Religion Of Peace?

A religion of peace, or a legion of terror. Extended video from 9/11 to the Papal controversy. You decide.

Comments

[thejohnson8]

I for one have had it. I want to march in the streets and stop being politically correct. How can I possibly teach my children tolerance of this? We have got to do something. Our government refuses to call it what it is. What are they afraid of? Do these awful excuses for humans have nuclear weapons? Why else would we be so scared to do what must be done. We are the most powefull nation on earth. Why Why Why are we standing for this? We have to take to the streets and show our government and these animals that we will not relent to their terroristic way of getting things done.

[duqlaw98]

We are indeed in engaged in the second Battle of Tours. Unfortunately, it appears that we have no Charles Martels who will save us a second time from the Muslim onslaught.

[World Peace Religion]

Only The Temple of Love - The World Peace Religion makes peace among Christianity Islam Judaism and Everyone else.

[Wimpy Canadian]

I don't call it a religion: A totalitarian ideology. But if we must call it a religion, then it is the "Religion of Hate".

[Jo macDougal]

I wish Bush had never coined the phrase "ROP" after the 911 attacks. The MSM/DNC has been using the President's words as a mace to beat Americans to death with. Bush himslef still uses "ROP" now and then.
The only thing dumber to come out of the President's mouth the last 6 years is "... jobs Americans wont do."

[Ed "What the" Heckman]

This is for the Rosie O'Donnels of the world:

Compare this video to these verses from the Bible:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for (PAY ATTENTION HERE --->) He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. (<---) For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
(Matt 5:43-48 NAS95S)

If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat;
And if he is thirsty, give him water to drink;
For you will heap burning coals on his head,
And the LORD will reward you.
(Prov 25:21-22 NAS95S)

The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
(2Pet 3:9 NAS95S)

The last verse is directed at those who were impatient for Jesus to return and put an end to the mess in this world. This verse is telling those people to not be impatient because God is more anxious to give as many people a chance to come to Him as possible. In other words, He is acting like a person in charge of a fire door keeping it open until the last possible second so as many people as possible can escape the fire.

As this video shows, Islam teaches that the way to get people to go through a fire door is to shoot some of them if they're not moving towards the door "fast enough," even if it would have been fast enough to escape the fire or if they're not aware of the fire yet.

Oh, and one other cool passage that liberals shorten to use against Christians:

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

  “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”
(Matt 7:1-5 NIV)

Muslims claim that they accept Jesus as a prophet. I wonder if they've ever considered how this statement by Jesus applies to their outrage over even the slightest perceived slight, even as they feel free to insult others in the strongest possible terms, kill freely with no regard to the guilt or innocence of their victims, as well as committing torture, lying freely and committing other atrocities, all in the name of their "God."

To me, the final judgement is clear. Islam is evil. It produces nothing but death, destruction and all manner of human misery, all as the result of the commands of their "God."

[McCain]

"Why the Pope Apologized"

http://www.rightlinx.com/?p=218

[Bob]

If anybody owes an apology, it is the entire Muslim world. At this point, Islam is a religion dominated by idiots and evil doers. Unfortunately, much of the Western world's leadership has no Christian foundation and is utterly unable to deal with much of anything if it is not economic in some way. We are in the beginning stages of a 100 year war between Islam and the rest of the world.

[StanP]

It time for people to know that Muhammed was a warrior who beheaded thousands of his "enemies", (genocidal killer) had a string of concubines (serial bigamist and adulterer) and "married" a girl under 14 (child rapist). Benedict was essentially saying that this a religion incompatible with reason and rationality and is at war against western civilization as authored by the Catholic Church through its hospitals, colleges, universities, charities, philosophical thinking and the arts and sciences.

Even in this day and age, it is a capital offense for any Moslem to convert to Christianity. Anyone visiting the Arab lands (Saudi Arabia for example) are required to discard their religious items (like rosaries, crosses, prayer books, and crucifixes) into a trash bin. Yet these dogs inhabit the west and build their mosques like the one at the very center of Rome itself. The late Orianna Fallaci has warned the west that this pestilence has seriously infected our body politic and must be flushed out. I highly recommend that Fallaci's book be read and re-read. It's time to demand for a suspension of all immigrant visas for Moslems and their illiterate clerics, imams, sheiks, and ayatollahs. These Europeans Moslem ghetto cultures has not gained root in the US as well. It's time for all of us to wake up and take to the streets! The time is now or never.

[rwilymz]

Ahem, Stan, let's not hyperbolize. "Child" is what the culture says it is. The Arab culture of that time -- 1,400 years ago -- held that a female who was old enough to menstruate was a woman. A male old enough to ejaculate, a man. Hence bar- and bat-mitzvah for our Jewish friends, held to celebrate a boy's and girl's passage from childhood into adulthood at 13 years of age.

...and so you know, Hebrews are just another Arab tribe.

There was no "child rape".

In cultures where bigamy is allowed, it is not a crime, and so you can drop the moral indignation over that as well.

Stick with their self-serving call to arms while claiming "religion of peace"-hood; stick with their other rampant hypocricies, but drop the faux outrage.

[Muhammed Jadeen Mustaffa]

Why should the pope apologise? He has nothing to apologise for. It is time that muslims grew up and faced the facts. The Koran was written by a demonically inspired, dead false prophet. Allah is a false god, behind which is a vile blood thirsty demonic power. The reaction of the Islamic world to the Pope's quotation proves the argument of a 14th century Christian emperor!

[RPKINMD]

On Judgement Day every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jeasus Christ is Lord. That includes the false prophet of Islam and his evil desciples of the current age.

As Christ said " He who is for you is stronger than he who is in the world"

Bob

[Noelie]

You might have had some points Rwilyz.. certainly on polygamy and bigamy that have been around as long as monogamy.

The the girl was under the 13. So even by such rules as you state, the man was sick and demented.

He was an old geezer with a child. Do you get that point?

[erigorn]

"In cultures where bigamy is allowed, it is not a crime, and so you can drop the moral indignation over that as well.

Stick with their self-serving call to arms while claiming "religion of peace"-hood; stick with their other rampant hypocricies, but drop the faux outrage"
----------------

Why faux? Perhaps the outraged party is not a moral relativist.

In the culture created by Mohammed, slaying the males. amd taking the wives of the slain enemy as concubines and slaves was allowed.

"And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess…” (Q. 4:24 )"

again (Q23:1-7)
"1-The believers must (eventually) win through,-
2- Those who humble themselves in their prayers;
3-Who avoid vain talk;
4- Who are active in deeds of charity;
5- Who abstain from sex,
6- Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame,
7- But those whose desires exceed those limits are transgressors;"

The modern Taliban allowed a three day 'marriage' to the females of the enemy. I call that rape. Consent was obviously as freely given as consent for converting to Islam was given by the FOX News crew captives.

In the culture created by Mohammed, a conquered Christian had to pay a tax.

(Q 9:29)
"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued"

Sometimes Christians who could not pay the tax had to give up some of their children to meet Jizya. Some females became child brides who were not being raped according to Mohammed, others sold into slavery, while some boys were made Janissaries (the door slaves, warrior for the sultan) or castrated to become eunuchs.

from a muslim christian debate site some unique qualities of the culture then or now:
http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/xstnc-5.html

Rights of zimmis in muslim law on a secular site:
http://www.answering-islam.org/NonMuslims/rights.htm

Human sacrifice was a norm in Aztec Mexico. I have no trouble condemning that practice.

[bamaboy]

I have made a point not to post unless I feel it is
worthwhile. In the case of the Pope's remarks and the
reaction from the faction, let me say this.

First, the violent reaction from the "peace loving"
muslims really proves a point; they hate everyone
who isn't a muslim.

Secondly, the muslim reaction of blowing up their
own people with car bombs proves another point; they
hate muslims who don't agree with other muslims.

Lastly, the muslims seem to shape their religion into any form, any time, as a matter of covenient
justification for their acts of terror, violence,
and non-social conformity.

And that my friends is why I no longer give a damn
about any muslim. They just don't fit into a logical
peaceful world.

just my .02

bamaboy

[Phoenix]

Your .02 is well spent. To argue 'religion' at this point is ridiculous. These people don't even respect their own religion, so why should we debate its finer points. It's a total waste of time. We know what we're dealing with, and you're right- it is not logical no matter how you spin it.

[Rick]

"The the girl was under the 13." Yes, she was nine (9) and it has only been in the last 3-4 years that some Islamic countries (Libya) have raised the minimum marriage age from 9 to 13. Still a lot of perverts in the "ROP".

[rwilymz]

"He was an old geezer with a child. Do you get that point?"

Yes, I can add and subtract very well. There is an uncommonly large absolute value derived between "old geezer" and "child".

Do you have a point beyond that?

You are looking at their cultural practices through our cultural eyes and drawing moral outrage. And frankly, who the hell died and made you Oprah? For them to do things that is acceptable to them is acceptible. For them. There. For them to try it here? Now? Not acceptible.

Why does this have to be so difficult. There is no one-size-fits-all answer.

"Why faux? Perhaps the outraged party is not a moral relativist."

Moral relativism is the idiot opposite side of the coin to the inane moral absolutist.

"In the culture created by Mohammed, slaying the males. amd taking the wives of the slain enemy as concubines and slaves was allowed."

You lost it in your first prepositional phrase: "in the culture created by Mohammed...". He didn't create "that culture" which slew enemy males, took their wives as concubines, and made slaves of whomever was left. That has been War As She Was Fought since day-one of human civilization.

To ascribe to Mohammed all the barbaric practices of human history just because certain other practices of the muslims are barbaric is piling on.

Hey. Clinton was a womanizing lecher. But since he's now an easy target, let's also accuse him of pederasty and tax evasion. And why stop there? He cooked meth in FDR's old swimming pool in the basement of the White House, too, while we're at it.

Bush is a mangle-tongued alky. He's also an easy target. What shall we accuse him of being, also?

Mohammed didn't make war brutal. Mohammed didn't make Arabic cultural norms. Mohammed infused their cultural norms with piety and used brutal warfare to spread it.

"I call that rape."

And I call it Mayonaisse. One opinion versus another. Boy, clash of Titans, here.

HERE it would be rape; THERE it is normal.

"In the culture created by Mohammed, a conquered Christian had to pay a tax."

People all over the world pay taxes. I pay taxes. Can I blame Mohammed for that?

What exactly are you so outraged about that you can't say what you mean?

Islam used the means of extra taxes upon defeated peoples to keep them relatively poorer and deprived, yes. The so-called "infidel tax". So islam adopted what was a fairly common attribute among conquering peoples -- and had almost certainly been used on the Arabs themselves under various foreign conquests predating Mohammed... Persian, Greek, Roman, etc. Hey, the Vikings imposed "dane-geld" on Britain. Do you think the Viking Ambassador to the Seljuk Turkomen picked up the idea from them?

"Sometimes Christians who could not pay the tax had to give up some of their children to meet Jizya."

Again, standard practice in most cultures. In Elizabethan England, children were raised by parents until 10 or 12 and then "sold" into servitude. "Apprenticeship" it was called. Go learn a trade, or die. And believe it or not, this was an improvement.

"Human sacrifice was a norm in Aztec Mexico. I have no trouble condemning that practice."

Neither do I, but again, it's what they did, it was cultural norm across human civilization and even among whatever tribe you are descended from, and many cultural norms practiced by this culture here and now may be seen as just as barbaric by others, and some might even be seen as "human sacrifice".

We are one of the few non-muslim countries that still has capital punishment ... human sacrifice? The Aztecs and Maya sacrificed their prisoners. They just sacrificed a relatively greater share of them, and even went out scrounging for prisoners to sacrifice. But we do it too.

If you don't like what islam is and Mohammed did, then don't like it. Nobody's making you like it -- yet. If you want to resist it, then resist it. But for godsake don't infuse it with moral animus, because then you're being the equal-n-opposite pious twit to the Mohammed you're denouncing.

[duqlaw98]

rwilymz:

It appears to me that you are espousing moral relativism. Do you also espouse moral equivalence?

Infanticide is a common cultural practice in many areas of India. Is a universal moral standard that condemns the murder of infant girls inapplicable? Is an individual who finds such practice morally reprehensible engaging in "faux" outrage or "being the equal-n-opposite pious twit" to those who murder newborn babies because they are not the right gender?

And so you know, Hebrews are not an Arab tribe. They are a Semitic "tribe". According to the Koran, Arabs descended from Ishmael, the son of Abraham (a Hebrew) and his concubine, Hagar (an Egyptian). As such, Hebrews cannot be Arabs.

[Phoenix]

"Is there a universal moral standard...?"

No. Wrangling about moral relativism and moral equivalency is a waste of intellect. It is applicable in debate only in the culture in which the morals are equivalent.

[rwilymz]

"It appears to me that you are espousing moral relativism."

That's what I'd expect from someone who sees only in black and white. If it's not black, it must be white.

If it's not down, it must be up.

If it's not an absolute, it must be relative.

"Infanticide is a common cultural practice in many areas of India."

You'd be better off having said "China".

"Is a universal moral standard that condemns the murder of infant girls inapplicable?"

But there IS NO "universal" moral standard that condemns it, because it is a cultural practice in India. And China.

What you mean to say is that it is a "universal" moral standard among those who think like you do.

...which would include me, by the way. But not for "moral" reasons. Or, rather, reasons that are commonly thought of as being "morally" founded.

"Moral relativism" is the belief that "well, they do it there, so therefore it's okay here."

"Moral absolutism" is the belief that there exists some definitive code of moral/not-moral -- akin to a St Peter's Book of the Damned -- which defines, once and forever, "morality". I.e., if it's *not* okay here, then it's not okay ANYwhere. And that, frankly, is what pan-islamism is doing.

You don't need to be a moral relativist to comprehend that other societies have values that are valuable to those others, and you don't need to be a moral absolutist to comprehend that those values won't play well here.

"Is an individual who finds such practice morally reprehensible engaging in "faux" outrage or "being the equal-n-opposite pious twit""

One of them certainly. Or both. That's always possible as well.

"Hebrews are not an Arab tribe. They are a Semitic "tribe". "

And Arabs are semites.

But since bronze-age geneology is so precise and all, ...

Or, we can go with anthropological evidence, which includes linguistics and genetics, and understand that they come from the same basic root stock.

[duqlaw98]

rwilymz:

If you are going to criticize others, please be accurate.

Moral relativism is NOT "if it's ok there, it's ok here." Moral relativism espouses the belief that there is no universal moral code, but only subjective moral codes, originating with either societal or individual standards. Moral equivalence holds that one set of moral or ethical standards is equal to all others. You apparently are confusing the two.

As you correctly pointed out, moral absolutism holds that there is a universal standard by which to judge certain conduct, regardless of the context. The origin of these standards can be found in various sources, such as natural law and yes, religion. Modern human rights theory is a form of moral absolutism. One need not be a religious person to espouse this view and judge such conduct as slavery, infanticide, or child abuse as inherently wrong.

As to Arabs being Semites, you are correct. But that was not the original comment you made. You stated that Hebrews were an Arab tribe, in effect descending from Arabs. This is incorrect. While Arabs and Hebrews descended from the same ancestors, they developed into distinct socio-cultural and religious groups.

[rwilymz]

"If you are going to criticize others, please be accurate."

Uh huh. We'll see.

"Moral relativism is NOT "if it's ok there, it's ok here." "

It's not?Oh, right. Because you're attempting pedantry to disengage. Okay.

"Moral relativism espouses the belief that there is no universal moral code, but only subjective moral codes, originating with either societal or individual standards."

Right. Now let's follow this through, shall we? Some tribe of Africans create a social code which declares infibulation to be a good thing. It's fine for them. The Relativist in Sheboygan would look at that and say ... what?

He'd say: There is no universal moral law, so what we commonly believe here is irrelevant, therefore if a tribesman from Africa comes here and wants to infibulate his daughters and his American wife and all the post-pubertal females in Sheboygan, that's his business.

I.e., if it's okay there, it's okay here.

"You apparently are confusing the two."

You apparently are attempting to tell me what I mean when you aren't sure yourself.

"you are correct. But that was not the original comment you made"

More pedantry?

"You stated that Hebrews were an Arab tribe, in effect descending from Arabs"

Ah. *Presumptive* pedantry. Hebrews were and are an Arab tribe. How you infer the relationship is your own business, and you'd do well to not include me in it.

"While Arabs and Hebrews descended from the same ancestors..."

i.e., ... come on, work with me here. Semantic pointillism isn't going to get you far.

...yes, yes, I'm fully aware that pointillism is a method of acheiving impressionistic art from points of color, and not a literary device. But some people are not so intent as you on wrapping themselves around the axle of a convenient impertinence so that they miss the point completely.

"If you are going to criticize others, please be accurate."

If you're going to criticize me, please be pertinent.

So far you've had a fit over a dozen-word paraphrase that fairly accurately reduces a textbook of philosophy for being inaccurate. Since this isn't an online doctoral thesis generator, exactly how precise are you actually expecting anything to be? The paraphrase of the long-winded philosophical rationalization is accurate. There is no need to reinvent the lexicographic wheel each time somebody wishes to use a term.

You've also imposed your bias on my statements and accused me of your bias thereupon. I made no claim about who descended from whom; you did... and then told me I did.

I hope the 'law' in your name does not indicate you use these methods to convince a jury of anything.

...but then, folks who can reason their way out of a 6th-grade logic puzzle aren't often held for juries, are they?

[duqlaw98]

rwilymz:

I have found that when someone cannot support his/her argument or is incapable of conceding a point, he/she often resorts to ad hominem attacks. Excuse me while I express from "faux outrage" in response to your put downs.

[Balakrishnan]

"Infanticide is a common cultural practice in many areas of India." rwilymz says. I am an Indian - I travelled and stayed all over India and I did not see any female infanticide as "common practice" - there is no such cultural practice at all in India. Human sacrifice for dieties occur two or three in a decade as elsewhere.

That statement came from a man who hate Hindus and India and the world as a whole except his own tribe.