning the tables. Looking at the same problem from a different
> >perspective. If Christians were being discriminated against perhaps
> >it looks different than Muslims.
>
> I don't see it as discrimination. Nobody is forbidding
> mosques or rounding up Muslims.
But you would like to forbid a mosque within a certain distance to
Ground Zero.
> Lots of people have made the argument that Catholic nuns
> moved away from the Auschwitz site. That doesn't mean that
> everyone blames Catholicism for the holocaust.
Pick something Catholicism was responsible for. Try the Crusaded.
Sure it was much longer ago. But Catholics today had as much to do
with the bloodshed back then as moderate Muslims have to do with 9-11.
> It just means
> that Catholicism has to forfeit certain rights in acknowledgment
> of *some* of its members' actions during that time.
>
> >> >> I see that as common decency; the victims must come
> >> >> first.
>
> >> >So then would you agree that no new Christian churches should be build
> >> >in Oklahoma City since Christians murdered 168 people there in an act
> >> >of terrorism?
>
> >> Islamic terrorism is on an entirely different scale.
>
> >It might not look that way if you lived in the Middle East in one of
> >the villages that has been turned into rubble by the US.
>
> The US is not - as so many posters are always telling me -
> an officially Christian country.
I know.
> That war was not fought in the
> name of Christianity.
So? Is that the significant difference? If 9-11 had not been done in
the name of Islam then you would be okay with another mosque being
build nearby?
> >> We're not talking about an isolated incident in the US.
>
> >There was only one 9-11.
>
> 9/11 was connected to terrorism around the world.
I don't see what that has to do with a mosque being build nearby.
> >> If there was a worldwide problem connected to Oklahoma
> >> then you might have a point.
> >> Islamic terrorism is similar to Nazism.
>
> >You are treating all muslims as if they are part of the isolated
> >extremist group who is responsible for the destruction on 9-11.
>
> Actually, no I'm not.
> If I thought that, then I would be suggesting that America
> rounds up all the Muslims.
Then why not let them build their building?
Seeker
> "Seeker"
> randy
>
> > The issue of Israel's conquest of Canaan in the Old Testament, and the
> > issue
> > of the modern State of Israel, are *debatable issues,* and the term
> > "bigot"
> > is thrown about a bit too quickly. In theory, if the culture of ancient
> > Canaan was despicably wicked, and if the young nation of Israel was ripe
> > for
> > reform and for entering into a holy pact with a holy God, then the
> > massacre
> > of Canaanites by order of that holy God could be justified . . .
>
> "Sure by evil people who serve an evil god. Are you going to justify
> evil deeds? The invasion of Canaan is of course propaganda written by
> men. It probably never happened but actual atrocities that did happen
> needed divine support in order to help them be accepted."
>
> I understand that is what you believe, and what you *want* to believe.
What I believe and what I want to believe are two different things. I
didn't write the Bible and I didn't create the universe so the
contradictions are not of my design. I didn't want them. Please
don't project that onto me. I have no choice except to deny reality
or believe reality.
>As
> for me, I believe the biblical account, and accept the rationale behind the
> conquest of Canaan. It remains a testimony to the rights of a just God, who
> judges at times individuals and at other times entire societies.
You deny reality. I would never presume that you want to believe what
you do.
> It is a
> witness to the ultimate judgment of God over the lives of all men,
> determining how and where they will spend eternity.
Just like every war has been. For in every war a leader invokes
either a God or gods as blessing or needing the war. The Christian
God is no exception and has been used by men to bless and need many
wars. However I can see that just because a human claims (even in
writing) that someone else approves of a war doesn't mean that someone
else actually did. You see humans can lie.
> We are way too casual about the mass number of deaths that take place every
> day in the world, thinking it is just random fate or some such thing. In
> reality, all of this is the result of a just God judging mankind while they
> attempt to prove themselves capable of surviving without God.
Yeah, God is going to torture them all forever because they didn't
believe in God's infinite mercy.
> And we really need to take note of the fact *all* men die, whether by
> natural causes or some disease.
Agreed.
> The universal reality of death really should
> make us pause, if we believe in God at all, and ask the question, Is there
> really justice in all this? If indeed justice is meted out by God based on
> whether mankind responds to Him as our ultimate need or rejects Him for some
> notion of self-autonomy, then indeed the human race gets what it deserves,
> because it largely does pursue self-autonomy.
I'm sorry but did you just use circular reasoning?
If something is the case then indeed it is the case.
> A seemingly random Nature is
> precisely what we deserve, with all of its death and destruction.
Because God could not be bothered to make the path humans should take
stand out from all the other paths they could take?
> > As far as the modern state of Israel, the matter of forming boundaries is
> > a
> > political process that is best achieved by negotiations involving
> > reasonable
> > people who look at the facts honestly and fairly.
>
> "And there are no sides involved in the 50 year plus conflict that can
> be fair. It's a mess."
>
> Yes, it's a mess. But I don't have a clue why you say there are no "sides?"
None that can be fair. The sides all have an agenda.
> > The Jews have a culture
> > that does not always easily blend with the Islamic culture. So the idea of
> > two states side by side is not reasonable, in my opinion, considering the
> > size of the territories in question, and considering on balance how much
> > real estate is available to Moslems and how much is available to Jews. The
> > Muslims seem to "want it all" in the Middle East, whereas the Jews seem to
> > only want a "little."
>
> "Seems to? You over generalize. Both sides have extremists. Both
> sides have crossed the line from time to time."
>
> I don't think it's an overgeneralization to say that Moslems largely want an
> end to the Israeli state, whereas most Jews in the Jewish State would be
> satisfied with only their own autonomous State.
Sure and the Israeli's are removing Muslims from the land. Both sides
have an agenda.
> In other words, I don't find
> Jewish extremists to be expansionist in the sense of wanting to destroy
> surrounding Arab or Moslem states in the same way some of those Islamic
> states want to destroy them.
Oh so Israeli extremists are better than Muslim extremists because
Israeli extremists would stop the butchering when they had enough
land?
Please tell me that is not your position.
> If "expansionist" is defined as simply wanting
> to obtain defensible borders or wanting to possess the ancient territory of
> Israel, then I would have to say you're comparing conquest with the desire
> for self-autonomy.
Who said it is their right to expand to mythical or legendary
territory? Both sides have an agenda.
> randy
Seeker
> "Seeker"
> randy
>
> > Judaism and Christianity both depict God as lord and master over the human
> > race. Some of the things He did would be unthinkable for uninspired human
> > beings to do. I would not try to rationalize away religions that do these
> > things simply because I think they are "inspired." Yet in the history of
> > these religions, their founders appear to be righteous men, and worth
> > consideration. Do you give it due consideration, or is your mind made up?
>
> "What are you talking about Randy? Those leaders in the quoted storys
> were evil and ordered evil to be done. Don't let the fact that
> something is in the Bible keep you from using your mind."
>
> I only believe the Bible because it conveys a good spirit and has sound
> reasons for justifying actions that only seem extreme to us.
Your mind has been poisoned. Reject that poisson while you can still
think. The Bible is the word of men. It's filled with contradictions
and lies.
> In reality, we
> face mass destruction every day, somewhere in the world. God gave us an idea
> of the *basis* for such seemingly-random destruction.
No, men gave it to you in the Bible.
> It is not really
> "random" at all, but rather, is the product of men who feel (like Stephen
> Hawking) that there is no place for God in our life. We have given ourselves
> a cold, random universe that abandons us when we need help.
> randy
While I have not read his latest book the things said about it strike
me as downright silly. I do hope they are misrepresentations but I'm
not going to waste my money or time finding out.
Never the less you ~are~ in a cold, random universe that abandons you
when you need help. That is reality. If you loose your eyes then you
are blind. If you loose your legs then you are a paraplegic. Don't
like it? Tough. Human technology and charity are the only relief.
Loose your life and here you will be dead. Tough luck - unless human
technology and charity find a way to restore you. Atheists are a
recent development. People have only questioned the existence of God
for a few thousand years. Prior to that we were all religious and
life was just as cruel. People still died when there were no Stephen
Hawkings to cause it so no people like Hawking are not the cause. But
to see that you would need to follow the logic rather than turning to
a collection of Iron Age human writings that were approved (and
perhaps altered) by the early Catholic Church and also approved by
Martin Luther.
John Manning
> In article <d8WdnT62YJVTqR3R...@giganews.com>, John Manning says...
>> Emma wrote:
>>> I know you've said it twice, but it still doesn't make any
>>> sense. There are people who practise Islam but there are
>>> no "Muslim people" as in an ethnic group.
>>>
>>
>> One doesn't have to belong to a specific ethnic or genetic group to be a
>> member of a religion, Emma - OR to be a target of hatred and bigotry
>> like yours simply because they are a member of that religion.
>
>
> I said there is no "Islamic people" and there isn't.
> By using that term, you make them sound like an ethnic
> group and that is inaccurate.
> I suspect you're trying to put Muslims on a par with
> Jews by making them sound like a persecuted minority.
> Nonsense.
>
"I hate Islam. I'll happily admit that."
~ Emma
There are approximately 1.5 billion people who practice the various
versions of Islam and call themselves Muslims. I'd call them the "Muslim
people."
If you hate Islam, you hate the Muslim people. You're a bigot.
>
"I hate Islam. I'll happily admit that."
~ Emma
There are approximately 1.5 billion people who practice the various
versions of Islam and call themselves Muslims. I'd call them the "Muslim
people."
If you hate Islam, you hate the Muslim people. You're a bigot.
>
>>> There are some religions that practise child abuse.
>>> I hate those too. Is that bigotry?
>>
>> Child abuse is a crime, Emma. Are you really that desperate to expect
>> anyone to accept your nonsense comparison as relevant here?
>>
>> When are you going to apologize for your bigotry and hatred toward
>> Muslims, Emma?
>
> You use the pc Fundamentalist/Hypocrite definition of
> bigotry, which basically means Islam is beyond criticism.
> Fooey!
> I will criticize Islam as much as I blooming well please!
>
Criticism is one thing, but your clear willingness to discriminate
against a whole people when it comes to their human rights is bigotry.
Your hateful disdain of the proposed Park 51 community center is blatant
- and I'm not wrong to say that it's because it will be run by Muslims.
That's bigotry.
> Someone posted a video of Pat Condell in another thread
> and he said that if Fundamentalist Islam was a political ideology,
> nobody would give it the time of day. But, because it hides
> behind religion, it gets protection. Good point.
> It's actually Nazism by another name. Why should it be
> protected simply because it invokes the name of God?
>
More hateful bigotry from Emma the bigot.
Terry Cross
> In article <d8WdnT62YJVTqR3RnZ2dnUVZ_hedn...@giganews.com>, John Manning says...
>
>
>
> >Emma wrote:
>
> >> I know you've said it twice, but it still doesn't make any
> >> sense. There are people who practise Islam but there are
> >> no "Muslim people" as in an ethnic group.
>
> >One doesn't have to belong to a specific ethnic or genetic group to be a
> >member of a religion, Emma - OR to be a target of hatred and bigotry
> >like yours simply because they are a member of that religion.
>
> I said there is no "Islamic people" and there isn't.
> By using that term, you make them sound like an ethnic
> group and that is inaccurate.
> I suspect you're trying to put Muslims on a par with
> Jews
Wow! What a crime that would be in the Book of Emma!
TCross
Terry Cross
> Emma wrote:
> > Someone posted a video of Pat Condell in another thread
> > and he said that if Fundamentalist Islam was a political ideology,
> > nobody would give it the time of day. But, because it hides
> > behind religion, it gets protection. Good point.
> > It's actually Nazism by another name. Why should it be
> > protected simply because it invokes the name of God?
>
> More hateful bigotry from Emma the bigot.
Islam is a religion, Nazism is a social, economic, and political
philosophy. Islam has nothing in common with Nazism.
Maybe this is Emma's entry for the Cyclops of the Year Award.
TCross
John Manning
Peaceful Muslims [the imam has repeatedly condemned terrorism and is an
outspoken enemy of Al Qaeda] who are building a community center to
serve ALL faiths which will include a 500-seat auditorium, theater,
performing arts center, fitness center, swimming pool, basketball court,
childcare area, bookstore, culinary school, art studio, food court,
September 11 memorial, and a prayer space.
Emma is so blinded by her vicious hatred and bigotry toward Islam that
she can't make the distinction between extremists like Al Qaeda and the
vast majority of peaceful Muslims.
Emma
Terry Cross says...
>
>On Sep 3, 4:32=A0am, Emma <e...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <d8WdnT62YJVTqR3RnZ2dnUVZ_hedn...@giganews.com>, John Manning =
>says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >Emma wrote:
>>
>> >> I know you've said it twice, but it still doesn't make any
>> >> sense. There are people who practise Islam but there are
>> >> no "Muslim people" as in an ethnic group.
>>
>> >One doesn't have to belong to a specific ethnic or genetic group to be a
>> >member of a religion, Emma - OR to be a target of hatred and bigotry
>> >like yours simply because they are a member of that religion.
>>
>> I said there is no "Islamic people" and there isn't.
>> By using that term, you make them sound like an ethnic
>> group and that is inaccurate.
>> I suspect you're trying to put Muslims on a par with
>> Jews
>
>
>Wow! What a crime that would be in the Book of Emma!
>
Oh hello Fraulein Cross. I thought you would turn up
like a bad penny.
I've found a new friend for you ... meet Mr Manning
of Bigotsgate.
John Manning
>
> "John Manning"
> randy
>>> The issue of Israel's conquest of Canaan in the Old Testament, and
>>> the issue of the modern State of Israel, are *debatable issues,* and
>>> the term "bigot" is thrown about a bit too quickly. In theory, if the
>>> culture of ancient Canaan was despicably wicked, and if the young
>>> nation of Israel was ripe for reform and for entering into a holy
>>> pact with a holy God, then the massacre of Canaanites by order of
>>> that holy God could be justified--not by the acts of imperfect men,
>>> but rather, by judgment of a perfect, sinless God.
>
>> In other words, as described in Numbers 31:1-54, genocide mass murder
>> of helpless prisoners infanticide and, sex slavery are justified in
>> *your* mind bebause you think it was the "judgment of a perfect,
>> sinless God."
>
> Not at all. You're assuming, perhaps, that there is no perfect, sinless
> God capable of judging the human race in masses, in large societal
> blocks.
No. I'm pointing out explicitly that the acts described in Numbers
31:1-54 are savage, barbaric and lacking in any moral value or legitimacy.
The people who carried out those acts were barbaric savages lacking in
*ANY* human decency. That's the kind of psychopathic religious mentality
that drives terrorists to slaughter innocent human beings.
In reality, the weather, and acts of nature, do just this, when
> hurricanes, earthquakes, and the like bring mass death to mankind.
> Either you think God has the right to indulge His justice in this way,
> or not. I believe that despite the existence of real victims in this
> process, overall the process is just, and the result of human rebellion
> against the ways of God.
Then I think you're a sick sadistic religious sociopath. *ANY* human
being who perpetrates the despicable acts described in Numbers 31:1-54
is in my view, a dangerous sadistic psychopath.
Your justifications are the same as the justifications of the
psychopaths who flew the planes into the Towers on 9/11.
The existence of victims can be laid at the
> feet of men, who think there is no God that we should be accountable to.
> As a result we get nature run amok, without the protection of God who
> knows *His ways* is the only way that will bring protection and
> provision for mankind.
>
The acts of nature are the acts of nature. The cruel, sadistic, savage
acts in Numbers were perpetrated by human beings who presumably
justified them by claiming their god told them to commit those atrocities.
>>> As far as the modern state of Israel, the matter of forming
>>> boundaries is a political process that is best achieved by
>>> negotiations involving reasonable people who look at the facts
>>> honestly and fairly. The Jews have a culture that does not always
>>> easily blend with the Islamic culture. So the idea of two states side
>>> by side is not reasonable, in my opinion, considering the size of the
>>> territories in question, and considering on balance how much real
>>> estate is available to Moslems and how much is available to Jews.
>
>> There are 47 countries with a majority of Muslims that co-exist
>> peacefully with other cultures all over the world.
>
> That is debatable. The very existence of these nations is the product of
> centuries of violent Islamic expansionism.
Nonsense. Here's a quick animation of the history of religion. You'll
see that Christianity has been FAR more invasive and expansive than Islam.
Check it out here: http://www.mapsofwar.com/images/Religion.swf
Wouldn't you be at "peace"
> with your captors?
>
Give me an example of any Islamic nation where they have "captors" that
are treated like the Israelis are treating the Palestinians.
>> What's the problem with Israel being unable to co-exist with Muslims?
>> You tell me.
>
> The Muslims want to squeeze as many Muslims into the Jewish state as
> possible so as to wrest political control away from Israel. The problem
> with coexistence between Israel and surrounding Islamic states is that
> those same Islamic states have never fully accepted the existence of
> Israel, and have repeatedly attacked the Jewish state to protest its
> existence.
That's just propaganda and rhetoric from hateful radical Muslims like
the assholes of Hamas. Most regular Palestinians AND most regular
Israeli's simply want peaceful lives just like any other human beings.
I'm grateful that countries like Egypt have made some
> overtures towards Israel, and have at least a semblance of peace with
> the Jewish state. So I suggest that Palestinian aspirations be a matter
> of annexation by Egypt or by Jordan. States or political groups that are
> largely protecting of terrorists should not be involved in the so-called
> "peace process" at all.
>
>> The Muslims seem to "want it all" in the
>>> Middle East, whereas the Jews seem to only want a "little."
>
>> You are suggesting that all the Palestinians turn over their lands to
>> Israel!?!
>
> I'm suggesting Palestinians allow their lands to be annexed by the State
> of Israel. That will allow them to keep their lands in peace.
>
LOL! You're not desling with a full deck here, fella.
Why would *ANY* people give their lands over to a nation that has
oppressed them and systematically stolen theit lands!?!
>> The Moslems
>>> do not want the Jews to have "any" political control at all,
>
>> Right. The Palestinians DO NOT want the Israeli's to have "any"
>> political control at all OVER THEM.
>
> So that's how you define it, that *any* political control Israel has
> amounts to illegitimate control over Moslems? Yes, that's how Moslems
> basically define human rights in the Middle East, as human rights for
> Moslems, and no political power for either Jews or Christians.
>
See if you can figure out the simple words in the next few sentences:
Palestinians are human beings.
Jews are human beings.
Human beings are inherently equal and deserving of equal treatment.
Palestinians do not want to be controlled by Israel.
Jews do not want to be controlled by Palestinians.
Palestinians want their own INDEPENDENT nation.
Jews want their own INDEPENDENT nation.
>> Why would the Palestinians want to have the Jews control them at all!?!
>
> As I said, the Palestinians are driven largely by Moslems who do not
> want Israel to exist at all.
Like I said, that's just propaganda and rhetoric from hateful radical
Muslims like the assholes of Hamas. Most regular Palestinians AND most
regular Israeli's simply want peaceful lives just like any other human
beings.
If they want to live in an Islamic state,
> live in an Islamic state,
They want to have their OWN independent nation - just like the Jews want
to have their own independent nation.
and let Israel be a Jewish state. Or they can
> enjoy Moslem rights as part of the Jewish state.
> randy
Isreal doesn't own all the land, Randy. They cannot claim that the
Palestinian territories are part of the Jewish state. Do you *get* that?
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
refusing to meet even a few of the demands made by religious
minorities living among us"
A refreshing burst of decency and candor from an unexpected source:
Dr. Khaled Al-Haroub, a Palestinian researcher at Cambridge
University, writing a column in the PA daily Al-Ayyam that I doubt is
going to win him many friends back home. "Palestinian Researcher: A
Legal Victory in Ground Zero Mosque Could Cause the Muslims to Lose
the Battle that Counts - The One for Coexistence," from MEMRI, August
23:
"We Keep Increasing Our Religious Demands Vis-a-Vis the West, While
Refusing to Meet Even a Few of the Demands Made by Religious
Minorities Living among Us"
"We must take stock and do some soul-searching by asking ourselves the
opposite question, [namely] how people in a Muslim country would react
if the Christians wanted to pray in a mosque on Sunday due to an
insufficient number of churches. Or let's ask an even simpler
[question]: What is the reaction in most Arab and Muslim countries to
the demand of religious minorities - not only Christians but also
Hindus and Sikhs - to build their own houses of worship? In practice,
our countries exhibit hypocrisy and a double standard. We keep
increasing our religious demands vis-à-vis the West, while refusing to
meet even a few of the demands made by religious minorities living
among us."
Endnote:
[1] Al-Ayyam (PA), August 16, 2010.
John Manning
Yeah, I missed that gem. Emma seems to think that her ugly vicious
hateful bigotry is OK as long as her target isn't ethnically defined.
Mr President
> Yeah, I missed that gem.
Did you miss what has occurred this morning?
You are going down.
Doing time.
John Manning
>
> "John Manning"
Randy, why did you ignore all of the following?
Independent nations are just that; independent. They don't want to be
occupied by or controlled by or policed by or walled-in by other nations.
Borders should be set *fairly* and *justly* as they were originally
meant to be set.
As it is, Israel sytematically, incrementally steals Palestinian lands.
Why?
When they do that, don't you think it pisses off the Palestinians who
have lived on those lands for generations!?!
Where in the rest of the whole world do you see other nations
systematically and incrementally stealing Muslim lands like that?
How do you answer the following, Randy?
[NOTE that the article below is from the *Israeli* Newspaper Haaretz -
it's NOT Palestinian propaganda]
Secret Israeli database reveals full extent of illegal settlements -
http://www.vfp143.org/lit/Gaza/Secret_Israeli_database_reveals_full_extent_of_illegal_settlement.pdf
Watch one of the ways the Israeli's are stealing land from the Palestinians:
-Inside Israeli land grabs- :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HVa47DvwC0
Emma
>
>
>There are approximately 1.5 billion people who practice the various
>versions of Islam and call themselves Muslims. I'd call them the "Muslim
>people."
>
>If you hate Islam, you hate the Muslim people. You're a bigot.
>
Nope. Wrong again. There are no Muslim people.
>>> In reality, most Mormons are decent good people who don't have a clue
>>> about the ugly details of their history because they are never directly
>>> told about any of it in their meetings.
>>>
>>> I have a good knowledge of Mormonism because I lived in Mormon Utah for
>>> over 35 years and studied it extensively - even having attended BYU for
>>> a short period of time.
>>
>> Ah, I see. You have an axe to grind.
>> I've seen a whole lot of foul mouthed posts from
>> you about Mormonism in the archives.
>> It's okay not to like Mormonism. I don't care for it
>> much either. But it's not okay to condemn others
>> for not liking Islam.
>>
>> You call all criticism of Islam "bigotry", but reserve
>> the right to condemn other religions yourself.
>> That is rank hypocrisy.
I'll say it again... rank hypocrisy, Mr Manning.
>> You use the pc Fundamentalist/Hypocrite definition of
>> bigotry, which basically means Islam is beyond criticism.
>> Fooey!
>> I will criticize Islam as much as I blooming well please!
>>
>
>Criticism is one thing, but your clear willingness to discriminate
>against a whole people when it comes to their human rights is bigotry.
>
>Your hateful disdain of the proposed Park 51 community center is blatant
>- and I'm not wrong to say that it's because it will be run by Muslims.
>That's bigotry.
I was against nuns having a convent near Auschwitz too.
Sometimes religions have to be sensitive.
>> Someone posted a video of Pat Condell in another thread
>> and he said that if Fundamentalist Islam was a political ideology,
>> nobody would give it the time of day. But, because it hides
>> behind religion, it gets protection. Good point.
>> It's actually Nazism by another name. Why should it be
>> protected simply because it invokes the name of God?
>>
>
>
>More hateful bigotry from Emma the bigot.
>
It's a good point though, isn't it?
I mean, the modern-day Nazis have finally come up with a way
to set up a fifth column in our democracies.
Dress Nazism up as a religion, and it can't be touched.
Mr President
> randy wrote:
>
> > "John Manning"
>
> Randy, why did you ignore all of the following?
Because whatever you say is dull boring tripe and counts for zero.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
families regarding the September 11 rally against the Ground Zero mega-
mosque
Latest Press Release from 9/11 Parents & Families of Firefighters &
WTC Victims:
The Rally is not the problem, the mosque is.....
"9/11 Parents & Families of Firefighters and WTC Victims"
Recently a 9/11 family group called for suppression of the September
11th rally near Ground Zero which opposes the construction of a mosque
and cultural center near the sacred ground. Many 9/11 families do not
agree with attempting to stop this demonstration - and the majority of
our group supports the purpose and principles of this rally.
We have been informed that this demonstration will in no way interfere
with the Anniversary Commemoration - instead it will be held at the
site of the proposed mosque building at Park Place - after the
conclusion of the 9/11 ceremony. Numerous family members, including
many from out of state, have made arrangements to attend this
important gathering.
While we respect the rights and opinions of others, we feel that no
one should attempt to inhibit the expression of free speech for the
large number of 9/11 family members who wish to participate in
opposing the construction of this mosque and cultural center. This
project represents a gross lack of sensitivity to the 9/11 families
and disrespects the memory of all those who were murdered at the WTC
both in 1993 and 2001.
We affirm that the 9/11 Anniversary is a very special and precious
commemoration for all of us. However, we feel that by attending and
participating in this rally, families can endeavor to ensure that the
sacred ground will continue to be respected for posterity.
Many of our family members feel that they have a moral obligation to
their loved ones to raise their voices as the world looks upon us and
sees our plight.
For many family members, the looming, unresolved mosque controversy
has made the upcoming September 11th Anniversary even more upsetting
and troubling. There can be no peace and reflection for the 9/11
families who strongly feel that this proposed mosque is disrespectful
and insensitive. On 9/11, as the world is focusing on Ground Zero,
families want to be able to raise their voices and say to the world
that this is wrong.
While it is possible for some to seek peace and reflection on 9/11 -
for others it is better to actively seek justice and honor the legacy
of their loved ones by publicly challenging this building whose
location so affronts the sensitivity of large numbers of victims'
families. While we may all wish for peace and tranquility - if there
is no justice for the victims and their families - there will be no
peace for any of us.
No one is being forced to attend this rally, but all family members
should have the right to choose whatever they wish to do. On this most
poignant day, relatives and friends of the victims have the right to
join together with other 9/11 family members who want their voices to
be heard in honor of their lost loved ones.
Chief Jim Riches, Chairperson, 9/11 Parents & Families of Firefighters
& WTC Victims
Sally Regenhard, Vice Chair
Supporters:
Bill Doyle
Jim McCaffrey
Chief Al Santora
Maureen Santora
Rosemary Cain
Russell Mercer
Joyce Mercer
Rosaleen Tallon
Eileen Tallon
Albert Regenhard
Nelly Braginsky
Robert Da Ros
Timothy Dennehy
Joan O'Callaghan
Marcia Morris
Noreen O'Riordan
Christina Regenhard
Wen Shi
Margaret Wade
Dave Wade
Kathleen Bergin
Donal Flynn
Emma DiPierro
Rosa P. Leonetti
Dominick LaFalce
============================================================================
A message from Pamela and Robert:
We are grateful that a wide spectrum of 9/11 families have declared
their unequivocal support for our September 11 Rally of Remembrance
honoring the victims of 9/11 and ensuring that their memories will not
be desecrated by the construction of an Islamic supremacist mega-
mosque at Ground Zero.
We are aware that some 9/11 families, while declaring their opposition
to the mega-mosque, have asked us to move the date from September 11
because they feel that our rally will be "disrespectful." As they must
know, we did not choose the date of the rally to be "disrespectful"
for those who were murdered on September 11, 2001. In fact, we did not
choose it at all. The date was chosen for us when Daisy Khan announced
that the Islamic supremacists plan to break ground for their mosque on
September 11, 2011. (She denies this now, contradicting her own
words.)
They are trying to co-opt the date of September 11 for their own
nefarious purposes. We are not willing to let them succeed in that
attempt. In a certain sense, we are all 9/11 family members: as a
nation, we all suffered grievous harm on September 11, 2001. As
Americans, we want to reclaim September 11 as a day of mourning -- and
as a day of national resolve and remembrance to stand up to the
inhuman ideology that slaughtered 3,000 precious souls on September
11, 2001.
As such, we are beginning the rally after the conclusion of the
memorial services, and we are starting with a solemn memorial of our
own, featuring a minister and rabbi offering prayers for the 9/11
families and for the nation. Only in that context are we going to
speak about the Ground Zero mega-mosque at all.
By so doing we are going to do our part to reclaim 9/11 for patriots.
Those who don't have special press credentials or status as a 9/11
family member have been subjected every September 11 to the 9/11
truthers, the America-haters, the conspiracy mongers, trinket hawkers,
and those openly crowing about America's defeat on that day. Ground
Zero turns into a desecration of the memories of the fallen. The 9/11
families, inside their secure area, may have experienced the day as a
time of mourning in an atmosphere of sanctity. But outside that area,
9/11 has been claimed every year by enemies of our nation.
Consequently, the idea of gathering tens of thousands of patriots at
Ground Zero, to stand reverently and respectfully for American values,
honors the memory of those who died on September 11, 2001 simply
because they were Americans.
The patriots at Ground Zero, praying for the victims' families and for
America, have been asked out of respect not to bring signs, but only
American flags. The rally is a one of remembrance, dedicated to
honoring the memory of those who were murdered, and making sure their
memory is not desecrated by this mosque. How does such a spectacle in
any way dishonor the victims of the 9/11 attacks?
We have received scores of emails from 9/11 family members, urging us
not to change the date, but to keep it where it was.
Despite this faction's stated opposition to the mega-mosque at Ground
Zero, no one will be more pleased by their statement against our rally
than Ibrahim Hooper of the Hamas-linked Council on American Islamic
Relations, Muslim Brotherhood groups such as MSA, ISNA, and ICNA, the
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, Daisy Khan, and Sharif El-Gamal.
Thousands of patriots praying with flags, weeping, at Ground Zero on
September 11, instead of a gang of 9/11 Truthers and thugs. They're
not coming to agitate. They're coming to pay their respects. Given the
declarations of Daisy Khan about September 11, 2011 and the carnival
atmosphere of every September 11 in the past few years, we cannot and
will not move the date. It is necessary for Americans to reclaim that
date.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
The WSJ asked Anwar Ibrahim, Bernard Lewis, Ed Husain, Reuel Marc
Gerecht, Tawfik Hamid and Akbar Ahmed to reflect on the nature that
ever-elusive unicorn, moderate Islam."A Symposium: What Is Moderate
Islam?," from the Wall Street Journal, September 1 (thanks to all who
sent this in):
Anwar Ibrahim, Malaysia's opposition leader, makes this admission:
Skeptics and cynics alike have said that the quest for the moderate
Muslim in the 21st century is akin to the search for the Holy Grail.
It's not hard to understand why. Terrorist attacks, suicide bombings
and the jihadist call for Muslims "to rise up against the oppression
of the West" are widespread.
The radical fringe carrying out such actions has sought to dominate
the discourse between Islam and the West. In order to do so, they've
set out to foment anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism. They've also
advocated indiscriminate violence as a political strategy. To cap
their victory, this abysmal lot uses the cataclysm of 9/11 as a lesson
for the so-called enemies of Islam.
Countering this, he invokes the undeniable existence of Muslims who
are just trying to live ordinary lives:
These are the Muslims who go about their lives like ordinary people--
earning their livings, raising their families, celebrating reunions
and praying for security and peace. These are the Muslims who have
never carried a pocketknife, let alone explosives intended to destroy
buildings. These Muslims are there for us to see, if only we can lift
the veil cast on them by the shadowy figures in bomb-laden jackets
hell-bent on destruction.
In the end he does not posit the existence of a Moderate Islam, but
calls for its creation:
Yet Muslims must do more than just talk about their great intellectual
and cultural heritage. We must be at the forefront of those who reject
violence and terrorism. And our activism must not end there. The
tyrants and oppressive regimes that have been the real impediment to
peace and progress in the Muslim world must hear our unanimous
condemnation. The ball is in our court.
The renowned scholar Bernard Lewis makes a similar admission:
A form of moderation has been a central part of Islam from the very
beginning. True, Muslims are nowhere commanded to love their
neighbors, as in the Old Testament, still less their enemies, as in
the New Testament. But they are commanded to accept diversity, and
this commandment was usually obeyed. The Prophet Muhammad's statement
that "difference within my community is part of God's mercy" expressed
one of Islam's central ideas, and it is enshrined both in law and
usage from the earliest times.
However, he then trots out the familiar claim that historically
Muslims were more tolerant than Christians:
This principle created a level of tolerance among Muslims and
coexistence between Muslims and others that was unknown in Christendom
until after the triumph of secularism. Diversity was legitimate and
accepted. Different juristic schools coexisted, often with significant
divergences.
Even if this is true, and there is a lot of evidence that it isn't
(why were 17 million Jews living in Europe and only one million in the
Islamic world at the dawn of the twentieth century?), it establishes
nothing. Laws of any kind can and will be relaxed, ignored, and
broken. But if they remain on the books, they will likely be enforced
again by someone with the will to do so. And so if Islam has no
command to love one's neighbor, Muslims will generally not be loving
to their neighbors, except when human nature gets the better of what
they're taught.
Even after retailing this soothing nonsense, Lewis tells the truth:
For the moment, there does not seem to be much prospect of a moderate
Islam in the Muslim world. This is partly because in the prevailing
atmosphere the expression of moderate ideas can be dangerous--even
life-threatening. Radical groups like al Qaeda and the Taliban, the
likes of which in earlier times were at most minor and marginal, have
acquired a powerful and even a dominant position.
But for Muslims who seek it, the roots are there, both in the theory
and practice of their faith and in their early sacred history.
In that, Lewis contradicts his earlier statement. Practice, yes.
Theory, no. As Lewis himself pointed out.
Then Ed Husain, who is just another deceiver, chimes in with a tissue
of detours entitled "Don't Call Me Moderate, Call Me Normal":
[...] The Prophet Muhammad warned us against ghuluw, or extremism, in
religion. The Quran reinforces the need for qist, or balance. For me,
Islam at its essence is the middle way in all matters. This is
normative Islam, adhered to by a billion normal Muslims across the
globe.
Normative Islam is inherently pluralist. It is supported by 1,000
years of Muslim history in which religious freedom was cherished. The
claim, made today by the governments of Iran and Saudi Arabia, that
they represent God's will expressed through their version of
oppressive Shariah law is a modern innovation.
The classical thinking within Islam was to let a thousand flowers
bloom. Ours is not a centralized tradition, and Islam's rich diversity
is a legacy of our pluralist past.
Nothing about dhimmitude. Nothing about the deprivations,
discrimination and harassment suffered by non-Muslims in Islamic
societies for centuries. For a corrective, complete with numerous
primary source documents showing what actually went on behind the
facade of Islam's history of "pluralism," see Bat Ye'or's Islam and
Dhimmitude and The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam.
Reuel Marc Gerecht then explains that "moderate Islam is the faith
practiced by the parents of my Pakistani British roommate at the
University of Edinburgh--and, no doubt, by the great majority of
Muslim immigrants to Europe and the United States." They were very
nice to him, you see, and were "devout Muslims." He confuses, as do so
many, the individual practitioner of the religion with the teachings
of the religion itself. Yet people behave in all sorts of ways for all
sorts of reasons; the behavior of any given Muslim no more changes the
teachings of Islam than the behavior of a non-practicing Catholic
means that the Catholic Church doesn't teach what it teaches.
Only Tawfik Hamid gets to the heart of the matter:
Moderate Islam should be defined as a form of Islam that rejects these
violent and discriminatory edicts. Furthermore, it must provide a
strong theological refutation for the mainstream Islamic teaching that
the Muslim umma (nation) must declare wars against non-Muslim nations,
spreading the religion and giving non-Muslims the following options:
convert, pay a humiliating tax, or be killed. This violent concept
fuels jihadists, who take the teaching literally and accept
responsibility for applying it to the modern world.
Moderate Islam must not be passive. It needs to actively reinterpret
the violent parts of the religious text rather than simply cherry-
picking the peaceful ones. Ignoring, rather than confronting or
contextualizing, the violent texts leaves young Muslims vulnerable to
such teachings at a later stage in their lives.
Finally, moderate Islam must powerfully reject the barbaric practices
of jihadists. Ideally, this would mean Muslims demonstrating en masse
all over the world against the violence carried out in the name of
their religion.
Moderate Islam must be honest enough to admit that Islam has been used
in a violent manner at several stages in history to seek domination
over others. Insisting that all acts in Islamic history and all
current Shariah teachings are peaceful is a form of deception that
makes things worse by failing to acknowledge the existence of the
problem.
Ed Husain just above is an example of the tendency Hamid refers to
here.
Akbar Ahmed, following Hamid, is smooth but empty. And so after all
that, what is moderate Islam? None of these analysts seem to know, or
to be able to point to it. One would think that would lead to some
rather obvious conclusions for the WSJ, the nation, and the world. But
it doesn't.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/09/the-wsj-asked-anwar-ibrahim.html#comments
Emma
Seeker says...
>
>On Sep 3, 5:01=A0am, Emma <e...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <4fa2bf82-1131-4bb3-a1dd-d78357135...@y11g2000yqm.googlegroups=
>>
>> >> That's a matter for debate and consultation with the
>> >> victims' families.
>>
>> >So if they agree to no mosques within New York state then you would be
>> >okay with that. Surely you see why this is not fair.
>>
>> You're implying that all the victim's families are
>> unreasonable people.
>
>Actually I have not. I was asking about the limits you would wish to
>put on the situation. My question was about you.
You asked if I would be okay with their decision if
it meant no mosques within New York state.
You clearly think that is a possibility, otherwise why
ask the question?
>In my example I assigned a decision to them, not because it is what
>they would make, but because I'm trying to illustrate that the people
>building the cultural center are not the people who caused 9-11.
You've lost me now.
I don't follow that reasoning at all.
>
>> then your enemies will take that to mean that America
>> is crippled by political correctness. It will be seen
>> as weakness and encourage further attacks.
>
>Al Quada already sees us like that. We are not going to change their
>minds. They saw us like that back when Clinton was in office. They
>saw us like that before they attacked the Cole or the US African
>embassies.
Then why confirm that view? Why are you happy
to portray America as weak?
>>
>> I don't see it as discrimination. Nobody is forbidding
>> mosques or rounding up Muslims.
>
>But you would like to forbid a mosque within a certain distance to
>Ground Zero.
Yes. And?
A mosque was recently refused planning permission here
because it overlooked an army barracks. That doesn't
mean we discriminate against Muslims.
It was a security decision.
>> Lots of people have made the argument that Catholic nuns
>> moved away from the Auschwitz site. That doesn't mean that
>> everyone blames Catholicism for the holocaust.
>
>Pick something Catholicism was responsible for. Try the Crusaded.
>Sure it was much longer ago. But Catholics today had as much to do
>with the bloodshed back then as moderate Muslims have to do with 9-11.
So what? That was back then. We're talking about now.
If Catholics were a threat to us all now, then I would
want to keep a close eye on them too.
>>
>> >> Islamic terrorism is on an entirely different scale.
>>
>> >It might not look that way if you lived in the Middle East in one of
>> >the villages that has been turned into rubble by the US.
>>
>> The US is not - as so many posters are always telling me -
>> an officially Christian country.
>
>I know.
>
>> That war was not fought in the
>> name of Christianity.
>
>So? Is that the significant difference? If 9-11 had not been done in
>the name of Islam then you would be okay with another mosque being
>build nearby?
Of course.
>> >> We're not talking about an isolated incident in the US.
>>
>> >There was only one 9-11.
>>
>> 9/11 was connected to terrorism around the world.
>
>I don't see what that has to do with a mosque being build nearby.
It tells me that Islamic extremism is a threat. A major,
worldwide threat and we would be fools to ignore it.
>>
>> >You are treating all muslims as if they are part of the isolated
>> >extremist group who is responsible for the destruction on 9-11.
>>
>> Actually, no I'm not.
>> If I thought that, then I would be suggesting that America
>> rounds up all the Muslims.
>
>Then why not let them build their building?
>
It's not my decision. Americans decide. If it's built,
I see trouble ahead.
John Manning
Vicious hateful bigots like Emma will come up with endless side issues
to to distract from the glaring issue of their ugly bigoted hatred for
another group of human beings.
That's how cowardly bigots like Emma operate.
Michael
On Sep 3, 1:14 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> If you hate Islam, you hate the Muslim people. You're a bigot.
Look into the mirror with your own words, with a substitution.
If you hate mormonism, you hate mormon people. Your'e a bigot.
Seeker
> In article <68c47070-18ed-4ec3-9a3f-ba41f02e7...@u5g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> Seeker says...
>
>
>
> >On Sep 3, 5:01=A0am, Emma <e...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> In article <4fa2bf82-1131-4bb3-a1dd-d78357135...@y11g2000yqm.googlegroups=
>
> >> >> That's a matter for debate and consultation with the
> >> >> victims' families.
>
> >> >So if they agree to no mosques within New York state then you would be
> >> >okay with that. Surely you see why this is not fair.
>
> >> You're implying that all the victim's families are
> >> unreasonable people.
>
> >Actually I have not. I was asking about the limits you would wish to
> >put on the situation. My question was about you.
>
> You asked if I would be okay with their decision if
> it meant no mosques within New York state.
>
> You clearly think that is a possibility, otherwise why
> ask the question?
I know for a fact that it would never be an unanimous view. I asked
the hypothetical question because I wanted to hear your opinion.
> >In my example I assigned a decision to them, not because it is what
> >they would make, but because I'm trying to illustrate that the people
> >building the cultural center are not the people who caused 9-11.
>
> You've lost me now.
> I don't follow that reasoning at all.
You do realize that the people putting up the cultural center are not
the people who caused 9-11, right? You would at least agree with the
conclusion even if you don't like my path to get there?
> >> then your enemies will take that to mean that America
> >> is crippled by political correctness. It will be seen
> >> as weakness and encourage further attacks.
>
> >Al Quada already sees us like that. We are not going to change their
> >minds. They saw us like that back when Clinton was in office. They
> >saw us like that before they attacked the Cole or the US African
> >embassies.
>
> Then why confirm that view? Why are you happy
> to portray America as weak?
The rubble pile in the Middle East was where we continue to deal with
that issue. As for blocking the cultural center I see that as
punishing Americans. Muslim Americans are just as American as any
other American.
> >> I don't see it as discrimination. Nobody is forbidding
> >> mosques or rounding up Muslims.
>
> >But you would like to forbid a mosque within a certain distance to
> >Ground Zero.
>
> Yes. And?
> A mosque was recently refused planning permission here
> because it overlooked an army barracks. That doesn't
> mean we discriminate against Muslims.
> It was a security decision.
Would a Calvary Chapel be refused in the same place for the same
reason?
> >> Lots of people have made the argument that Catholic nuns
> >> moved away from the Auschwitz site. That doesn't mean that
> >> everyone blames Catholicism for the holocaust.
>
> >Pick something Catholicism was responsible for. Try the Crusaded.
LOL! That's what I get for posting without my coffee. =)
> >Sure it was much longer ago. But Catholics today had as much to do
> >with the bloodshed back then as moderate Muslims have to do with 9-11.
>
> So what? That was back then. We're talking about now.
9-11 was back then. It is not now.
> If Catholics were a threat to us all now, then I would
> want to keep a close eye on them too.
Muslims are not a threat.
> >> >> Islamic terrorism is on an entirely different scale.
>
> >> >It might not look that way if you lived in the Middle East in one of
> >> >the villages that has been turned into rubble by the US.
>
> >> The US is not - as so many posters are always telling me -
> >> an officially Christian country.
>
> >I know.
>
> >> That war was not fought in the
> >> name of Christianity.
>
> >So? Is that the significant difference? If 9-11 had not been done in
> >the name of Islam then you would be okay with another mosque being
> >build nearby?
>
> Of course.
>
> >> >> We're not talking about an isolated incident in the US.
>
> >> >There was only one 9-11.
>
> >> 9/11 was connected to terrorism around the world.
>
> >I don't see what that has to do with a mosque being build nearby.
>
> It tells me that Islamic extremism is a threat. A major,
> worldwide threat and we would be fools to ignore it.
The cultural center is being built by moderate Muslims. Isn't it good
that so many Muslims are moderate? I think it's very good.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
"You do realize that the people putting up the cultural center are
not
the people who caused 9-11, right? You would at least agree with the
conclusion even if you don't like my path to get there?"
WARSAW, April 14— In a last-minute letter apparently intended to
defuse the controversy on the 50th anniversary of the Warsaw ghetto
uprising, Pope John Paul II told Roman Catholic nuns today to move
from their convent at the Auschwitz death camp.
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/04/15/world/pope-orders-nuns-out-of-auschwitz.html
You would agree that the nuns had nothing to do
with the crimes of World War II, but the pope
showed respect. Maybe, the builders of the Islamic
Center were the wheels of one planes. hit the building
should also show respect?
Jim
My Name
> the people who caused 9-11
Here Are Some 911 Video Links
http://theforbiddentruth.net/vbtube/upload/flv/65783993.flv
http://theforbiddentruth.net/vbtube/upload/flv/28542687.flv
http://theforbiddentruth.net/vbtube/upload/flv/91596243.flv
http://theforbiddentruth.net/vbtube/upload/flv/88558456.flv
http://theforbiddentruth.net/videos/357/9-11-missing-links.html#watch
http://www.question911.com/linksall.htm
http://911review.org/Wget/911video.de/911video.html
--
A government, of Israel, by Israel, and, for: Israel.
But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light:
for whatsoever doth make manifest is light. The light shineth in darkness;
and the darkness comprehended it not. The light of the body is the eye:
if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness.
If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!
Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead,
and Christ shall give thee light. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
condemn Hamas jihad murders of four Israeli civilians
What a surprise. "Ground Zero Mosque Spokesman Refuses to Condemn
Hamas Terrorist Attack," by Michael Goldfarb in The Weekly Standard,
September 1 (thanks to Israel Matzav):
On the eve of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian
Authority, Hamas gunmen murdered four Israeli civilians, including a
pregnant woman. Even for those who see nuance in terrorist attacks,
this one didn't leave a lot of room for argument. The PA condemned the
attack and, reportedly, picked up some 150 Hamas affiliates in the
West Bank for questioning. The Obama administration condemned the
attack in no uncertain terms. And even J Street, the home of moral
equivalence in the U.S., offered a quick condemnation of this
atrocity. But the "moderate" Muslims of the Ground Zero Mosque?
They're taking a pass.
There's already been a lot of analysis of Imam Rauf's position on
Hamas - he's against it, kind of, but unwilling to condemn the group
as a terrorist organization. When asked point blank, this "moderate US
cleric," as State Department PJ Crowley likes to call him, punted:
"The issue of terrorism is a very complex question...I will not allow
anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the
world as an adversary or as an enemy."
Even if that party murders pregnant women on the eve of peace talks
with the aim of continuing this conflict between Arabs and Jews?
Apparently, yes.
Yesterday I looked at the Twitter feed for Park51 - the Ground Zero
Mosque's primary point of contact with the media and everyone else
over the last few weeks - curious to see if they'd offered some
statement on the brutal attack near Hebron. There was plenty of
activity - the usual fare of baiting Republican candidates like Ilario
Pantano, who's expressed his concern about their bridge-building
project, accusing Newt Gingrich of "being to the right" of Il Duce, a
smug invitation to Sarah Palin to come and "visit the locals" - the
kind of thing you'd expect from a 12-year-old with a diary at Daily
Kos. But nothing on the attack in Israel.
So I asked the folks at Park51 - "I know @park51 is loathe to call
Hamas a terrorist group....but as a gesture, maybe now would be a good
time to say something?"
The group's response:
"@thegoldfarb We have condemned terrorism and will continue to do so.
We are an apolitical community center. Please allow us that
respect."...
Respect? Refusal to condemn jihad terrorist mass murderers is not a
position worthy of respect.
Rob Strom
> On Aug 30, 2:57 pm, Emma <e...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> ...
> Everything you need to know about Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf (Ground
> Zero Mosque Imam)
> Posted by John Schulenburg on Thursday, August 12, 2010, 12:18 PM
>
> There's been so much information that's come out about Feisal Abdul
> Rauf and his plans for the mosque at Ground Zero,
There are no plans for a mosque at ground zero.
That is propaganda designed to alarm voters and
stir up xenophobic feelings.
I'm ashamed that such lies are propagated in America.
...
> As you may know, a massive $100 million dollar, 13 story mosque and
> Islamic center is scheduled to go up at Ground Zero, where the World
> Trade Center was brought down in the name of Islam.
That is absolutely not true.
--
Rob Strom
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
offer before taking Islamic supremacists' $4.8M one
Every day brings new revelations of how shady and dishonest the
leaders of the Ground Zero mega-mosque initiative are, and how fishy
the whole endeavor has been from the beginning. "Mosque building
owners nixed $18M offer before taking $4.8M one," by Isabel Vincent
and Melissa Klein in the New York Post, September 5:
The original owners of the Ground Zero mosque site mysteriously
spurned dozens of higher bids before selling the prime downtown real
estate at a bargain-basement price.
The Pomerantz family, which had owned the building since the late
1960s and fielded offers after the patriarch died in 2006, rejected at
least one bid that was nearly four times what prospective mosque
builder Sharif El-Gamal eventually paid, The Post has learned.
El-Gamal did offer what could be viewed as a sweetener to his $4.8
million bid in July 2009 -- a job as a property manager for a son of
the family, Sethian Pomerantz.
New York developer Kevin Glodek was livid when he found out the
building sold for a fraction of what he offered in 2007 -- $18 million
cash -- and wondered whether money changed hands under the table,
according to sources close to the deal.
Glodek and his partners wanted to build a 60-story condo tower with
retail space on the Park Place site, had inked a purchase agreement
and even had keys to the existing building, according to sources and
documents obtained by The Post.
But Kukiko Mitani -- whose late husband, Stephen Pomerantz, owned the
property -- and her brother-in-law, Melvin Pomerantz, a trustee to the
estate, went silent at the end of 2007 and Glodek's deal disappeared,
sources said.
Glodek, who owns the ChefsDiet food delivery service and several
Manhattan properties, declined to comment.
The property is now at the heart of one of the most divisive issues in
the country -- whether it should be the location of a $100 million
mosque and community center. The location two blocks from Ground Zero
has been called insensitive, and questions have been raised about
whether extremists will help fund the project. Recent polls show that
70 percent of New Yorkers want it moved.
El-Gamal had his eye on the property for years before buying it in
2009....
randy
"Rob Strom"
"There are no plans for a mosque at ground zero."
Are you saying that the supposed building plans do not concern a "mosque,"
or are you saying that planned building is not technically at the precise
point where the twin towers came down? At any rate, neither point seems to
be significant. A "religious center" promoting "tolerance" is still a symbol
of intolerance for many people in America, and it does not have to be
*precisely* at Ground Zero to be considered in the approximate vicinity of
Ground Zero, which is what concerns most Americans.
randy
Seeker
> "Rob Strom"
> "There are no plans for a mosque at ground zero."
>
> Are you saying that the supposed building plans do not concern a "mosque,"
> or are you saying that planned building is not technically at the precise
> point where the twin towers came down? At any rate, neither point seems to
> be significant. A "religious center" promoting "tolerance" is still a symbol
> of intolerance for many people in America,
So do you think all churches should be torn down as symbols of
intolerance? Would you agree that no new churches should be built
anywhere since they are symbols of intolerance?
> . . . and it does not have to be
> *precisely* at Ground Zero to be considered in the approximate vicinity of
> Ground Zero, which is what concerns most Americans.
I would have to be in the approximate vicinity of Ground Zero to be
considered considered in the approximate vicinity of
Ground Zero. The one in question is two blocks away. It is near but
not at Ground Zero - not even approximately. There is no Ground Zero
Mosque. That is a lie designed to inflame people by implying
something that is false. People get all emotional before they
discover the construction is two blocks away from Ground Zero and then
they have to decide to keep focusing that anger at the construction or
turn it against the ones who used a false description. Most keep
their anger against the construction - which was the obvious goal of
the one who coined the lie.
> randy
randy
"John Manning"
randy
>> ....You're assuming, perhaps, that there is no perfect, sinless God
> No. I'm pointing out explicitly that the acts described in Numbers 31:1-54
> are savage, barbaric and lacking in any moral value or legitimacy.
That conclusion is drawn by one who assumes a sinless God has no right to
judge an entire block of society! That's precisely what I was saying. If
there is a sinless God who is big enough to decide the fate of all men,
including political systems and states, then seven nations in the land of
ancient Canaan could legitimately be fated for destruction. For example, if
those nations had achieved such a state of despicable immorality, injustice,
and cruelty that people would be subjected to the worst forms of treatment,
to the most barbaric, most inhuman treatment, then why should the
destruction of these Canaanite nations be thought unjust?
You could ask the same question about the defeat of major countries and
nations in history, eg the Nazi state. When Russia, the U.S., and Great
Britain defeated, and in some respects, *destroyed* the Nazi state, could
that act be said to have been "inhumane?" I don't think so.
> The people who carried out those acts were barbaric savages lacking in
> *ANY* human decency. That's the kind of psychopathic religious mentality
> that drives terrorists to slaughter innocent human beings.
God isn't a "psycho," and He allows the world to spin around almost
"randomly," with natural events taking place which have destroyed whole
cities, and which impacted entire nations, causing cataclysmic deaths. I
don't see that as an "evil," when we consider that the first sin of mankind
was to *reject* God's way of providing security and happiness for the human
race. In a very real sense it is mankind that has thrown Nature into a
random spin, sending multitudes of men and women to their deaths. God is
just in a sense "accomodating us!"
> Then I think you're a sick sadistic religious sociopath. *ANY* human being
> who perpetrates the despicable acts described in Numbers 31:1-54 is in my
> view, a dangerous sadistic psychopath.
As you said, "in your view." In my view, you're a prejudicial denier of
reality for rejecting a pure and compassionate Creator, who has offered
mankind existence and eternal provision, while you justify the course that
mankind has taken to escape God and His provisions. If God has let us go to
our deaths en masse, and He has, because we all die, then He is just ending
one phase in our existence in order to prepare us for another, better,
phase, in which all mankind is brought back into conformity with *His idea*
of the universe.
> The acts of nature are the acts of nature. The cruel, sadistic, savage
> acts in Numbers were perpetrated by human beings who presumably justified
> them by claiming their god told them to commit those atrocities.
But you seem to be arguing that human *death* is the problem, and completely
disregard whether the acts of destruction are justified. If God was just to
order the execution of entire societies, then you can't call that
determination "barbaric." But if you're only arguing that mass deaths are
wrong, I would argue that yes, they would be wrong if done strictly by the
dictate of man, but right, if dictated by the Creator of the universe.
>> That is debatable. The very existence of these nations is the product of
>> centuries of violent Islamic expansionism.
> Nonsense. Here's a quick animation of the history of religion. You'll see
> that Christianity has been FAR more invasive and expansive than Islam.
You seem to be saying something separate from what I just said. I said that
Islamic countries are the product of centuries of Islamic violence. I said
*nothing* about comparing the acts of Islamic violence to the acts of
Christian violence.
> Check it out here: http://www.mapsofwar.com/images/Religion.swf
I don't have to read your link to know what it would say. Any State or
civilization that had been Christianized could fall from the purity of that
religion and still maintain nominal allegiance to it. That doesn't mean that
"Christian" Germany in WW2 acts as a "Christian country" when the Nazi State
brutalized large sections of mankind in masses.
> Wouldn't you be at "peace"
>> with your captors?
> Give me an example of any Islamic nation where they have "captors" that
> are treated like the Israelis are treating the Palestinians.
Islamic nations have implemented severe laws that restrain their own society
and neighboring societies by fear. For example, Iran may today be attempting
to build a nuclear bomb in order to dictate their own terms in the world
through the threat of nuclear destruction. Both the US and the former USSR
have done this. But in my opinion the USSR forced their own society and
neighboring societies (Russia and their satellite states) into conformity
with Communism. And Islamic countries have forced their own people and
vulnerable neighbors into conformity with Sharia law.
To compare what Islamic imperialists have done since the 600s to what the
modern State of Israel has done to survive as a Jewish State is ludicrous.
Moslem Arabs can quite peacefully exist within the Jewish State. Moslems who
either openly support terrorism or quietly subvert the idea of a Jewish
State should expect no "kind treatment" from the government of Israel.
Palestinians who pursue separation from the Jewish State should be allowed
freedom of position, but should not expect the right of self-autonomy when
their activities constitute a real threat to the Jewish State.
>> The Muslims want to squeeze as many Muslims into the Jewish state as
>> possible so as to wrest political control away from Israel. The problem
>> with coexistence between Israel and surrounding Islamic states is that
>> those same Islamic states have never fully accepted the existence of
>> Israel, and have repeatedly attacked the Jewish state to protest its
>> existence.
> That's just propaganda and rhetoric from hateful radical Muslims like the
> assholes of Hamas. Most regular Palestinians AND most regular Israeli's
> simply want peaceful lives just like any other human beings.
If that's true, I'm all for human rights for Moslems within Israel.
Unfortunately, those who control the masses of palestinians *are* hard core
radicals like Hamas. You have to keep in mind that the pan-Palestinian call
for the right of return for displaced Palestinians amounts to a demographic
displacement of the Jewish State, which in my opinion is both an
unreasonable demand and an unjust one, in view of the fact those same
displaced Palestinians at least in part fought against the Jewish State. At
a time when the UN supported a two-state solution, the Palestinians largely
rejected *any idea* of a Jewish State and actively fought against it. The
result was displaced Palestinians. No Jewish State should *ever* allow them
back, particularly now that a full generation has passed.
>> So that's how you define it, that *any* political control Israel has
>> amounts to illegitimate control over Moslems? Yes, that's how Moslems
>> basically define human rights in the Middle East, as human rights for
>> Moslems, and no political power for either Jews or Christians.
> See if you can figure out the simple words in the next few sentences:
> Palestinians are human beings. Jews are human beings. Human beings are
> inherently equal and deserving of equal treatment. Palestinians do not
> want to be controlled by Israel. Jews do not want to be controlled by
> Palestinians. Palestinians want their own INDEPENDENT nation. Jews want
> their own INDEPENDENT nation.
You've skirted the issues. If it was this simple, the whole concept would've
been settled in 1948. The Palestinians, largely controlled by their more
radical leaders, have not wanted peace, unless it entailed the complete
destruction of the Jewish State! They would achieve this either overtly, by
war, or by winning the battle for world opinion, by using oil and the threat
of terrorism as a chess piece. As Israel is forced to give place for a
greater number of Moslem refugees, the democratic State of Israel would
eventually come under the rule of Moslems, and the whole idea of a Jewish
State, designed to protect the Jewish culture, would disappear.
>> As I said, the Palestinians are driven largely by Moslems who do not want
>> Israel to exist at all.
> Like I said, that's just propaganda and rhetoric from hateful radical
> Muslims like the assholes of Hamas. Most regular Palestinians AND most
> regular Israeli's simply want peaceful lives just like any other human
> beings.
I accept your disagreement with Hamas. Now, if only the majority of Moslems
would also send that clear signal. Unfortunately, there is not enough
pressure on Hamas-controlled territory to force Hamas into concessions. This
pressure should be coming from Moslem states, but it is for the most part
words, and not reality.
> They want to have their OWN independent nation - just like the Jews want
> to have their own independent nation.
Indians in America may want their own independent nation within the borders
of the United States. That doesn't mean it's practical. What matters is that
Indian rights are respected, and that there is freedom for the culture.
Large nations like China and Russia have been suppressing dissident groups
for years, groups who have called for independence and nationhood. We have
seen that happen in places like Turkey and Iraq, where Kurds have called for
their own independent State. However, this is a complicated process that
requires careful negotiation, because a secure State is determined by such
things as defensible borders, sufficient economic resources, water supplies,
trade routes, etc. If the cultural differences between two peoples are too
great, side by side nations is not a good idea unless there is a very large
natural (or artificial) "wall."
> Isreal doesn't own all the land, Randy. They cannot claim that the
> Palestinian territories are part of the Jewish state. Do you *get* that?
Do you get the fact Jews have only a very small piece of territory, and
Moslems own huge tracts of land and *many* states? Do you get the fact even
Palestinians in the vicinity of Israel have immediate access to Moslem
states? The Palestinians have becme a chess piece for many Islamic States
who want to use them to destroy Israel as a Jewish State.
randy
Terry Cross
> "There are no plans for a mosque at ground zero."
>
> Are you saying that the supposed building plans do not concern a "mosque,"
> or are you saying that planned building is not technically at the precise
> point where the twin towers came down? At any rate, neither point seems to
> be significant. A "religious center" promoting "tolerance" is still a symbol
> of intolerance for many people in America,
Are you including Wiesenthal's Museum of Tolerance in that statement?
TCross
randy
"John Manning"
randy
> Randy, why did you ignore all of the following?
> Independent nations are just that; independent. They don't want to be
> occupied by or controlled by or policed by or walled-in by other nations.
> Borders should be set *fairly* and *justly* as they were originally meant
> to be set. As it is, Israel sytematically, incrementally steals
> Palestinian lands. Why?
I think it's pretty clear. The Jews have long wanted to reestablish a nation
for the Jewish people in the so-called "Dispersion." After experiencing
difficulties and persecution in nonJewish countries for centuries, some of
them have wanted to try to reestablish a Jewish State in the land of their
origins. Great Britain, who controlled this territory after WW1, granted
Jews the right to pursue this course. The problem since 1947 has been
getting "Palestinians" who have lived there to accept a political state
there that does not meet their criteria for a political state. Moslems have
largely only wanted a Moslem state. Christians have largely only wanted a
Christian state. But Jews have called for a Jewish state in order to protect
their own unique culture.
The two-states solution did not work, and has not worked. A state is
determined by the very real need for defensible borders. This involves
territory that has defensible water supplies, trade routes, and missile
defense networks designed to protect cities from imminent attacks, whether
by terrorist groups or radical states.
The ancient biblical territory of Israel was the size it was for a reason.
It required defensible borders. So does the modern state of Israel. I think
Israel does want to protect the lands and territory of nonJews within their
state. They probably only want to be sure that this territory does not
become incompatible with the security needs of the Jewish state. (Please
note that Israel gave back control of the Gaza territory, and the rocket
attacks have not ended.)
> When they do that, don't you think it pisses off the Palestinians who have
> lived on those lands for generations!?!
Your assumption is that government sanctions of settlement building is
simply a matter of Jewish prejudice. I don't agree with this. I think the
larger concerns are all about security needs for the State of Israel.
> How do you answer the following, Randy? [NOTE that the article below is
> from the *Israeli* Newspaper Haaretz - it's NOT Palestinian propaganda]
> Secret Israeli database reveals full extent of illegal settlements -
> http://www.vfp143.org/lit/Gaza/Secret_Israeli_database_reveals_full_extent_of_illegal_settlement.pdf
> Watch one of the ways the Israeli's are stealing land from the
> Palestinians: -Inside Israeli land grabs- :
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HVa47DvwC0
The fact that Israel is a *democratic* state and wants to expose its own
possible prejudices is a positive thing. Would you see the same in an
Islamic country?
randy
Rob Strom
> "Rob Strom"
> "There are no plans for a mosque at ground zero."
>
> Are you saying that the supposed building plans do not concern a "mosque,"
> or are you saying that planned building is not technically at the precise
> point where the twin towers came down? At any rate, neither point seems to
> be significant.
It's significant because they're lies. The building isn't a mosque,
and a 4-square block area around the WTC area is enormous.
> A "religious center" promoting "tolerance" is still a symbol
> of intolerance for many people in America, and it does not have to be
> *precisely* at Ground Zero to be considered in the approximate vicinity of
> Ground Zero, which is what concerns most Americans.
Anything done by people you don't like can be judged to be an insult.
Let's take the September 12 Tea Party rally in Washington.
By the same logic, how DARE these disgusting America-hating people
spit in the face of 9/11 victims by choosing the very ADJACENT
day to accumulate all the people who want to destroy
America, center them in the capital of the country I love
so much. Either their permit should be denied,
or at the very least they should be told to make it
on a different day and in the middle of Utah somewhere.
But do liberals get up and start complaining that
maybe the American Taliban shouldn't be holding
rallies on September 12?? No!!
--
Rob Strom
Terry Cross
> "John Manning"
> randy
>
> >> ....You're assuming, perhaps, that there is no perfect, sinless God
> >> capable of judging the human race in masses, in large societal blocks.
> > No. I'm pointing out explicitly that the acts described in Numbers 31:1-54
> > are savage, barbaric and lacking in any moral value or legitimacy.
>
> That conclusion is drawn by one who assumes a sinless God has no right to
> judge an entire block of society!
Do you define the Bible as the word of God by the justice and
righteousness contained therein? Or do you define justice and
righteousness by the text of the Bible?
Similarly, do you define the Bible as the word of God by your
recognition of godliness in your own heart? Or do you define God by
the text of the Bible, putting the Bible before the voice of the Holy
Ghost?
> That's precisely what I was saying. If
> there is a sinless God who is big enough to decide the fate of all men,
> including political systems and states, then seven nations in the land of
> ancient Canaan could legitimately be fated for destruction.
When a just parent chooses to punish a child, she does not elect
another of her children to perform the punishment. That approach is
ruinous to all forms of discipline.
God would not require the bodies of the Hebrews to punish the
Midionites.
> For example, if
> those nations had achieved such a state of despicable immorality, injustice,
> and cruelty that people would be subjected to the worst forms of treatment,
> to the most barbaric, most inhuman treatment, then why should the
> destruction of these Canaanite nations be thought unjust?
Because the Hebrews did the dirty work, took the slaves and plunder,
and blamed it on God, rather than God doing his own work. Because the
boy children were slaughtered and the girl children were kept as
concubines.
TCross
randy
<jwshe...@satx.rr.com>
> What is moderate Islam? WSJ panelists mostly have no clue...
Good post. Thankyou. I do think that the theology of Islam is itself the
problem. Regardless of whether the average Moslem is peace-loving and
tolerant, what really matters is the *theology,* because it is this that
allows justification for the worst excesses of human ambition. Of course,
Christianity can also see acts completely inconsistent with its "peace
theology." However, when we see a theology of violence, a religion tends to
not only see lapses and inconsistencies, but it also *justifies* those
abuses. That is why we are so fearful of "theocracies" today, because when a
religion actually justifies adventurism and oppression, there is no basis
for reformation.
randy
randy
"Seeker"
randy
> A seemingly random Nature is
> precisely what we deserve, with all of its death and destruction.
"Because God could not be bothered to make the path humans should take
stand out from all the other paths they could take?"
I believe God did precisely that. He set before man a way in which he could
achieve eternal existence in the blessed presence of deity. All man had to
do was to choose *not* to eat of the tree of independence (my paraphrase).
Unfortunately, man chose to experience life on behalf of self-autonomy, as
opposed to dependence on God and relationship with God. What man got was a
seemingly random universe with a seemingly indiscriminate, cruel nature.
> Yes, it's a mess. But I don't have a clue why you say there are no
> "sides?"
"None that can be fair. The sides all have an agenda."
That's just despair talking. There are universal principles by which we can
judge what is "fair." For example, the modern world has defined for itself
what legitimate States are by determining the needs of particular ethnic
groups. Defensible borders are part of this criteria. The Islamic culture of
the Middle East wants to make no place for Jewish culture. But Jewish
culture is strong enough to be represented as a political state, and it is
now pursuing defensible borders. This has forced the world to establish
their positions on the subject, and the process is still being worked out.
> I don't think it's an overgeneralization to say that Moslems largely want
> an
> end to the Israeli state, whereas most Jews in the Jewish State would be
> satisfied with only their own autonomous State.
"Sure and the Israeli's are removing Muslims from the land. Both sides
have an agenda."
There are individual human needs and there are larger social needs people
have, including the need for political representation. If an ethnic group is
large enough, and enjoys enough support across the human race, a viable
political state can be created, defending that particular ethnic group. That
is what the Jewish State represents. The Islamic States have challenged the
viability of Jewish political representation--its size and right of
heritage. I think the Jewish claims have proved themselves legitimate over
time. Why Moslems continue to try to squeeze the Jewish people out of their
right of political representation I don't know. Maybe it has to do with
Islamic theology itself, which is at odds, I think, with universal
principles of morality and international relations. If Islam would change
its theology to embrace international peace and the rights of ethnic
diversity, we might have a basis for peace in the Middle East.
> In other words, I don't find
> Jewish extremists to be expansionist in the sense of wanting to destroy
> surrounding Arab or Moslem states in the same way some of those Islamic
> states want to destroy them.
"Oh so Israeli extremists are better than Muslim extremists because
Israeli extremists would stop the butchering when they had enough
land?
Please tell me that is not your position."
The pursuit of defensible borders is not a matter of butchering people. I
would never justify any form of extremism regardless. I no more defend
settlers who murder and loot Palestinians than I would justify Islamic
theology which teaches the rights of Moslems to disposses or tax infidels.
randy
Seeker
> "Seeker"
> randy
>
> > A seemingly random Nature is
> > precisely what we deserve, with all of its death and destruction.
>
> "Because God could not be bothered to make the path humans should take
> stand out from all the other paths they could take?"
>
> I believe God did precisely that.
Can you prove that the Bible is the word of God and other religious
writings are not?
> He set before man a way in which he could
> achieve eternal existence in the blessed presence of deity.
And it looks so much like all the other paths that men came up with.
Why should someone believe your religion is right and others are not?
You can provide no evidence that the Bible is the word of God or that
your religion is the right one. You take those things as a leap of
faith. Without that leap your religion doesn't have anything more
going for it than any other.
> All man had to
> do was to choose *not* to eat of the tree of independence (my paraphrase).
There never was a tree of independence. It's a myth.
> Unfortunately, man chose to experience life on behalf of self-autonomy, as
> opposed to dependence on God and relationship with God.
You know even if it wasn't a myth what Adam and Eve choose to do is
not what mankind choose to do. They are two (mythical) people and
they don't get to speak for me any more than anybody else does. Why
would God be so evil as to let two people wreck all of humanity?
> What man got was a
> seemingly random universe with a seemingly indiscriminate, cruel nature.
It's a myth that was created to explain things that Iron Age humans
found perplexing.
> > Yes, it's a mess. But I don't have a clue why you say there are no
> > "sides?"
>
> "None that can be fair. The sides all have an agenda."
>
> That's just despair talking. There are universal principles by which we can
> judge what is "fair."
But our data is nearly worthless. When an Israeli cluster bomb takes
out a village we don't know how many of the dead were terrorists or
how many were innocent. People with agendas will imagine the facts to
suit their interests.
> For example, the modern world has defined for itself
> what legitimate States are by determining the needs of particular ethnic
> groups. Defensible borders are part of this criteria. The Islamic culture of
> the Middle East wants to make no place for Jewish culture. But Jewish
> culture is strong enough to be represented as a political state, and it is
> now pursuing defensible borders.
Among other things.
> This has forced the world to establish
> their positions on the subject, and the process is still being worked out.
>
> > I don't think it's an overgeneralization to say that Moslems largely want
> > an
> > end to the Israeli state, whereas most Jews in the Jewish State would be
> > satisfied with only their own autonomous State.
>
> "Sure and the Israeli's are removing Muslims from the land. Both sides
> have an agenda."
>
> There are individual human needs and there are larger social needs people
> have, including the need for political representation. If an ethnic group is
> large enough, and enjoys enough support across the human race, a viable
> political state can be created, defending that particular ethnic group. That
> is what the Jewish State represents. The Islamic States have challenged the
> viability of Jewish political representation--its size and right of
> heritage. I think the Jewish claims have proved themselves legitimate over
> time.
Of course you do.
[...]
> "Oh so Israeli extremists are better than Muslim extremists because
> Israeli extremists would stop the butchering when they had enough
> land?
> Please tell me that is not your position."
>
> The pursuit of defensible borders is not a matter of butchering people.
Yeah, I was talking about the butchering of people.
> I
> would never justify any form of extremism regardless.
But there are extremists in Israel as well. That is my point. Both
sides have extremists and the tactics used breed extremist on both
sides.
> I no more defend
> settlers who murder and loot Palestinians than I would justify Islamic
> theology which teaches the rights of Moslems to disposses or tax infidels.
> randy
Well at least you are looking at the bigger picture.
John Manning
Good Lord! You're hopelessly beyond any reason.
Emma
Seeker says...
>
>>Emma says...
>> You asked if I would be okay with their decision if
>> it meant no mosques within New York state.
>>
>> You clearly think that is a possibility, otherwise why
>> ask the question?
>
>I know for a fact that it would never be an unanimous view. I asked
>the hypothetical question because I wanted to hear your opinion.
My opinion on something that would never happen?
Why?
>> >In my example I assigned a decision to them, not because it is what
>> >they would make, but because I'm trying to illustrate that the people
>> >building the cultural center are not the people who caused 9-11.
>>
>> You've lost me now.
>> I don't follow that reasoning at all.
>
>You do realize that the people putting up the cultural center are not
>the people who caused 9-11, right? You would at least agree with the
>conclusion even if you don't like my path to get there?
The people who caused 9/11 are all dead, but I
believe the people behind the "cultural center"
have extremist views.
>> >> then your enemies will take that to mean that America
>> >> is crippled by political correctness. It will be seen
>> >> as weakness and encourage further attacks.
>>
>> >Al Quada already sees us like that. We are not going to change their
>> >minds. They saw us like that back when Clinton was in office. =A0They
>> >saw us like that before they attacked the Cole or the US African
>> >embassies.
>>
>> Then why confirm that view? Why are you happy
>> to portray America as weak?
>
>The rubble pile in the Middle East was where we continue to deal with
>that issue. As for blocking the cultural center I see that as
>punishing Americans. Muslim Americans are just as American as any
>other American.
I don't see it that way. I see it as preventing
a fifth column in your country.
America came late to see the threat of Nazism in the 30's
and 40's and this is the same IMO.
>> >> I don't see it as discrimination. Nobody is forbidding
>> >> mosques or rounding up Muslims.
>>
>> >But you would like to forbid a mosque within a certain distance to
>> >Ground Zero.
>>
>> Yes. And?
>> A mosque was recently refused planning permission here
>> because it overlooked an army barracks. That doesn't
>> mean we discriminate against Muslims.
>> It was a security decision.
>
>Would a Calvary Chapel be refused in the same place for the same
>reason?
Not the same thing. Islam is a worldwide threat
in the same way as Nazism was in the 40's.
If there was another threat on the same worldwide scale in the
form of Calvary Chapels, then Calvary Chapels would need to be
watched.
You are not comparing like with like.
Islam is comparable to Nazism.
>>
>> >Pick something Catholicism was responsible for. Try the Crusaded.
>
>LOL! That's what I get for posting without my coffee. =D)
>
>> >Sure it was much longer ago. But Catholics today had as much to do
>> >with the bloodshed back then as moderate Muslims have to do with 9-11.
>>
>> So what? That was back then. We're talking about now.
>
>9-11 was back then. It is not now.
It is now though. Islamic extremism didn't end on 9/11.
>> If Catholics were a threat to us all now, then I would
>> want to keep a close eye on them too.
>
>Muslims are not a threat.
I'm afraid they are. Not all Muslims, but a significant
percentage. Enough to destabilize Europe in the near
future, and you will have your problems too before long.
>> >> 9/11 was connected to terrorism around the world.
>>
>> >I don't see what that has to do with a mosque being build nearby.
>>
>> It tells me that Islamic extremism is a threat. A major,
>> worldwide threat and we would be fools to ignore it.
>
>The cultural center is being built by moderate Muslims. Isn't it good
>that so many Muslims are moderate? I think it's very good.
I don't believe it's being built by moderate Muslims.
Moderate Muslims would move it elsewhere.
The fact that they are digging in their heels speaks
volumes.
randy
"Terry Cross"
randy
> > No. I'm pointing out explicitly that the acts described in Numbers
> > 31:1-54
> > are savage, barbaric and lacking in any moral value or legitimacy.
> That conclusion is drawn by one who assumes a sinless God has no right to
> judge an entire block of society!
"Do you define the Bible as the word of God by the justice and
righteousness contained therein? Or do you define justice and
righteousness by the text of the Bible?"
I really could've anticipated this question, Terry. We have this kind of
problem all the time with "a priori" statements. The same thing is happening
in the news with statements made by Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins.
They believe that with earth history and biological history being
explainable in terms of natural science and the laws of physics that there
is "no room for God." They think that if God was involved at all, there
would be intelligent evidence of this in terms of design, indicating a
prevailing benevolence, or anything short of random disaster. However, what
we have is a planet in turmoil and a nature that is unpredictable and cruel,
with little to no discretion (it seems). So it is concluded that regardless
of how wonderful unintelligent forces are that have developed into life and
survival, they are best explained apart from a divine design. How you can
establish that *God* creates all this when nature and its own laws explains
this?
Well, the simple answer is, you have to define what reason we use to
determine *what* intelligent design is, and *what* universal standards of
justice would be both for man and for God. If we mix all these concepts
together, we will end up in confusion and no doubt consign all of this
confusing "religious jibberish" to the rubbish heap. However, if we
patiently, carefully select out what makes sense in the midst of human chaos
and confusion we may be able to discover principles by which we can
establish the design of God and His justice in the world.
I firmly believe, Terry, that we experience an apparently-"random" world
with innocent victims because God has laid it at the feet of our ancestors
to decide whether we want such a random world or not. We could've chosen a
world guided by a divine hand, ordered with our security in mind. Instead,
we chose independence from God, and got a world barely under control (in
terms of our own happiness and ability to survive).
So how do we determine that divine justice is even being done in the
seemingly-random acts of nature? And how are we even to see God's works of
mercy when He has turned over control of the world to random acts of
violence and choices of rebellious man who have subjected all of us to
potential tragedy and difficult conditions? What is divine justice that we
should become potential victims at all?
None of this appears as "tragic" when we see that God's purpose is in
preparing an eternal home for humanity. It simply matters to God who gets to
live there with Him, and who doesn't. It matters who wants to live under His
sovereignty and protection, and who wants both independence and protection
(which is not possible). Injustice, then, cannot be defined simply as
cessation of life in this temporal existence. Rather, the greater tragedy is
the reality that mankind can choose to live independent of God and then
think to still benefit from God's blessings.
And so, we have gotten the world our fathers wanted, a random universe and a
cruel world that is seemingly without discretion. But is it really? I think
that one has to be biased against God to not see the evidence of divine
design in history. Once we get past the emotion and hostility we have
towards God for all the things we've been forced to suffer we can see
clearly that God's aim is to take us to Himself for eternity. That is a good
story, with a good end.
So when I say that God has the right as a sinless Being to pronounce death
to an entire civilization, ie the Canaanites, we have to first of all
understand that this is not Jewish bias speaking, nor is it covetousness on
the part of the Israelites, wanting land and possessions. Rather, it is the
*idea* that God Himself can step into a single culture and begin a program
of redemption, in which God plays an active role with mankind, as He wanted
at the beginning. The idea is to eventually bring the certainty of
restoration to an eternal hope, as God had planned from the beginning. This
is not divine partiality towards the Jews, but simply a starting place for
God in the middle of the human race, in the middle of the earth.
If man arbitrarily chooses to destroy a civilization, or rationalizes such a
thing in the interest of getting things, it is obviously a corrupt
thing---at the very least a suspect thing. I choose to believe the biblical
account that it was *God* who ordered such a thing because the Scriptures
themselves express what I see to be a divine design, explaining all of the
randomness. At the same time I do see signs and wonders that confirm good
things are happening out of this newly-developed culture of redemption. I in
fact see these divine signs in my own life, not at all thinking myself in
the least special or superior to anybody else. It is simply a matter of
getting on board the train, getting in line with what God Himself has deemed
the right path.
So my interest is not in putting down Islam or any other religion, although
that certainly happens by necessity when you elevate your own exclusive
religion. I simply elevate Christianity because I believe it is the *only*
hope of eternal life with a God that I truly experience on a daily basis. It
is true because I personally experience it spiritually. I pray and hope you
also come to experience this same God in the way I do, because it is
designed to be more than a casual experience. It is designed to be a
reformation of character such that we can live in a peaceful society
forever.
randy
randy
"John Manning"
> Good Lord! You're hopelessly beyond any reason.
No, I'm not. I believe God loves every person on this planet, whatever
religion they happen to be in. I just see sufficient evidence to believe
there is a divine program of redemption, which began with Israel and ended
with Christianity. We can discuss this "evidence" any time you like.
randy
randy
"Seeker"
randy
"Can you prove that the Bible is the word of God and other religious
writings are not?"
God and the Scriptures cannot be proven to the satisfaction of anybody apart
from personal faith. We require, as human beings, firsthand evidence of God
through personal relationship. Any claim, no matter how airtight, will not
do.
And, I must add, "faith" is not blind adherance to a religion we want to
believe. Rather, in the Christian sense, "faith" is a matter of aiming our
intellect towards God and receiving, as a consequence, a personal experience
of that Being. If we don't "look God in the eye," we will not see Him.
I personally believe anybody can look God in the eye and see Him. Why then
don't men take a look, or why, after looking, do they deny they even had an
experience later? It's because there are such strong prejudices in the world
that men don't even want to believe a sovereign, controlling God could be a
good thing. Or after experiencing God they find that a sovereign God has the
right to control them, and they have learned to love their own ways more.
They would rather choose to *take* what they want than have God recommend to
them what they *should* take.
"And it looks so much like all the other paths that men came up with.
Why should someone believe your religion is right and others are not?..."
It isn't just that I experience God spiritually. There are subjective
spiritual experiences in every religion. But the spiritual experience I have
conforms with the testimony of Jesus' life, and only his life makes claims
to provide for eternal redemption, and only his life *appears* as I would
expect eternal redemption to look. His was the record of a perfect humanity
with an imperfect humanity questioning whether there could even be such a
thing. And this is not just a baseless claim. We have the actual records of
Jesus' life, his very words and deeds. We can decide for ourselves whether
such things can even be made up!
> All man had to
> do was to choose *not* to eat of the tree of independence (my paraphrase).
"There never was a tree of independence. It's a myth."
It's a "myth" that explains a seemingly random and cruel universe with a
sovereign Creator appearing to be "helpless" to stop it.
> Unfortunately, man chose to experience life on behalf of self-autonomy, as
> opposed to dependence on God and relationship with God.
"You know even if it wasn't a myth what Adam and Eve choose to do is
not what mankind choose to do. They are two (mythical) people and
they don't get to speak for me any more than anybody else does. Why
would God be so evil as to let two people wreck all of humanity?"
People were created to be families, such that the consequences of their own
actions and choices are visited upon their descendants. Why should we
question the wisdom in this? Is it so bad if the descendants themselves
accept their fate and help pave the way for restoration of their ancestors?
It is not an injustice, but rather, a matter of victimhood and a matter of
courage. It is, even better, a story of love and forgiveness.
> For example, the modern world has defined for itself
> what legitimate States are by determining the needs of particular ethnic
> groups. Defensible borders are part of this criteria. The Islamic culture
> of
> the Middle East wants to make no place for Jewish culture. But Jewish
> culture is strong enough to be represented as a political state, and it is
> now pursuing defensible borders.
"Among other things."
Yes, and to finally arrive at a settlement between Israel and the
Palestinians, the legitimate needs of a Jewish State must be honestly
considered. Nobody is questioning whether the Palestinians have rights as
individuals. Rather, it is a matter of determining where they can enjoy
these rights, ie in what *state* their political rights can be ensured. To
have a separate state side by side with Israel does not at this point seem
practical, because there are too many differences. Two states like this
would have to be like twin brothers to share the same security needs, the
same water, and enjoy perfect trust.
> ...I think the Jewish claims have proved themselves legitimate over
> time.
"Of course you do."
I'm just saying that time itself has validated the strength of the Jewish
position, the power of their standing in the world and the real needs of
their particular ethnic group.
> The pursuit of defensible borders is not a matter of butchering people.
"Yeah, I was talking about the butchering of people."
I don't see Jewish settlers "butchering" 6 million Palestinians, no.
> I would never justify any form of extremism regardless.
"But there are extremists in Israel as well. That is my point. Both
sides have extremists and the tactics used breed extremist on both
sides."
Well, I accept that point. Extremists on both sides need to be removed from
the equation. Unfortunately, it seems that in the modern world radicals tend
to lead the way to change. I prefer the Christian method, which is by the
freedom to speak the truth and act in accordance with universal principles
of justice. If Israelis and Palestinians can leave their extremists behind
and come together, defining what universal justice is, they should have no
problem coming up with a solution.
randy
randy
"Seeker"
randy
> I only believe the Bible because it conveys a good spirit and has sound
> reasons for justifying actions that only seem extreme to us.
"Your mind has been poisoned. Reject that poisson while you can still
think. The Bible is the word of men. It's filled with contradictions
and lies."
My mind has been *enlightened.* Maybe I'm a bit prejudiced because I was
raised up a Christian, but I truly find in the New Testament evidence of a
good spirit that we can personally enjoy. The principles spelled out in the
Bible make sense from OT to NT, and so I believe we have something worth
looking at. But what settles it for me is the spirituality that I personally
experience. All the claims in the world would be meaningless if it didn't
move me personally.
The "contradictions" contained in the Bible are largely matters of passing
copies of the Bible from generation to generation, errors of transmission.
But so much of the message remains intact that the contradictions are
virtually meaningless to me. We have so many copies from so many places to
compare with that we *know* we are dealing with very old material, and
material that fits properly into the historical context it claims to have
originated from.
"No, men gave it to you in the Bible."
God uses men to prove that He is a God of redemption, who uses even
imperfect men who are willing to work together with Him. The authors of
Scripture were righteous, but imperfect, men. The fact they could write such
amazing words is in itself prove of a diety to me. But again, this is
worthless proof without personal spiritual experience. Redemption *requires*
personal experience, if we are to experience the kind of change necessary to
retain this experience.
> It is not really
> "random" at all, but rather, is the product of men who feel (like Stephen
> Hawking) that there is no place for God in our life. We have given
> ourselves
> a cold, random universe that abandons us when we need help.
"While I have not read his latest book the things said about it strike
me as downright silly. I do hope they are misrepresentations but I'm
not going to waste my money or time finding out."
I agree that for most of us reading him would be a waste of time. No doubt
he enjoys an enormous intellect, comprehending physics in ways that only an
elite group can. However, the philosophy of God is over and above all that.
He is limited to the knowledge of science and nature. He cannot know God
except as a spiritual experience, and this is determined by whether we meet
*God's* demand for heartfelt submission to the truth. We must come to the
admission that a superior, even sovereign, Being exists, to whom we owe our
life and our allegiance.
"Never the less you ~are~ in a cold, random universe that abandons you
when you need help. That is reality...."
But you don't know what lies beyond the grave. Death is a reality, but one
that human beings clearly deserve. If we understand justice to be determined
by our attitude towards God, we will *know* that we are getting what we
deserve. We have such a strong desire for freedom that we refuse to submit
to *any* idea of a God who is sovereign over us, who has the right to tell
us what to do. But we can, I believe, enjoy a different kind of freedom if
we accept a sovereign God. That kind of freedom acquires not just relief in
a cold universe, but also the hope of eternal life.
randy
Seeker
> "Seeker"
> randy
>
> > I only believe the Bible because it conveys a good spirit and has sound
> > reasons for justifying actions that only seem extreme to us.
>
> "Your mind has been poisoned. Reject that poisson while you can still
> think. The Bible is the word of men. It's filled with contradictions
> and lies."
>
> My mind has been *enlightened.*
Call it what you will. You let a book do your thinking for you. You
believe it was a book written by God but it was written by men. So
you are letting those men do your thinking for you.
> Maybe I'm a bit prejudiced because I was
> raised up a Christian,
So was I.
> . . . but I truly find in the New Testament evidence of a
> good spirit that we can personally enjoy. The principles spelled out in the
> Bible make sense from OT to NT,
No they don't and asserting they do won't fix the contradictions.
> . . . and so I believe we have something worth
> looking at. But what settles it for me is the spirituality that I personally
> experience.
So you have as much reason to believe your religion is the right path
as any member from any other religion. The same thing that tells you
Christianity is right tells Buddhist that Buddhism is right.
> All the claims in the world would be meaningless if it didn't
> move me personally.
>
> The "contradictions" contained in the Bible are largely matters of passing
> copies of the Bible from generation to generation, errors of transmission.
No there are all kinds of contradictions in the Bible. Some are minor
and others are major. It has more plot holes than the average comic
book. That is because many of the men who wrote it did not agree with
each other. More men came along later to edit it and they had their
own ideas as well.
> But so much of the message remains intact that the contradictions are
> virtually meaningless to me.
So if a woman was raped the way to make things right is to exterminate
50,000 Jews? After all it was the best plan an all knowing, all
powerful God could come up with, unless of course the Bible was
written by men who wanted to blame God for their atrocities.
> We have so many copies from so many places to
> compare with that we *know* we are dealing with very old material, and
> material that fits properly into the historical context it claims to have
> originated from.
Oh there is no doubt that the Bible tells us a great deal about the
culture that created it. That idea is not contested.
> "No, men gave it to you in the Bible."
>
> God uses men to prove that He is a God of redemption, who uses even
> imperfect men who are willing to work together with Him.
You wish. However you have no evidence that your wish is true. And
reading the Bible we can see that if every word is from God then God
is evil, crazy and stupid. Why would God want us to think that? The
simple explanation is that men wrote the Bible. Places where the
Bible make God look evil, crazy and stupid are due to men creating
those stories.
> The authors of
> Scripture were righteous, but imperfect, men. The fact they could write such
> amazing words is in itself prove of a diety to me.
You don't know what proof means.
> But again, this is
> worthless proof without personal spiritual experience.
I've got over 30 years under my belt.
> Redemption *requires*
> personal experience, if we are to experience the kind of change necessary to
> retain this experience.
Yes I've been there too.
> > It is not really
> > "random" at all, but rather, is the product of men who feel (like Stephen
> > Hawking) that there is no place for God in our life. We have given
> > ourselves
> > a cold, random universe that abandons us when we need help.
>
> "While I have not read his latest book the things said about it strike
> me as downright silly. I do hope they are misrepresentations but I'm
> not going to waste my money or time finding out."
>
> I agree that for most of us reading him would be a waste of time. No doubt
> he enjoys an enormous intellect, comprehending physics in ways that only an
> elite group can. However, the philosophy of God is over and above all that.
No it isn't. Your "philosophy of God" takes no investment and no
skill at all. Any idiot can do it.
> He is limited to the knowledge of science and nature.
Faith has no knowledge.
> He cannot know God
> except as a spiritual experience, and this is determined by whether we meet
> *God's* demand for heartfelt submission to the truth. We must come to the
> admission that a superior, even sovereign, Being exists, to whom we owe our
> life and our allegiance.
>
> "Never the less you ~are~ in a cold, random universe that abandons you
> when you need help. That is reality...."
>
> But you don't know what lies beyond the grave.
Whatever that is - if there is an afterlife it is beyond this
universe.
> Death is a reality, but one
> that human beings clearly deserve.
You don't know that. You believe a myth that was created by men.
> If we understand justice to be determined
> by our attitude towards God, we will *know* that we are getting what we
> deserve.
No you don't. You don't understand what know means. It doesn't mean
the emotion of feeling certain. You can't verify any of this so you
don't know. You just believe it.
> We have such a strong desire for freedom that we refuse to submit
> to *any* idea of a God who is sovereign over us, who has the right to tell
> us what to do.
It would be great if God would tell us something - anything. Instead
God is silent and people like you follow the word of men.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
confident faith is more self-criticism and less self-pity and self-
righteousness"
In complaining that Muslims in the U.S. are simply facing a new
outcropping of the xenophobic prejudice of the nineteenth century,
Abdullah Antepli makes a point that Nicholas Kristof and others have
recently made. It must have come from some CAIR talking points or some
similarly limpid source. "Free Exercise of Religion? No, Thanks.The
taming and domestication of religious faith is one of the unceasing
chores of civilization," by Christopher Hitchens in Slate, September 6
(thanks to Hugo):
Now to Islam. It is, first, a religion that makes very large claims
for itself, purporting to be the last and final word of God and
expressing an ambition to become the world's only religion. Some of
its adherents follow or advocate the practice of plural marriage,
forced marriage, female circumcision, compulsory veiling of women, and
censorship of non-Muslim magazines and media. Islam's teachings
generally exhibit suspicion of the very idea of church-state
separation. Other teachings, depending on context, can be held to
exhibit a very strong dislike of other religions, as well as of
heretical forms of Islam. Muslims in America, including members of the
armed forces, have already been found willing to respond to orders
issued by foreign terrorist organizations. Most disturbingly, no
authority within the faith appears to have the power to rule
decisively that such practices, or such teachings, or such actions,
are definitely and utterly in conflict with the precepts of the
religion itself.
Reactions from even "moderate" Muslims to criticism are not uniformly
reassuring. "Some of what people are saying in this mosque controversy
is very similar to what German media was saying about Jews in the
1920s and 1930s," Imam Abdullah Antepli, Muslim chaplain at Duke
University, told the New York Times. Yes, we all recall the Jewish
suicide bombers of that period, as we recall the Jewish yells for holy
war, the Jewish demands for the veiling of women and the stoning of
homosexuals, and the Jewish burning of newspapers that published
cartoons they did not like. What is needed from the supporters of this
very confident faith is more self-criticism and less self-pity and
self-righteousness.