* “It should be noted that Ezra Levant apparently was all for these Orwellian commissions when they were going after Ernst Zundel for publishing “anti-Semitic” literature.
Seems to be a double standard - and, to my knowledge, it was due to the efforts of Edgar Bronfman of the World Jewish Congress that these laws and commissions were put into place. Like I say, now coming back to bite them in the arse, as shameless Muslim fanatics use them to push their agenda for global domination.
Fortunately, this imam is now feeling the heat from some females in his congregation who filed a complaint against HIM for human rights abuse. Let’s hope they are followed by many more women who correctly ascertain that ISLAM OPPRESSES WOMEN.”
Ron, I don’t buy it. If that were so true, then why didn’t Muslims in Afghanistan choose to incorporate a separation of church and state into their brand spanking new Constitution? Instead we have them murdering a young 23 year old because they claimed he insulted Islam...is that what you want in the US? Why do 25% of young Muslims support suicide bombings? And why do Muslims poll so high in their desire for sharia law in western countries? It doesn’t make sense, you’re either completely wrong or Muslims are lying in the polls.
I’d never claim that Afghani Muslims are moderate. Frankly, given their history of foreign occupation and suppression, I’d be surprised if they were. However, the antipathy of Westerners such as yourself, and attempts to impose our forms of government on them, only make matters worse.
What exactly is your point about suicide bombings? Do you think that dropping bombs from planes is morally superior?
As for sharia law, please remember that most Muslims in that UK poll said they didn’t want it. Besides which, the question didn’t specify what they meant by “sharia law”. In Canada the proposal was for a voluntary arbitration process in accordance with Islamic principles, and only for civil and family disputes, not for criminal law. I can assure you that the chopping off of limbs etc. was never contemplated.
Even Christians are fighting the first amendment and the principle of separation of church and state. Can you name any Muslims who came to the US just because of separation of church and state? Islam is definitely against it even in a Muslim country let alone an infidel country.
What “Christians”? Good grief, more stereotyping, more hyperbole! There may be some Christians fighting for those things, but the vast majority are not.
If you’re interested in Muslims who support secular democracy, you could start here: Free Muslims Coalition. In Canada we have the Muslim Canadian Union, which recently split from the Muslim Canadian Congress. I’m not suggesting that these groups represent large numbers of Muslims, but then neither do the extremists. What I’m saying is that we need to recognize the moderates and progressives as our allies, and offer them our support. Stereotyping all Muslims as extremists just plays into the extremists’ hands.
Dhimwit
Generally, name-calling is a sign that your opponent has run out of rational arguments.
Islam itself, however, isn’t moderate. How can any doctrine that believes in blind submission to the authority in the conquest and domination of others be moderate?
Obviously it can’t—which is why moderate Muslims don’t believe anything of the sort. There’s nothing in the Quran that demands the “conquest and domination of others”.
This is stunning. I’ve referred to Mohammad’s example of plunder, slaughter, and conquest. You don’t seem to be familiar with the Koran, Hadith, or Sira. These are a prerequisite to a fruitful discussion.
I said nothing in the Quran, which is the only Muslim scripture that is regarded as the literal word of God. Mohammed’s life was filled with violence and war, but then so were the lives of many Biblical characters. Like I said, moderates can find ways to rationalize the stuff they find disagreeable.
There is no such thing as a moderate in regards to Islam or Christianity. Again, Christianity has been tamed by the SECULAR US Constitution while Islam has not.
This is where I have to object, at least in the regards of Christians. Spong, Schori, and a whole slew of others I know are not extremists. They are very liberal and hardly moderate. ...
I agree with Mriana that ‘Christianity’ has diversity and some individuals (and subgroups) are liberal by most objective measures.
I’d say it’s pretty damn liberal if you ordain a gay priest (Robinson or Robertson something like that) and unite two people of the same sex in a civil union. Not only that, both Schori and Spong (as well as other Episcopal clergy) helped to get him ordained, Schori fought hard to get a compromise when the conservative Episcopalians raised their ugly heads. Then again, Spong calls himself a non-theist, even though he’s a retired bishop, and Schori was a scientist before she became ordained.
They, and others, are definitely liberal IMO, as well as humanistic, but I won’t say they aren’t delusional in matters of God though, but they do try to give dignity to other humans.
RW “Do you think that dropping bombs from planes is morally superior?”
- I made no mention of dropping any bombs from planes. I never agreed with the war in Iraq either. But we’re there and the US is suppose to be playing a role in making things “better”. If Muslims are still murdering people like this 23 year old (which you didn’t even acknowledge) then it’s a failure. Where’s the change?
RW “As for sharia law, please remember that most Muslims in that UK poll said they didn’t want it.”
- 40% is very high for people who you alluded to ealier as wanting a separation of church and state. And I suppose that number might jump if they get that super Mosque.
RW “What “Christians”? Good grief, more stereotyping, more hyperbole!”
- No, not at all - I guess you missed my post on the previous page with the videos of Christians.
RW “There may be some Christians fighting for those things, but the vast majority are not.”
- Only the Christians. Christian politicians, voters etc. There seems to be a constant case going on at all times. They never stop trying to attack separation of church and state.
RW “Dhimwit - Generally, name-calling is a sign that your opponent has run out of rational arguments. ”
- Usually yes, not this time as the definition describes the mindset of many folks who fit the definition. Therefore I don’t consider the use of the term “Dhimwit” to be name-calling.
There is no such thing as a moderate in regards to Islam or Christianity. Again, Christianity has been tamed by the SECULAR US Constitution while Islam has not.
This is where I have to object, at least in the regards of Christians. Spong, Schori, and a whole slew of others I know are not extremists. They are very liberal and hardly moderate. ...
I agree with Mriana that ‘Christianity’ has diversity and some individuals (and subgroups) are liberal by most objective measures.
I felt I addressed this in post 59. People don’t make Islam or Christianity moderate. People make themselves moderate by not adhering to all of the religious texts to the letter. As I mentioned, Spong for example, may be a moderate but that doesn’t make Christianity moderate. I thought I laid this out in post 59 but it’s toward the bottom so maybe it got missed.
There is no such thing as a moderate in regards to Islam or Christianity. Again, Christianity has been tamed by the SECULAR US Constitution while Islam has not.
This is where I have to object, at least in the regards of Christians. Spong, Schori, and a whole slew of others I know are not extremists. They are very liberal and hardly moderate. ...
I agree with Mriana that ‘Christianity’ has diversity and some individuals (and subgroups) are liberal by most objective measures.
I felt I addressed this in post 59. People don’t make Islam or Christianity moderate. People make themselves moderate by not adhering to all of the religious texts to the letter. As I mentioned, Spong for example, may be a moderate but that doesn’t make Christianity moderate. I thought I laid this out in post 59 but it’s toward the bottom so maybe it got missed.
I thought the right place to start my comments was to show agreement with Mriana. We have a philosophical or at least semantic disagreement on whether the religion is better understood (and in some sense defined) by looking at how it is actually practiced today or by its historical roots. The term “Christianity” includes both. Your comment doesn’t seem to recognize that religions ‘evolve’ with the Zeitgeist that Hitchens refers to in his book. Christians don’t tolerate slavery today, but slavery was accepted at the time of Christ. It was kind of a difficult transition. Ditto the transition today to a respect for homosexuals.
So I didn’t agree with your post59 because it didn’t recognize how people actually practice Christianity.
Yes, and if the Christians from the past were to come back today, they would not recognize it. Of course, maybe they have. Maybe they are the religious reich and that’s why they behave as they do- they don’t recognize their own religion anymore.
What exactly is your point about suicide bombings? Do you think that dropping bombs from planes is morally superior?
It’s not where the bombs come from, it’s where they are going that determines the morality or immorality of the situation.
When a bomb dropped from a plane is purposely aimed for an Islamofascist headquarters, hideout, weapons cache, etc. known to be filled with the likes of al-Q’aeda or other similar groups, then it is morally acceptable to drop that bomb. The Muslim radicals, however, tend to purposely target many of their bombs to kill non-combatant civilians, including women and children, which is immoral. Oh and then there is their disgusting new tactic of using mentally retarded women to carry their suicide bombs for them. Just when you think the Muslim radicals can’t go any lower, they find a way.
- I made no mention of dropping any bombs from planes. I never agreed with the war in Iraq either. But we’re there and the US is suppose to be playing a role in making things “better”. If Muslims are still murdering people like this 23 year old (which you didn’t even acknowledge) then it’s a failure. Where’s the change?
I agree, the war in Iraq was a failure, and could never have been otherwise. You can’t impose an ideology by force. Al Qaeda can’t do it, and neither can the American army.
- 40% is very high for people who you alluded to ealier as wanting a separation of church and state. And I suppose that number might jump if they get that super Mosque.
I’m not sure what statement of mine you’re alluding to, but I never would have said that “Muslims” want a separation of church and state. That would be stereotyping. However, I would certainly agree that moderate Muslims do.
- No, not at all - I guess you missed my post on the previous page with the videos of Christians.
I don’t usually watch videos, and in any case, whatever some Muslims (or those who claim to be muslims) might say or do would not convince me that all Muslims would say or do those things.
RW “There may be some Christians fighting for those things, but the vast majority are not.”
- Only the Christians. Christian politicians, voters etc. There seems to be a constant case going on at all times. They never stop trying to attack separation of church and state.
I think you misunderstood me. I meant that the vast majority of Christians are not fighting the First Amendment, not that the vast majority of those fighting are not Christians.
It’s not where the bombs come from, it’s where they are going that determines the morality or immorality of the situation.
Exactly; and if, instead of asking about suicide bombing, the UK survey had asked Muslims what they thought about bombing innocent civilians, I’m sure they would have got a very different result.
People don’t make Islam or Christianity moderate. People make themselves moderate by not adhering to all of the religious texts to the letter. As I mentioned, Spong for example, may be a moderate but that doesn’t make Christianity moderate. I thought I laid this out in post 59 but it’s toward the bottom so maybe it got missed.
I thought the right place to start my comments was to show agreement with Mriana. We have a philosophical or at least semantic disagreement on whether the religion is better understood (and in some sense defined) by looking at how it is actually practiced today or by its historical roots. The term “Christianity” includes both. Your comment doesn’t seem to recognize that religions ‘evolve’ with the Zeitgeist that Hitchens refers to in his book. Christians don’t tolerate slavery today, but slavery was accepted at the time of Christ. It was kind of a difficult transition. Ditto the transition today to a respect for homosexuals.
So I didn’t agree with your post59 because it didn’t recognize how people actually practice Christianity.
I agree that distinctions are important. But I’d go even further. I know many Catholics who don’t go to church or listen to the Pope but I wouldn’t say that they’ve invented a new form of Catholicism merely by slacking off. Practice doesn’t fully define a religion. On the other hand, Protestants did create new denominations of Christianity by deliberately breaking with the Pope.
There’s an important difference between being lax and reforming the religion. The latter usually comes with new major texts or theology. Western Christianity has a considerable number of changes through out its history because of the work of major theologians including Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Luther, Wesley, and many more. Islam and Orthodox Christianity have had far fewer variations. In Islam I’d consider Al Ghazali.
I also like to point out that in all religions the adherents have appended many doctrines to their religion that have nothing to do with religion. Christianity was created by politically powerless individuals with little concern to political theory. Christians can be monarchists, liberals, socialists, fascist, etc. Christianity doesn’t constrain this. Islam, however, is a political philosophy first and foremost. It has had difficulty adapting and sustaining a liberal order except by being lax and ignoring major aspects of the original religion.
I’ve seen no major liberal reformers who have created a scalable and sustainable liberal theology. Everyone is hoping for this great transformation. I’m quite skeptical. It was extremely difficult for a non-political religion like Christianity. I find it hard to believe such a transformation can be sustained and can completely expunge the original martial and imperialistic nature of this inherently political creed.
I believe secularization provides the only alternative for Muslims.
