The front page of your national newspaper features a galling attack on Christians in your own country, and you're still on about Muslims in countries twelve time zones away?

Don't pretend to care about Christians if you won't stand up to them when they come under attack in your own country (and in the comments section of your blog, I might add).

Intimidation and threats from Muslims is set to become mainstream. Good. Westerners who enjoy not praying to Allah need to realize that these backwards fanatics want us dead or subjugated under their cult.

what madman would try to spread the christian word IN THE GAZA STRIP? besides, christians spend most of their time converting other christians.

Come into my parlour said the spider to the fly........

Many in the West think that the lands in and/or around Israel belonged to Muslims. In fact, there used to be a large percentage of Christians. The Muslims are slowly but surely driving the Christians out.

An example is Bethlehem in Israel. Another example is the country of Lebanon.

The West appears to be very content with de facto Muslim aggression in these territories.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2564
And Hotair.com also has a link to the story.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali bluntly states in an interview that we are at war with Islam, it needs to be confronted and destroyed.

Islam guts the essence of Christianity by denying the divinity of Christ and his death on the cross. It then says "let's make peace". There is no peace to make. Islam is a johnny-come-lately revisionist religion. If Christianity is true in its essential claims, Islam is false.

A religion should not be respected either because it is ancient or held by a wide swath of the world's population. It should be respected because it is a) true, and, b) beneficial in its effects when implemented according to its founder's precepts.

"Ayaan Hirsi Ali bluntly states in an interview that we are at war with Islam"

Andrew bluntly states that Ali is a bald feminist atheist who once planned to sneak into Canada with bogus papers to make a bogus refugee claim. Try again.

I agree with you 100% Richard.

So why is it that Christians don't come out and name Islam for the fraud it is? Why is it that when Muslims say they have Jesus too Christians don't say "whoa whoa whoa, that guy your book has running around in Kashmir saying he's not the son of god is a fake?"

Stupid liberals at work ....

In Toronto the Good .... Hallal food in cafeteria ....
U of T attempts to appease/accommodate the Muslim Student Association ... falls flat.... NOT GOOD ENOUGH for the precious dears who can't eat their hallal in peace with all that other evil stuff around!
Who is surprised? Leftards of the university faculty and staff....

It is stories like this one that assures me that George W Bush will go down in history as a great president. He was not shy about going out and killing these freaks of nature.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a great woman and a heroine. She too will find a place in the history books.

Andrew, you limp wristed jerk, get back under your bed.

"So why is it that Christians don't come out and name Islam for the fraud it is?"

Perhaps they are too busy fending off attacks from - heh - "New York intellectuals":

Slash-and-burn columnist Ann Coulter shocked a cable TV talk-show audience Monday when she declared that Jews need to be "perfected" by becoming Christians, and that America would be better off if everyone were Christian.

Coulter made the remarkable statements during an often heated appearance to promote her new book on advertising guru Donny Deutsch's CNBC show "The Big Idea."

In response to a question from Deutsch asking Coulter if "it would be better if we were all Christian," the controversial columnist responded: "Yes."

"We should all be Christian?" Deutsch repeated.

"Yes," Coulter responded, asking Deutsch, who is Jewish, if he would like to "come to church with me."

Deutsch, pressing Coulter further, asked, "We should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians?" She responded: "Yeah."

Coulter deflected Deutsch's assertion that her comments were anti-Semitic, matter-of-factly telling the show's obviously upset host, "That is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews."

Now, read the actual transcript:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301216,00.html

So Andrew .... just what do you consider to be OUR national newspaper?
Would that be the Globe & Mail???

Who would see the front page of this fishwrap .... and where?

Who would be surprised by anything they would print?

Apparently you would ... so do share your insights!

I've always wondered.... Shiite or Sunni??

Seems as though, everyone who believes in such mystical claims (christian, muslim, jew.. etc. etc.) will fight no matter what faith.

Last time I checked, protestants don't like catholics either. (vise versa)

I like to chant, 'fight' in the background. Only way to get rid of bogus beliefs is to let them kill each other for bogus reasons.

otherwise people get offended.. haha.

"The letter also spells out the similarities between passages of the Bible and the Koran."

And by that line of thinking, Hong Kong counterfeiters could demand that the likes of Louis Vuitton and Dolce & Gabbana engage in a "constructive dialogue" with them, given the similarities between their products.

The Karan is no better/worse than the bible.

Apples and Oranges.

They both suggest killing anyone who doesn't follow their beliefs. Great source for morality.

"The Karan (sic) is no better/worse than the bible"

Real swell bunch here at SDA. You should all be proud of yourselves for so courageously defending western civilization from idiots like the one above.

Mao killed 70 million - in peace time. Precisely how many more must die under atheism before we can agree that it is the greatest threat to humanity that has ever existed?

Who said I was athiest?

I merely have read the bible. Sorry.

Sorry, bzloki, but I don't recall my parish priest ever telling us to kill our non-RC neighbours in the name of God. If he had, he'd have been laughed at. I, for one, don't take the bible as the literal "Word of God" although the Ten Commandments are a good guide by which to live one's life. Don't screw your neighbour's wife, don't steal, don't dis your parents, don't overeat, etc. - makes for a peaceful society.

I think that you have framed this letter in a bit of a negative light - National Newswatch has a link to an article with less colour commentary. I think that this is a great opportunity for Muslim Leaders and Chrstians to point out to ordainary muslims that we are very much alike in our beliefs, preventing them from listening to the radical set. With the leaders in ecumenical agreement, it will be easier for the masses to see things the way they could be, preventing acts similar to the aformentioned abduction and torture.

bzloky. you could not have read the bible and say what you said.

@Andrew, 3:45 PM - "Coulter made the remarkable statements..."

What's your point? You disagree? Fine, your loss. You think it "bad" to hold that view? You want a law outlawing opinion?

She's not saying 'convert or die!'. She is expressing a preference.

Why people are so shocked is...shocking.

(Actually, it is revealing)

"@Andrew, 3:45 PM - "Coulter made the remarkable statements..."

Those aren't my words, tenny, I was merely quoting the article, which would have been obvious to you had you been of clearer mind. I recommend at least 15 minutes of chi'ha in the muu la'ak position daily for optimal brain thinking.

bzolki is totally correct...the Bible and the Koran are full of man made fairy tales, cave man rules and calls for violence against non-believers....written by men to control other men...and oh by the way ....unprovable. Christianity, although slightly more palitable to western values,can not and should not assume the moral high ground.

Exodus 22:20
He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed

It says things like this more than once. It also says good things, but lets not cherry pick anymore. K?

Chi'ha and muu la'ak. Yup, damn fine positions to be in. I'll remember that when I next find myself in a position that requires optimal brain thinking. Sounds to me like young Andrew could use a little ma'tu' ri'ty.

If you 'knew' The One Who said that bzloki you would be humbled, not critical.

Salvation Army Captain Brekke was killed in Pakistan last week. We will never know if it was terrorist related. No one is saying.

See? I told you people this would happen.

I've been calling the Islamophobes here at SDA retards and traitors of western civilization for a year know because I correctly calculated that the war on Islam would certainly morph into a war on Christianity. And that is precisely what has happened.

I, and I alone, totally called it.

I don't believe the letter from the Muslim scholars is as sinister as has been implied, nor can it be considered a threat. Rather, it is calling for reconciliation between the faiths. Implying that the survival of the world is at stake may not be so far-fetched, given the presence of nuclear weapons in Pakistan and possibly (soon) Iran.

As for the savage murder in Gaza, the terrorist group Hamas is in charge there, and can hardly be considered to represent mainstream Islam.

I don't think the priests and bishops of the interfaith crowd [eg the Archbishop of Canterbury] realize what Muslims mean when they things like:

"As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them - so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes"

It sounds reasonable, or at least it would sound reasonable if a Christian or Buddhist said it. But what a Muslim means by 'drive them out of their homes' is a very different thing. It can include having a growing non-Muslim population like in Nigeria, or it could mean buying land from a Muslim like in Israel.

Basically everything we do short of quietly decomposing can be considered offensive or aggressive by one Muslim sect or another.

There is no space for dialogue. I hope that no one caves in and meets with these Muslim 'Scholars'.

More people have died in the name of religion(any religion)than natural causes.Maybe we should just declare religion illegal?

good thought justthinkin.... but how would our masters keep us unwashed heathens in line?....we might even start thinking for ourselves!...that would never do!

Justthinkin,

You're not that bright and can't add. That was an absurd statement.

I'm no fan of religious nutters of any stripe but communism alone killed more than all religious persecution in the last 500 years if not in total.

As for natural causes, think of the billions of people who have come and gone.

Even as rhetorical excess it isn't very bright.

The pope has already asked for dialogue on this.

The only thing stop this from going further is the problem of Apostasy in Muslim countries.
The pope doesn't want further discussion until Muslims will accept Christians and Christian conversion in Muslim countries.

Christians often do Missionary work in places where they are not allowed. This is a Christian tradition stemming from St. Peter and Paul.

Christians understand the need for missionary work and are proud of the risks that missionaries take. Atheists and Agnostics will never understand it, because Muslim missionaries in Canada are not fearing for their life.

"Posted by: bluetech at October 11, 2007 4:44 PM"

- That's nice.

But the same could be said about Allah.

I would rather think about things critically, than accept things because they are the 'norm'.

No matter how humble I could feel afterwards.

Religion is the opium for the masses!

"I, and I alone, totally called it."

Seriously, Andrew, you sound like a bright man, but most of the time you seem on the edge of a complete breakdown.

Awesome, andrew, just awesome. You, and you alone, "totally called it'. Awesome.

And you haven't even mentioned Wikipedia yet.

I have just one problem, andrew - apart from your hubris. It's something called 'facts' and 'reason'.

You see, Andrew, I'm an atheist. Yes, yes. And I have a problem, just a slight problem, with your logic that makes a correlation into a causation.

Because Mao was an atheist, does not - factually or logically, - mean that atheism was the 'root cause' of communism's murdering millions.

I'm sure you know that people of every religious belief have, in their time, murdered thousands and thousands.

No- it is utterly and totally irrelevant to do a 'body count' of these murders, and then, list 'which religion killed the most/least people' and try to set up some ethical scale. Irrelevant.

The problem, andrew, is that correlation doesn't equal causality. And religion may have been a cultural belief justifying various murders, but, the root causes are, on that scale, always non-cultural and have to do with economic issues.

sceptic - your parish priest may not, now, be advocating war or murder, but, in other times, ie, several hundred years ago, I'd bet he was.

Christianity is quietly killing thousands of people daily.....the Vatigan's middle ages stand against the use of condoms is wiping out countless Africans, while the religous GW Bush hides behind his church refusing to help fund stem cell research...a truly moral and progressive lot they are (as they continue down their one way street back to the time when you were stoned to death for saying the world was not the center of the universe!)

I would rather think about things critically, than accept things because they are the 'norm'.

Oh the irony. You liberal idiots [redundancy] are too much; you haven’s had a critical thought in your short miserable life.

Lenin had it so right when he coined the term Useful Idiot and you, bzloki, wear the title proudly.

Obviously you have no idea why Marx coined the term, “religion is the opium of the masses.” Pay attention stupid and I’ll explain it to you………

………….As long as the people had a higher authority than man- -God- -they would not view the communist govt as the Supreme entity. The goal was then to destroy God and make the govt the highest authority; Marx wanted communist government to be the opium of the masses, religion stood in his way.

Millennia ago Muslims did not allow Jews to ride camels because it would put the Jews head above a Muslims and that’s not allowed by the “religion of peace” practitioners. The orthodox Jews of the time would be seen praying in a swaying/bouncing motion [like you would while riding a camel] which was a way of mocking the Muslims.

bzloki, I guess you never made it to the New Testament. (I guess you also never figured out that this oversight might weaken your paltry argument.)

You and valster are, I'm sorry to say, drive-by morons, who add nothing of significance to the debate. E.g., valster writes, "Christianity, although slightly more palitable [sic: that should be 'palatable'] to western values,can not [sic: that should be both a space and 'cannot'] and should [on valsters's authority? What's that?] not assume the moral high ground."

Gag. If valster had any sense of propriety, he'd be ashamed to spout such nonsense. However, being a bona fide member of the "ME-ME" generation, this person doesn't even know he's a fool. (The PC dispensation adjures us to tell the emperor he's beautifully and impeccably clothed. In his narrow-minded, delusional, parallel to real life universe, valster's obviously a sucker for this ruse.)

valster, the very FOUNDATION of the West IS Judeo-Christianity: there is no West without these two religions and the moral dispensation of the Ten Commandments. Societies that have practised this code have thrived. (No wonder Muslim societies, which have neither the compunction nor desire to follow the Ten Commandments, are such dismal failures.)

Now, even the West is turning its back on the Judeo-Christian moral code and, having spent nearly all of the moral capital of our Judeo-Christian birthright, just look where that's taking us. See Reginald Bibby's new study, and ask any teacher, priest, or police officer. Better yet, bzloki and valster, why not have a good (moral: no cheating!) look at yourselves in the mirror? (Going a few moves ahead in my mind, I realize that this suggestion is bound to fail: one needs self-knowledge and humility in order to assess one’s shortcomings. From the postings of these two, I see no evidence of either trait. Too bad.)

So, here we go again.

"Andrew bluntly states that Ali is a bald feminist atheist who once planned to sneak into Canada with bogus papers to make a bogus refugee claim. Try again."

Really? I say she's an amazingly courageous apostate, who's life is on the line for speaking the truth.

And your courageous deeds are?

-------------------------

Abrogation, from the Quran:

"Rejected were the messengers before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those messengers," (6:34).

"The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfillment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all, (6:115).

None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?" (2:106).

---------------

Or, how about Islam claiming to be the 'original' religion, starting with Adam and including all the Jewish prophets?

"And I [Muhammad] am commanded to be the first of those who bow to Allah in Islam," (39:12).

--------------------

How about just plain stupidity. Not to mention confusion:

"Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood," (96:2).
"We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape, (15:26).

"The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was," (3:59).

"But does not man call to mind that We created him before out of nothing?" (19:67, Yusuf Ali). Also, 52:35).

"He has created man from a sperm-drop; and behold this same (man) becomes an open disputer! (16:4).

So, which is it? I guess all four.

----------------------

Now that we've established abrogation, how about the famous, "There's no compulsion in religion" crap:

"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things," (2:256).

"And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith," (9:3).

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful," (9:5).

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," (9:29).

----------------

Oh, looky here. The Quran says the Bible is the truth and not corrupted:

"And dispute ye not with the People of the Book [Jews and Christians and the Bible], except in the best way, unless it be with those of them who do wrong but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you," (29:46)

--------------------

The master of lies says lying is okey dokey. Oh, and pre-meditated murder too:

"Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him [Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf]?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). "The Prophet said, "You may say it," (Hadith Vol. 5, Book 59, #369).

----------------------

As I and others have correctly pointed out before, Islam is based on foundational violence and all manor of deviance. It is commanded and rewarded by Allah in the Quran. It is commanded for Muslims to emulate Mo, the "Perfect Man."

So, therefore, sure there can be nice Muslims who don't follow the Quran and Mo's life to a T. But the cult is chronic. The virus can skip a generation and show up in the pups.

----------------

bzloki,

Whoever you are, you should stick to the shallow end always found on leftard blogs. You don't belong in grownup debates. Save yourself the embarrasment.

I'm no fan of religious nutters of any stripe but communism alone killed more than all religious persecution in the last 500 years if not in total.

Warwick, I think this is a case of friendly fire; I know I’ve been guilty of it. You’re both right, communism is the political ideology and the leaders of those regimes, in this case China, identified as atheists.

ET
You are using causality one way.

Atheists like Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot murdered many millions.
Stalin actually murdered more people the Hitler, with Pol Pot and Mao not far behind.

Most Muslim Christian wars had more to do with economics then religion. With the biggest wars between the Ottoman Turks and Christian Europe.
By the way the Byzantine Empire was very liberal in allowing Muslims to practice their faith. The Ottomans converted people by the sword.

Also Christian nations like France and England didn't do mass conversions of their subjects in Persia or in Asia, but the Muslim nations sure did.

In the end Jews suffered the most per capita tby both religious and Atheist protagonists and continue to do so.

lookout...it is you who looks in the mirror and sees a neanderthal me-me sucker/follower. If you weren't so belligerant people would pity your ignorance

Belisarius, another poster, some grey matter short of a brain, writes, "I don't believe the letter from the Muslim scholars is as sinister as has been implied, nor can it be considered a threat. Rather, it is calling for reconciliation between the faiths."

Just like the Wolf asking Little Red Riding Hood to meet him in the woods to "reconcile".

Some people don't have the eyes to see or the ears to hear. In this instance, these fifth columnist, useful idiots will be among the first ones to be steamrollered by "that nice group of Muslims who just wanted to be our friends".

(Where have these "friends" been in the last six years?)

valster - Bush isn't against stem cell research; he has funded it with millions; he's against aborting fetuses to use for stem cell research. A lot of stem cell research is being done using without destruction of an embryo.

Apollyon - I think the swaying of Jews when praying (and of other religions) as a continual act of mocking the Muslims is what is called an 'urban myth', ie, it's simply false. Jews were also forbidden to ride on horses, and you don't sway on a horse.

irwin daisy- I've disagreed with you before and will continue to do so; your quite violent hatred of anything Islamic has moved you out of any reasoned debate and discussion. I maintain that as a creation of man, it and any religion, can be reformed.

One group of Muslisms says one thing. A different group of (presumed) Muslims does something else.

Golly. In related news, some Christians exhort others to love their neighbours, while other Christians murder their neighbours.

"You can't accuse them of inconsistency." That's right. You can't. Not without committing an absurd fallacy.

irwin:

You can be all self-rightous... Go ahead, I won't lose sleep over it.

I don't pretend to be the smartest guy. I also don't feel any embarrasment about reading what people have to say; and commenting on it.

So what? I am young, and am more willing to learn than YOU.

I can tell right now, that my morals are better than yours, but thats my opinion.

I don't need a book to tell me how to live, if you do.. that's fine. If you want to fight over whose book is better, thats fine with me too.

lookout:

I never stopped before I hit the NT. There is a lot of garbage in there too, but I don't have 3 days to discuss these FOOLISH books.

I'm glad you are aware that the New Testament is a bit more humane, but again.. cherry pickin!

I merely wanted to point out how dam hypocritical it was to slander the Karan, yet follow the bible. Thank you for helping!!

ET.... I think you're wrong about the stem cell thing...from what I've read anyway. But prove me wrong. Stem cell research can be the breakthrough in saving millions of lives.

lookout - Where have these "friends" been in the last six years?

Are you aware that most of the soldiers and police doing the fighting and dying in the Afghan National Army/Police are Muslims? Or that the bulk of the casualties sustained in the war against al-Qaeda in Iraq have been sustained by Shiite and Sunni Muslims fighting for their new government?

In Pakistan, more than 4000 Muslim soldiers have now been killed fighting the Taliban/al-Qaeda. And lets not forget the casualties sustained by Muslim soldiers in Algeria fighting the Islamic insurgency there.

I won't be surprised if the Rome and the Church of England do indeed enter into such talks, even with successfully results. In fact, it would seem that Rome has agreed with their main premise already:

'The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."' - Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 841

However, no mater what diplomatic efforts ensue, there is still an unbridgeable gap between the 2 faiths. At its core, Islam is just another works-base religion; if your good deeds outweigh your bad you might make it to heaven. Christianity is unique of all religions in that it teaches that our good works can't get us to Heaven, only Jesus' work can; so we must put our faith in Christ alone to get us there.

Those who truly grasp this essential difference (though this isn't the only difference) will never be able to acknowledge any "common essentials" between Islam and Christianity.

valster, your F-grade slur is sophomor[on]ic. Yes, I did make a put down in your direction, but I also provided plenty of evidence for my assessment. How about making an effort to PROVE me wrong by actually addressing the points I made?

bzloki,

Originally, I wasn't going to post this, but since you recently commented that you are "willing to learn" I thought it couldn't hurt.

The text you quoted (Exodus 22:20) is accurate, but you are making a huge interpretive mistake if you are implying that this passage is to be taken as a command for believers today. This command was active for a specific people (the theocratic nation of Israel) at a specific time (the Old Covenant period). As we do not meet these conditions the command is not for us.

If you want more info, the follow article may be helpful (the topic is different, but the principle is the same): http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5624

It says, in part: "This doesn't justify throwing out the entire Old Testament. Rather, it informs our hermeneutic so that when we look at the Scripture we have to ask if our interpretation needs to take this disjunction [Old/New Covenant Period] into consideration."

I think these guys have something to say about Canadians and religion
http://handsacrossoceanministry.wordpress.com/2007/10/11/god-hates-canucks-and-with-good-reason/#comment-1468

ET,

"your quite violent hatred of anything Islamic has moved you out of any reasoned debate and discussion."

Really? That's quite a pompous statement to make don't you think?

If you aren't equipped to counter my argument, as you've proven over and over, then you're certainly not equipped to reposition my POV, or exclude me from debate.

Who, may I ask, appointed you moderator?

I've consistently pointed out that violence is foundational to Islam and that Muslims are the first victims. This is a fact, it is not hate (unless you're a muslim, where any criticism is construed as hate). However, I do hate the violence that Muslims perpetually do towards others as commanded and rewarded by allah in the Quran and taught by mo's life example.

Therefore, it cannot be reformed without editing out the calls for perpetual violence in the Quran and removing mohammad as the perfect example to follow, altogether.

Now, once again, prove me wrong. And saying "I've disagreed with you before and will continue to do so" is not an argument.

I stand... half corrected? haha.

To me, that's more confusing that it needs to be. I am aware that most christians do not follow the OT. Though, It still is considered the bible.

I'm not willing to die over it, thats forsure.

Irwin Daisy,

I've been reading some of Robert Spencer's stuff and have to say I've been pleasantly surprised. His position on the state of Islam and Jihadism isn't nearly so far from that of most Muslim reformers as I'd thought. From jihadwatch.org:

I encourage any Muslim individual or group who is willing to work publicly for the reform of the Islamic doctrines, theological tenets and laws that Islamic jihadists use to justify violence. But this must be done honestly and thoroughly, confronting the texts of the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira that are used to justify violence against unbelievers, and decisively rejecting Qur'anic literalism.

Belisarius, I'm talking those who wrote the letter, not Muslims working with our allies in the ME. I think the context made this quite clear.

I'm in full support of our military helping the Muslims in the ME to help themselves overturn the Muslim thugs who threaten them.

"To me, that's more confusing that it needs to be. I am aware that most christians do not follow the OT. Though, It still is considered the bible."

Gee, it looks like we've found something you've failed to think "critically" about. Please consider a real and in-depth examination of Christianity instead of simply "accepting things because they are the 'norm'" (and yes, in our society parroting that Christianity is false is the norm - been there, done that).

As you have ably shown here, most of those who are opposed to Christianity are opposing something they know nothing about.

Right, irwin daisy - my point is that your conclusions have rendered any debate about Islam impossible.

Don't try to divert the issue - to asking me about 'who are you as moderator'. The issue is that your conclusion about Islam is that it is basically violent, that it is unreformable, that all Muslim immigration should be stopped. You've made these points before. Many times.

So, why are you yet again, posting them on a blog, a site which is by nature a domain of debate, when your conclusions are not open to debate?

You reject any concept that, as a man-made entity, Islam is by that nature, reformable. That would include re-interpretation of the calls for violence and so on. I've posted names of journals where such debate, by Muslims scholars, is going on. You aren't interested in their discussions. eg, American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, a very good journal. Their 2005 Vol 22 issue was on Debating Moderate Islam.

But - To you, it isn't reformable. End of debate!!

valster -Bush approved 100 million federal funding for embryonic stem cell research in 2001-06 and 250 million for research on adult and animal stem cells. Again, the restriction is only on a situation where you kill the human embryo to get the stem cells.
In 2006, Bush vetoed the HR 810 bill, that was seeking to overturn Clinton's act that made it illegal for federal funds to be used in stem cell research where you had to kill the embryo.

You can google http..and then, stemcells dot nih dot gov
You'll come up with the US National Institutes of Health for Stem Cell Research. Then check out Read the Eligibility Criteria (for funding). You'll find that you are completely and totally wrong.

bzloki writes, "I'm not willing to die over it [biblical injunctions], thats forsure."

Well willing or not, bzloki, you may well die over it. Not because Christians are out to get you but because Muslim fanatics disapprove--with some justification (our slack morals)--of the fact that the Western world is non-Muslim and they believe they have the duty to vanquish us.

So, even if you're not Christian, you're part of the dispensation the Muslim fanatics feel compelled to subdue. Too bad, eh? (But don't blame the Christians.)

"Christianity is quietly killing thousands of people daily.....the Vatigan's middle ages stand against the use of condoms is wiping out countless Africans,..." by valster

Right, and I guess it has nothing to do with these Africans having sex with multiple partners, which is okay, right? If the Vatigan is speaking to Christians within their fold, it should be unlikely these Christians are having multiple sexual partners, and I would think the non-Christians could give a rat's ass what the Vatican thinks. I know many Catholics, and they all have a mind of their own, and if they want to use condoms, they will, with or without the Vatican's blessing.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L01594991.htm

"The Vatican on Monday issued a strong defence of its controversial position against condoms, saying fidelity, chastity and abstinence were the best ways to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS in a "pan-sexualist society."

Lookout - actually, your context wasn't clear. When you referred to useful idiots will be among the first ones to be steamrollered by "that nice group of Muslims who just wanted to be our friends".. It's unlikely that a handful of scholars would steamroll anything, so it came across as a generic reference to all Muslims.

It's no more appropriate to fail to differentiate between these religious scholars and Hamas thugs than it is to fail to differentiate between Iraqi Muslim soldiers and al-Qaeda terrorists.

It's impossible think critically 100% of the time.

Although, we should all do our best to do so.

I suggested I would rather think critically than be humble, if you want to get specific.

If it makes you feel better, I am in the process of examining all religions, and will continue too untill I die.

You also suggest I oppose christianity. Which is wrong, I think anyone has the right to practice it if they choose. I think of religions as private clubs... that get a break from TAXES.

Sure, I opppose the belief in an omnipotent being that controls my destiney. That's against my religion!

I won't kill over it though, or even get mad if you disagree.

sorry for my speling arrrrors.

i suck.

Belisarius,

I agree with Robert Spencer. We might agree yet.

ET,

"Right, irwin daisy - my point is that your conclusions have rendered any debate about Islam impossible."

Well, then say uncle.

"Don't try to divert the issue - to asking me about 'who are you as moderator'."

As bright as you may be, you unfortunately display a pompous attitude at times. Further, your accusation is absurd.

"The issue is that your conclusion about Islam is that it is basically violent, that it is unreformable, that all Muslim immigration should be stopped. You've made these points before. Many times."

Actually, no. I have said that it is only reformable if the commands and rewards for perpetual violence are edited out of the Quran and Mohammad, as the one to emulate, is permanently excluded. Otherwise, the violence problem is chronic.

Until then, if ever, yes Muslim immigration must be stopped. It is without benefit to the host culture. On the contrary, it is suicidal.

"So, why are you yet again, posting them on a blog, a site which is by nature a domain of debate, when your conclusions are not open to debate?"

My conclusions are fact. Not speculation, or in your case, opinion. If a counter argument is made based on fact, then I suppose we have a debate.

"You reject any concept that, as a man-made entity, Islam is by that nature, reformable."

From what I understand, Muslims don't believe their religion is "man-made", so therefore your opinion is moot.

ET...seems rather obscene that a three-day-old human embryo (a collection of 150 cells called a blastocyst- the brain of a fly has more than 100000 cells)needs to be saved at the cost of the potential of curing millions of people of any disease or injury.....Saving the thousands of animals sacrificed in the name of scientific research would be a more noble venture

ET...seems rather obscene that a three-day-old human embryo (a collection of 150 cells called a blastocyst- the brain of a fly has more than 100000 cells)needs to be saved at the cost of the potential of curing millions of people of any disease or injury.....Saving the thousands of animals sacrificed in the name of scientific research would be a more noble venture

Posted by: valster

If you're trying to convince everyone you're an idiot you can stop now.

bzloki, you sound like a nice person. But you're very glib.

Of course, you won't get mad if people disagree with your religious position: you've invested nothing in it: easy come, easy go. Poor you.

Re the tax bit. Imagine society without churches (your imagination is probably hindered in this regard by lack of knowledge or experience): the abundance of community activities and services is HUGE, and often provided "for free" because of the free will offerings of the congregants of church COMMUNITIES.

People of all ages, backgrounds, and abilities, and from all walks of life join together: they give and receive all kinds of benefits, material, artistic, emotional, spiritual, etc. The state is unable to provide this kind of experience or support, and, ALL of society, either directly or as a spin off, benefits from the multitude of goods provided by faith communities (at a fraction of the cost of government-run programs). E.g., I know of one young man from a single parent family, who received a classical music education--for free--and male mentoring at his church. He's now a graduate of a major Ivy League university and making his living as a singer in Europe. This is just one of millions of examples of largesse and grace provided by churches.

You have a right to your opinions, bzloki, but they're often so embryonic that I think humility--a trait you've said you're averse to--might be a quality you should consider cultivating.

Not all religions are equal. Neither are opinions.

appollyon...At least I'm open minded....as opposed to you....but I'm enjoying the Christian love that you're sharing....want to date?

appollyon...At least I'm open minded....

You have such an open mind your brain has fallen out. You're a fool but the fool is always last to know.

You're so tolerant of free speech that you and your demented retrograde leftist ilk throw pies in the faces of Conservative speakers at college campuses. The tolerant little wannabe fascists.

valster,

What moral imperative gives you the ability to make that distinction?

Furthermore, Bush is a universalist, by his own admission.

appolyon...keep up the good work...you're converting us by the millions!...Christian you say ?.....sorry you would NOT be welcome in the Christian church I attend...but hey you have a good day eh?

Atheism is a death cult. Charles Darwin would take one look at the Musilm birth rate and a look at the atheist birth rate and conclude, correctly, that Muslims are superior to atheists, and that atheists and their societies perish and are QUANTIFIABLY AND MEASURABLY unsustainable because they are inferior.

Inferior. Get that? Inferior.

You atheists are always running your mouths off about science: HOW DO YOU LIKE THAT SCIENCE??????? HOW DO YOU LIKE BEING QUANTIFIABLY INFERIOR YOU LOW SPERM COUNT SHE-MALES??????????????

valster, I'm a Jew.

The only "church" that you attend is in your basement with your propeller beanie and diaper wearing friends taking shots of cough medicine trying to get a buzz.

Andrew,

Admit yourself while there's still time.

appolyon...I love you too

you're converting us by the millions!

Um, stupid, I'm not here to convert anyone, I'm here to voice my opinion like everyone else. It bothers you that Conservatives have a voice, doesn't it you little fascist?

I am all for peace with the muslims. But first,they have to go a year without blowing the shit out of innocent people of any religion before thier proposal should even be given a second thought.They cannot get along with different sects of muslims,does anyone really think that da joos or any other religion or absence of religion will be tolerated? there is a website called thereligionofpeace.com that gives a daily update on thier peace-loving ways. I suggest that any who would consider them to be just like the rest of the world to check it out.

appolyon sweetie: my opinion...You're in here because you can"t get a job... or a life

valster, unlike you who runs to the mail box hoping the welfare check arrived, I'm self-employed and have been since 2004. Ive had two businesses before the age of 30.

Sorry loser, and I'm not hiring.

"YOU LOW SPERM COUNT SHE-MALE!!"

Oh, andrew, how could you tell the world! Folks, this is nothing but sublimated anger aimed at me. The sordid truth is that andrew and i have being trying to have a child...so far, no luck, i've been keeping my cell phone in my pants pocket.

Apollyon,

A suggestion:

Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Astounding how the discussion degenerated into nothing but arguments in moral equivalence between the morning and the afternoon.

Islam as practiced and preached for the last 1400 years the little paranoid Mohamed's cult has pursued the destruction of civilization and the builders of civilization.

Nothing has changed for them ... the goal of destruction in the name of God is the only end of Islam ..... there is nothing to discuss.

Saving the thousands of animals sacrificed in the name of scientific research would be a more noble venture

valster - you need to return to the dark underside of your rock, human embryos trump research animals when assigned ethical considerations unless you can't figure out in the hierarchy where to place yourself above an amoeba. And, you stupid putz, trust me, no one is mourning the monkeys that died in the cause of curing polio worldwide. There is nothing noble is protecting animals above humans. It's sheer Darwin Award stupidity.

The front page of your national newspaper features a galling attack on Christians in your own country, and you're still on about Muslims in countries twelve time zones away?

Andrew - it's real obvious you've got mommy issues. Kate can't be held accountable, she's not omniscient, for tracking the MSM before she posts. Your whine and bogus strawman is kind of stupid, isn't it. Oh, and, potty mouthed responses subtract from IQ points. So, you aren't looking real bright, Andrew.

Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Very well put Irwin; I'm done with the ignoramus.

Apollyon: 10! valster: 0. Not a sustained thesis from this toddler anywhere on this thread.

As I said, not all opinions are equal.

valster, I'm still waiting for you to comment on my rebuttal of your moronic views about Christianity and moral high ground on this thread. (Psst . . . If you have nothing intelligent to say, I understand. 'Just let us know and then I'd actually PREFER to hear nothing from you.)

May your God be with you....you so obviously need Him/Her...keep spreading the love in your little blinkered dark little world...and oh yes...have a real good day....morons

valster, I'm still waiting for you to comment on my rebuttal of your moronic views about Christianity and moral high ground on this thread.

Lookout, don’t hold your breath for anything substantive to come from valsters scribblings. Lowlife ingrates like this have no credibility especially when they make such contradictory statements, [of course when you're lying about everything you say consistency is the least of you concerns]:

seems rather obscene that a three-day-old human embryo (a collection of 150 cells called a blastocyst- the brain of a fly has more than 100000 cells)…….The Village Idiot

…in the Christian church I attend….The Village Idiot

That must be some church that preaches this babble.

Again, andrew - you aren't being factual or logical.

Darwin referred only to biological properties. A belief system is not a biological property. Therefore, you can't, factually or logically, compare atheism with any religion, and claim that that belief system had anything to do with its capacity to survive.

No, the religion of a society has nothing to do with its sustainability as a society. What counts, far more, is its economic and political capacity to sustain its population. And that sustainability also includes an acknowledgment of the constraints and resources, of its biome.

The reason I, as an atheist, promote science, is because its conclusions rest on facts and reason. Not personal opinions.

Also, birth rate doesn't translate into survival rate. I'm sure you know that a turtle lays thousands of eggs, but only a few survive to adulthood. Have you ever noticed the number of seeds, eg acorns, etc, from various trees? Do all of them become trees?

valster - try to be consistent. Your original complaint was that Bush wasn't funding stem cell research. You yourself stated that it could "be the breakthrough in saving millions of lives". Then, when I showed you that Bush WAS funding stem cell research, you are now arguing for a particular type that requires embryonic death, with the utterly stupid argument that an embryo is 'tiny'. The fact is, valster, that an embryo, unlike your false analogy of the fly, doesn't remain that way but right from the start, is programmed to develop. You don't seem to know that. I suggest a few beginner books on biology.

irwin daisy- I maintain that your claim that Muslims reject change is wrong. The journal I pointed out, has Islamic scholars openly claiming that the Koran requires interpretation and this act of interpretation opens the text up to change. You reject this - and you aren't a Muslim scholar. Your opinions are not facts but opinions. I don't think that you give any credence to those Muslims who are attempting to reform and change Islam - because, you, who are not a Muslim, declare that it is 'unreformable'. That has to be an opinion; not a fact.

Your view about immigration is an opinion, not a fact. It cannot be a fact. I have a different opinion; equally, it cannot be a fact. Neither you nor I can, factually, make the claim that immigration of Muslims will harm/not harm us. You have not provided us with any facts that Muslim immigration to Canada is 'without benefit' and is 'suicidal' (to the host culture). These are your opinions; not facts.

I don't have time to thoroughly catch up, but I'd like to offer a few things.

1) I spent a little time in philosophy and agree that a lot of it is pretty useless. (the comedienne Joan Rivers said once, "I majored in philosophy, so I can go to the butcher and prove to him that the meat doesn't exist.)

Still, some useful things came out of it, and one of them would be that Muslims would necessarily have to define what they meant by "God", and Christians would have to define what they mean by "God" before any conversation could possibly take place.

I could dig out one of my theology textbooks and the word "God" would sound very different than most would imagine.

2) Both Christianity and Islam have a problem with who is the bona fide agent that can speak for the religion as a whole.

Dietrich Bonhoffer, the famous Protestant theologian who went to his death for conspiring against the Nazis, was a Protestant who was well thought of by Catholics.

Because he also raised the issue of "who speaks for Christianity." Obviously, the Pope speaks for a huge segment of Christianity, but the Pope does not speak for Protestantism.

Still, Catholics and Protestants on the theological level are not conspicuously different. (Remember, Martin Luther was himself a priest.) And so it would be possible to get a dozen or so people together who more or less speak for Christianity. The Pope, head of the Southern Baptist Convention, Archbishop of Canterbury, the patriarch of the Easter Orthodox communions, the head of the Presbyterians, Methodists, one or more spokesmen for evangelical Christians...

But who can speak for Islam? Every imam with a loud mouth can bloviate, and as a consequence, you can't really round up a small aggregate of people who can speak for the religion. Furthermore, all the imams could say something, and radical Islam may pay less attention to them than they do to the Pope.

3) Who speaks for ET? A lot of people in the West have no religious affiliation. Islam is not at war with Christianity. Islam is at war with a bunch of nations that are largely derivative of Judeo-Christian-Greco philosophical traditions.

So every Christian leader can say, "Sure, we'll talk with you." And Western governments might very well keep shooting at them, because Islam is at war with governments, not religious leaders.

This demonstrates how completely naive Islam is in respect to understanding the western world.

4) Islam is probably too psychologically immature to deal with the psychological maturity that Judeo-Christian-Greco thought has achieved. Islam has projected "the evil other" onto Western society and does not realize that psychologically they are seeing a quality that they possess and suppress in someone else. Kind of like someone with a phobia of spiders sees a terrifying spectre in a harmless creature.

All of their suppressed values regarding sin and eros are things that they see in us because they are completely unconscious on the level of their egos with their own capacity and desire for what they see in us.

They would have to somehow achieve some great feat of maturity and psychological awareness before the dialogue between us could start to make sense to them.

vester@713...that's very noble of you wanting to save 'millions'...but there is no proof that embryonic cells are necessary for the 'miracles' you would promote.Funny how people who don't want to believe in God would try to do god-like acts. There are stem cells available from other sources.

And ET is right about George Bush investing in stem cell research...so wow you agree with Bush . Does that make you feel better now?

Like some others here, I am curious as to which Christian denomination vester belongs to.

The level of venom and invictive is totally shocking ... and I'm a hard person to shock.

In God I trust ... the hateful vester I don't.

valster - try to be consistent. Your original complaint was that Bush wasn't funding stem cell research. You yourself stated that it could "be the breakthrough in saving millions of lives". Then, when I showed you that Bush WAS funding stem cell research, you are now arguing for a particular type that requires embryonic death, with the utterly stupid argument that an embryo is 'tiny'. The fact is, valster, that an embryo, unlike your false analogy of the fly, doesn't remain that way but right from the start, is programmed to develop. You don't seem to know that. I suggest a few beginner books on biology.

ET, to add to your points here……….

Valster The Idiot, almost without exception all strides and advancements in stem cell research has come from ADULT stem cell research. Embryonic stem cells have had negative effects and all funding has been steered towards ADULT stem cell research because that’s where the positive results are. You know why the liberal puppet masters peddle this trash? To financially strenghten the abortion Billion do

Secondly ignoramus, Bush did not ban funding for embryonic stem cell research, he banned TAX PAYER dollars from being used. If you and your welfare lefties want to fund this research you are free to do so. With that said, there has been money [tax payer $$] put towards embryonic research by the federal govt.

***To financially [strengthen] the abortion Billion do[llar industry].

Your view about immigration is an opinion, not a fact. It cannot be a fact. I have a different opinion; equally, it cannot be a fact. Neither you nor I can, factually, make the claim that immigration of Muslims will harm/not harm us. You have not provided us with any facts that Muslim immigration to Canada is 'without benefit' and is 'suicidal' (to the host culture). These are your opinions; not facts.

ET, you merely have to look to the test case in France; the north African muslims are not assimilating, they’re rioting and demanding handouts. Hyper-multiculturalism has been an unmitigated disaster.

This demonstrates how completely naive Islam is in respect to understanding the western world………Greg

I would say it is naïve to say Islam is particularly interested in understanding the various denominations of Christianity. Walk into Saudi Arabia with a Bible and they’ll tell you what they think, of course if you’re a Jew you’re not allowed to enter.

Islam is not at war with Christianity…….Greg

Do you think the jihadists would be at war with the West if we were Islamic? Islam is trying to impose itself on the West and their cohorts in seditious anti-Christian organizations like the ACLU will see to it that they get their way.

Well said, Greg in Dallas.

The Muslims are connected through Arab cultural imperialism. The (now so-called) Arabs connect themselves through Mohammad. Mohammad connected himself through Ishmael.

Ishamel was a bastard. And born of an Egyptian. Not an Arab.

Muslims, in attempting to legitimize themselves through Islam are necessarily paranoid.

Therefore, supremacy is the result, rather than reconciliation.

---------------------

"irwin daisy- I maintain that your claim that Muslims reject change is wrong."

Some do embrace change. Although, they're usually called apostates.

"The journal I pointed out, has Islamic scholars openly claiming that the Koran requires interpretation and this act of interpretation opens the text up to change."

I admit. I have not read this journal. The problem that I have is that it seems every imam is called a scholar. I don't think they have the same definition of the word as we do. Especially given some of the stuff in their religious writing.

"You reject this - and you aren't a Muslim scholar."

Don't think you can be, unless you're a Muslim imam, in their opinion.

"Your opinions are not facts but opinions."

You're becoming boring. Prove me wrong, as I've challenged you ad infinitum.

"I don't think that you give any credence to those Muslims who are attempting to reform and change Islam - because, you, who are not a Muslim, declare that it is 'unreformable'. That has to be an opinion; not a fact."

Do I really need to state the facts again?

Your view about immigration is an opinion, not a fact. It cannot be a fact.

This is true. It is my opinion, based on what I gleen from history.

Although, I might be wrong the double bastard bit:

'Now Sarai, Abram's wife, bore him no children. She had an Egyptian slave girl whose name was Hagar, and Sarai said to Abram, "You see that the Lord has prevented me from bearing children; go in to my slave girl; it may be that I shall obtain children by her." And Abram listened to the voice of Sarai. So, after Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan, Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her slave girl, and gave her to her husband Abram as a wife. He went in to Hagar, and she conceived. . . .

And the angel of the Lord said to Hagar, "Now you have conceived and will bear a son; you shall call him Ishmael, for the Lord has given heed to your affliction. He will be a wild donkey of a man, with his hand against everyone, and everyone's hand against him; and he will live at odds with all his kin."

apollyon. I don't know what hyper-multiculturalism means.

I was referring to Canada and immigration to Canada.

As far as France and its Muslim immigrants, the problems there are far more complex than simply assuming that the religion is causal. Causality has to include the fact that the French society has isolated these immigrants economically and socially, rather than insisted on integration. As impoverished dead end enclaves - they've turned to a fascist Islam.

Irwin daisy- my view about immigration is an opinion, not a fact. Just like yours is an opinion and not a fact. I cannot prove your opinion wrong or right - because it has not moved into facticity. That is, your claim that immigration is without benefit to the host culture and is suicidal - is an opinion. With regard to Canada - is your claim factually valid?

I suggest that you might want to consider that not all Arab scholars are imams - and that some of them are trying very hard to enable Islam to reform. Again - I suggest that you take a look at that journal. I think you are from Toronto; you can find it in the Reference Room of the Robarts Library; 4th floor; and you don't need a library card to access that Journals Room.

greg in dallas - very nice post. I've done a reasonable amount of philosophy; I'm a fan of Aristotle and Charles Peirce and find their work extremely useful in thinking about modern day realities.

I agree that Islam is psychologically immature but I'd rather say it is economically immature. Remember, Islam is heavily a sociopolitical and economic mode, defined as a religion. I won't go into my outline of its origins within a pastoral nomadic reaction to the expansion of agricultural Christianity (within the Roman empire) of the 5th, 6th, 7th c into the Arabian Peninsula.

Nor, the current Islamic fascism, which is a result of the political tribalism of the ME states.

And I agree - Islam is not at war with Christianity; that War of Cultures/Religions is a diversion; the real problem is within the ME states.

; Islamic fascism is an externalization of its internal problem - which is the dysfunctional tribalism that has frozen the Arab states into a medieval mode of governance. The ME states, as industrial, require a middle class, and tribalism rejects a middle class. The war against the West is an externalization of this internal war - and the US was absolutely right to move it back into the ME. That's where Islamism and tribalism have to be confronted and dealt with.

irwin daisy, I once had a long debate with ET about the importance of Christianity to the development of the West. No amount of facts on my part made a dint: ET would NOT admit that Christianity and its legacy should have any pride of place in the West. 'Very frustrating because this person is obviously very intelligent.

We also disagree on the "fact" that Islam "must" reform. I believe ET's argument fits one of the logical fallacies: circular argument, maybe. Her thesis is that Islam MUST reform in order to sustain an industrial infrastructure. But what if sustaining the ways of the West is not their goal?

My argument is that the infrastructure may well be destroyed: people who don't have it and are willing to destroy those who do--e.g., Islamic extremists with nuclear capacity against us--may well obliterate the West as we know it. It's happened before in the history of the world. ET seems to be wilfully blind to the possibility that the fall of a sophisticated, decadent civilization could happen again. Although she insists that such a possibility is impossible, I've not yet heard a convincing argument to disabuse me of my opinion that it isn't.

(That said, I appreciate most of ET's posts and find her knowledge and expertise on many topics very welcome, very informative, and very helpful.)

Some topics just keep hanging around like a bad smell. How soon a posting about some Muslim leaders expressing their concerns about a war they think they are losing and are thus trying to buy time to regroup ends up as some kind of moral equivalency debate or theist – atheist argument.

As a Christian I hold the Bible in highest esteem because of the Voice that speaks through it. From the beginning of Genesis to the Book of Revelation there is a common voice that speaks in words of the Spirit and not of the flesh. Parenthetically the same can not be said of the deuterocanonical books that are included in many Bibles. I am not a linguist and don’t pretend that I can read the Bible in its original languages but the translation(s) I read along with the Spirit that speaks through them is sufficient develop a deep abiding faith in a Loving, Faithful God who seeks and saves the lost.

However when I read the Qur’an, and again I state that I am not a linguist, I don’t hear that same voice. I read page after page of calls to violence intermixed with flowing poetry, twisted history and a theology that would suffice if the god being described was a rock in the middle of the Arabian Desert. From the Qur’an I can understand the reason for the shallow recited prayer. Lacking the Spirit there is no opportunity to interact with the Divine so the only possible prayer is mindless repetition or performing acts of self immolation.

I speak of the Spirit here and before any of the atheists get their dander up please realize there are things beyond your comprehension of which you have no idea. Talking to an atheist about God is kind of like discussing the colour of the sky with a man born blind. I can wax eloquent about the subtle hues as they blend and change as the sun sinks below the horizon but the blind man will never understand because he has no experience with sight or colour.

Unfortunately all too many atheists insist that their self imposed blindness is universal and never reach their full potential. The average atheist reminds of a young child standing in the middle of the street with eyes closed, ears plugged and yelling I can’t hear you at the top of his lungs as cars whiz by and I am urging them to move to the sidewalk.
I would also bet that Anthony Leeuwenhoek felt the same when he first discovered small creatures living in water. I have no doubt that some philosopher somewhere went to great lengths to explain the impossibility of there being creatures so small that they are invisible to the naked eye. Poor Tony if only he could get that smart person to look through the lens he too could see. If only the wise would do the experiment they too could see. Some tidbits of wisdom are found in the most foolish places and I am reminded of a line in a song “There is none so blind as he who will not see”.

ET,

I've suggested to you in the past that because of your clinical and strictly scientific view of reality, you don't consider the whole.

Human life cannot be observed in a petrie dish.

Regardless of whether you recognize faith and belief to be true or even important or not, beliefs are experienced and exist in the individual and the shared agreement of most people on this planet.

"Irwin daisy- my view about immigration is an opinion, not a fact. Just like yours is an opinion and not a fact. I cannot prove your opinion wrong or right - because it has not moved into facticity. That is, your claim that immigration is without benefit to the host culture and is suicidal - is an opinion. With regard to Canada - is your claim factually valid?"

I've already agreed with you on this point. But you have not admitted the fact that violence is foundational to Islam and that it cannot be reformed without removing the perpetual call to violence. Otherwise, the violent, inherent nature of Islam is chronic. ie: the homegrown Toronto 19.

Albeit, I have ventured that if the violent foundation of Islam was gutted, the Islamic faith would become redundant - that violence, not the misappropriated 'Oneness of God' defines Islam.

lookout:

Nobody can deny that western civilization was built on Judeo-Christian values.

The key word here being values.

One of the key values is knowing the difference between right and wrong, something we call morality.

It is possible to have a sense of morality without being devoutly religious, as long as a person understands the traditional values our society is based on.

One of the hallmarks of the secular progressives is their denial that right and wrong even exist.

At the same time, it is possible to be secular and believe in traditional values. Difficult, yet possible.

Wow, 100+ comments on a not very controversial post.

Ask yourselves, all you atheists: when was the last time a Muslim book store owner got himself killed/jailed/disappeared in a Western country for selling Muslim books? Or a Buddhist, Jew, Zoroastrian, Animist, Scientologist, Reformed Church of Elvis...

Now ask yourselves, when was the last time a Christian got killed/jailed/disappeared in an officially ATHEIST country for selling Christian books? Probably today, someplace like China! Or Burma, Cuba, Angola...

Are we seeing a pattern here?

Given this obvious pattern, I propose the following. This is (supposed to be) a free country. That means I am free to go to whatever church/synagogue/temple/etc. I want, when I want, if I want.Other people are certainly free to complain about my choices, but that's it.

Anybody wants to change any of the above substantially can K my A, because I'm not going to put up with it. My relatives didn't fight two world wars to see me take that crap lying down.

Reasonable?

And could we stop feeding the friggin' idiot trolls? They're boring.

ET
As rude as it seems , you know nothing of Islam. NOTHING. You argue with a western mindset about an ideology you know nothing about. "pastoral nomadic reaction to the expansion of agricultural Christianity (within the Roman empire) of the 5th, 6th, 7thc into the Arabian Peninsula"....????WTF??? What planets history are you talking about? Got any books , references or links to this brutal usurpation of gentle muslim nomads magic kingdoms by continent stealing Christian /Haliburton agro-giants?

Excuse me, I just could not let that slip unchallenged. You sound like you know something about something and maybe you do on some things but on Islam you know NOTHING.

Reform Islam? Islam is the pure voice of GOD to muslims! You suggest that gods words can be rearranged? Do that in some mosque in the ME and you will be torn to shreds, perhaps literally.

Perhaps you mean well by carrying water for Islam ET. You should study the cause you defend before you stumble so completely. There are Islamic sites that serve every purpose under heaven. Visit ummah.com and join so you can enter the complete forum and get to know Islam from its practitioners. Please. Again, sorry for losing my cool in the face of ignorance. (persistent/consistent)

Joe, I always enjoy your postings.

lookout,

I agree. The fallacy and deception of Islam, regardless of numbers of adherents, has been and will continue to be a problem unless the people are unchained. The ideological violence is defining, generational and foundational - it is chronic.

As far as ET is concerned, she cannot offer a solution, only commentary, when she refuses to acknowledge that a higher power is real in the hearts and souls of the majority on this planet. The question remains , who is God? For me, God is defined through Christ. Hence "(I am) the way..." Yes, it is grace. But God is also made clear through Christ's life example.

As Allah is made clear through Mo's life example.

Amen. And thanks, irwin daisy and joe. I always appreciate your posts.

While I don't always agree with her, I admire ETs use of reason when stating her position. Frankly, she has shredded the argument of every Christian fundamentalist who has responded. I am beginning to seriously doubt that the so-called Christians who regularly post here have the slightest interest in Islamic reform, reconciliation or even peace. For them, this is a war of religions and there can only be one winner.

lookout- No, the ME states have no choice but to move into industrialism. The reason is - their exponential population increase since the World Wars. You cannot sustain a population of that size without industrialism. And industrialism requires a middle class. Tribalism, which is a political mode found in agricultural economies, does not require a middle class.

And that is the problem in the ME states; their refusal to change their political mode to empower their population and permit them to form a middle class.

Irwin daisy - my point is that the 'call to violence' is an interpretation. And this interpretation can be re-interpreated.If you would read some of the journals I suggest, you'd find that the authors are proposing just that. So, your opinion that the violence is 'basic' to Islam is, in my view, a conclusion that is invalid. The interpretation of the texts can be changed - and that is what moderate Muslims are working on.

Blackbird - actually, I know a quite a bit about Islam. Including its text (Koran), its historical devt, the ecological nature of the envt in which it developed; the economic nature of the envt in which it devt; its later history - and the development of Islamic fascism.

And I am not defending Islam; I am analyzing it. I prefer to analyze it rather than simply condemn it. As Aristotle said - "All men by nature desire to know" (first line of his Metaphysics). I desire to know what and why - is Islam.

And I know a great deal about the devt and nature of societal organization - and that includes the nature of and the differences between pastoral nomadic and agricultural settled economies. You don't; these are not 'extra planetary terms' but basic ecological and anthropological terms.

Who said anything about 'gentle muslims..magic kingdoms'? Just because you don't understand these terms or know anything about the history of the area doesn't mean that you can get away with silly mockery.

I base my analysis on a knowledge of several areas. First, the ecological nature of the area; this enables you to understand what type of economy could develop there. Then, you have to know demographics and population bases and changes. And - the history of the area, including the Roman input that enabled markets - irrigation, roads, safety of commerce and marketing, increase of population, requirement for larger harvests, for settlements, expansion of settlements etc. ...and expansion into the Arabian Peninsula..

The rise of Christianity - an agricultural religion based around collaboration with neighbours [read the texts]. See also what was happening with Rome and the switch to Christianity.

The resultant emergence of Islam as a warrior agenda to maintain control over pastoral nomadic migratory lands. [read the texts; the society outlined in the Koran is very obviously pastoral nomadic.]

As for the modern era and the rise of Islamic fascism - again, you have to know the operational infrastructure of a tribal society, how it operates politically and legally; the size of population it can sustain - and the same with an industrial economy. Same thing - what type of political system does an industrial economy require? What type of family structure?

So- the fact that you don't know these things is 'just the way it is', and sorry, one book or article won't deal with all these issues - You need books and articles on: social organization of different economic modes (I used to take my students through ten basic modes); human geography; cultural ecology; population dynamics; the history of the area - from the time of Rome on; the texts of both religions; and..there are excellent books on the rise of Al Qaeda and Islamic fascism; ...as well as basic books on fascism.

As for those on this blog who are believers in a Metaphysical Agent - that's you. I am not going to denigrate or insult your belief, and I'd appreciate it if you would do me the same courtesy. I'm an atheist; there is no need to insult my belief.

Belisarius,

"Frankly, she has shredded the argument of every Christian fundamentalist who has responded."

Funny, if you follow her responses, she lost horribly again. Deflecting her defeat to immigration.

Is "fundamentalist" meant as a perjorative? Also, care to prove it?

As for the rest of your statement would you like to give evidence about "Christians who regularly post here have the slightest interest in Islamic reform, reconciliation or even peace." Or, do you mean appeasement?

I suppose that had it been the atheist 'Crusaders' versus the Muslims, it would have been different? What, you would have out manouvered them by force of intellect? Silly me, were they actually Christians? Or, Nazi Christians?

Your brain requires too many questions. I'm tired and going to bed.

There was hope.

Ladies and gentlemen, Elvis has left the building.

Et,

"Irwin daisy - my point is that the 'call to violence' is an interpretation. And this interpretation can be re-interpreated.If you would read some of the journals I suggest, you'd find that the authors are proposing just that. So, your opinion that the violence is 'basic' to Islam is, in my view, a conclusion that is invalid. The interpretation of the texts can be changed - and that is what moderate Muslims are working on."

Agreed, through editing out, or revising the tense clearly to a time and place. Mohammad's life example, on the other hand, as the "perfect man" to emulate, must be abolished.

Under the circumstances, 'Invalid' is a ridiculous statement to make. You sound foolish.

Since apparently Islam - the religion of 1.5 billion people on this planet - is fair game for mockery and slander by those posting here, I thought I'd post a different perspective:

Top 10 Signs You're A Christian Fundamentalist

10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.

Belisarius - your one through ten just confirm how ignorant a person can be of the contents within the Bible. As a Christian, I have never felt outraged that anyone denies the existence of God; you must have us mixed up with Muslims. I can only feel sad for you.

I desire to know what and why - is Islam. ET

I am reminded of a woman (I’ll call her Mary) I met while teaching an adult Sunday school class. She was a very intelligent woman well travelled, well read, conversant in several languages and a tenured professor at the local university.

Unannounced she showed up in the class explaining her presence in the class was the result of her desire to get to know Christianity. She explained that although she was an atheist, religion interested her and she had begun by travelling to various places around the world to fully understand the religion that she was exploring at that time. Her explorations were not just superficial examinations. She spent several years examining each faith. She had been to Israel to study Judaism, Tibet to study Buddhism and wanted to go to Saudi Arabia to study Islam.

In the mean time she wandered into my class. I don’t know why, I am not a recognized expert on anything but never the less she was in my class asking intelligent yet foolish questions. As weeks turned into months I did my best to answer her questions without losing my temper and believe me that was a challenge. One night after my time of prayer and meditation I was led to begin write a letter to Mary.

I can’t remember what I wrote that night because I didn’t keep a copy of it but the next Sunday I gave the letter to her. Before the class started we had a cup of coffee and a cookie and during this time Mary proudly showed the unopened letter to all her classmates. I began the class and while everyone else was discussing the love of Paul expressed in his letter to the Colossians Mary began reading her letter. Suddenly our scriptural reflection was shattered when Mary leapt to her feet screaming like she had been branded with a hot iron and began ripping the letter to shreds as raced out of the room never to return.

I often wonder what ever happened to Mary. The only thing I do know is that she had encountered the Living God whose Spirit spoke to her through the letter I had written. All the Buddhist prayer wheels of Tibet had little more than a romantic appeal to her. Likewise the devout Jews at the Wailing Wall had failed to connect with her and her academic study of religion.

However God chose to speak to her through some western Canadian doofus who, struggling to keep up with her mental acuity and in an attempt to answer some questions she had asked the previous week had resorted to writing her a letter.

I can only hope that ET (and the other atheists) dares to examine the depth of Christianity and although I wouldn’t want her to experience the discomfort Mary experienced I do hope and pray that one day she will realize the foolishness of the philosophers she loves to quote, the emptiness of her socioeconomic analysis she keeps expounding and realizes the inherit danger of a religion that incubates fanatics steeping in the teachings of its holy book, a holy book that calls for death to the unbelievers and justifies war to spread the religion, and come to a knowledge of Whom it is written “The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of Wisdom.”

Well said Belisarius!! I think we have room for one more effectively making it the Top 11 Signs You're A Christian Fundamentalist:

and the number 11 sign is:

"You spend most of your time on small dead animals posting ignorant hateful and mindless rants about muslims and Islam"

I suspect the sad man with the flowery name will be circling the wagons shortly with his band of blow holes after your last comment. I suspect, based on your last comment, and the frequency of their posts, you have given them a few more days of self importance; not to forget, provide them with something to do with their time which appears consummed by this site.

As I have said before, free speech makes for a great demoracy, but most times, at least on this site, it makes for lousy reading. It also make for disturbing reading and brings out all manner of wackjob. Thanks for bringing some balance and knowledge to this subject Belisarius! It is and has been entertaining and refreshing, albeit, I fear your efforts may not be fully comprehended by this lot. You are, attempting to reach, for the most part, an angry, small minded, racially motivated group of simpletons. Hate propaganda is a crime I sense a thin line is being walked on this site. I won't be back.

Belisarius

I’m a Christian fundamentalist and not ashamed to say so. However your clever(?) 10 points just don’t seem to fit in my case.
10 - There are millions of gods in this world. Each religion has their own god including atheists. Most people have many gods they just don’t know what a god really is. A god is that thing that determines what course of action a person will take at any given time. We appease the money god by going to work. Etc etc etc.

If someone doesn’t recognize Yahweh I don’t get upset or outraged. I can’t blame a blind person for tripping over an obstacle because they didn’t see it. It was my fault that I didn’t warn them about it.

9 - I don’t feel insulted or dehumanized when science points to evolution instead of the Biblical teaching of us being made from dirt. Actually evolutionary science says that our grandfather was a rock so I don’t see much difference.

8 - Did you graduate from kindergarten Sunday School or were kept back a few years and decided to drop out before they got around to discussing the Christian teaching on the Trinity. I can save you some time though I wrote an explanation of the Three in One on this website October 8 2007. Look it up if you want to.

7 - My face doesn’t turn purple over the atrocities committed by Muslims nor do I try to explain the thoughts of Yahweh when the firstborn of Egypt were killed. I do take some consolation in the fact that in the end we all die by God’s design so we can go on to something better. What I find most galling about the Muslim violence is the victims are predominately Muslim.

6 - I don’t laugh at Hindu belief in human deification. I believe that the purpose of Christianity is the deification of humans. Sons of God mean anything to you?

5 - Sorry I don’t look for loopholes in science and the dating of the earth. Science dating proves nothing more than the Bible states. “A thousand years is but a day” ring a bell?

4 - I don’t think everyone who does not believe exactly as I do is bound for hell. In fact Jesus said I have sheep of other pastures. Which to my tiny little human brain means that not everyone has to believe what I believe. The Bible also says I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy. Its not up to me to judge.

3 - I used to speak in tongues but grew out of it. “When I became a man I put childish ways behind me” Actually I believe in God because of the Grace He has given me. If He should withhold that Grace I will stop believing in Him. As for all your gods , history, geology, biology, and physics none of them disprove the existence of Yahweh and I know and fellowship with a good number of historians, geologists biologists and physicist who all have the same Grace. They too believe in God. BTW does Albert Einstein ring a bell with you?

2 - As for answers to prayer I could begin to list them but you wouldn’t accept them anyway. BTW when is the last time you prayed?

1 - You actually think that knowing the Bible and Church history is important to being a Christian? You did drop out of kindergarten Sunday School didn’t you. How much education did Jesus have? How about the apostles? How much Bible do I need to know to know Yahweh? How much church history do I need to be led of the Spirit? Jesus said, “You study the scriptures thinking that by them you have life. They all testify about Me but you refuse to come to Me to have life.”

Now if you want to know what I know quiet your spirit, admit your fallibility and ask Yahweh to forgive you. You might be surprised at what you find. God Bless

Joe, that was a very thoughtful and well-thought out posting. I took the time to read all of it, and understand completely what you're saying. The "10 signs you're a Christian fundamentalist" I posted earlier were what I considered to be the equivalent of the anti-Muslim slander I read here so often. I know a number of Conservatives who used to read and comment regularly on Kate's blog, but got so sick of the nutjob fundamentalist Christian commentary that they have stopped doing so. Frankly, you and your friends need to tone down the rhetoric. I really try hard to respect your beliefs, but wish you would extend the same courtesy to others. Your last thoughtful post is a step in the right direction.

This thread started with discussion of a letter from Muslim theologians proposing dialogue with Christians, and even you referred to it as expressing their concerns about a war they think they are losing and are thus trying to buy time to regroup. Not a very Christian sentiment. I say lets give them the benefit of the doubt and have a conversation. We're not fighting a war with mainstream Islam, we're fighting it with Jihadists. Otherwise, what would all of those Iraqi and Afghan battalions be doing fighting and dying beside our soldiers?

Aleikum assalaam.

It's ALL crazy.............goofs!

I know I couldn't convince you otherwise, but please use your own mind and your own inherent intuitions (basic instincts) and realize what damage you do.

Your educated and intelligent why be insane!!!!!!!!!
His God….. My God….. the holy book say’s ---- I love you but I’ll kill you if you don’t believe in my unproven God. PATHETIC weakness of the human race. Yes you deserve to not exist (or possibly inherit it all) but please for the love of humanity and the greater good of what IS - leave the rest of us alone.

All right kids, settle down.

You're all wrong.

Never cared for these middle eastern blood religions myself. It's nothing but fight fight fight with you guys. Give it a rest.

Why don't you just let me sort the wheat from the chaff, OK? I'll smack some heads together.

Now go eat something. Get some sleep. You look terrible.

belisarius - thanks for all your excellent posts. I don't think that one can change the mind of some of these people - and that really isn't the agenda.

My only agenda is to introduce some facts to the rhetoric, to offset the fundamentalist (ie,non-factual and unprovable) beliefs of the few who post here - that Islam is an evil religion; that all Muslims are fanatics whose prime agenda is to kill others, that the only way to deal with Muslims is to prevent migration and seal them into the ME.

The issues about belief in god, results postulated of one's eternal damnation if you don't believe in god, evolution etc, are peripheral to this debate.

These people aren't interested in the historic facts of the emergence of any religion, the ontological nature of the religion, the historic causes of current Islamic fascism, and, the both possibility and probability of reform of the religion by Islamic scholars. And, the reform of their sociopolitical system that causes Islamic fascism.

Despite Perun's pre-emptive, very narrow minded, quite empty of specifics ad hominems, I have opinions I'd like to express. (Goody Two Shoes, who only like "nice" thoughts, might consider skipping the following.)

ET hasn't convinced me by her, IMO, wrong starting point. Sheer numbers of inhabitants do not necessarily change the economy from tribal to industrial. E.g., Just a few points: 1) Israel, a country also inhabited by a tribal people, in the same area of the world as millions of Muslims, but with a much lower population, has turned the desert into a thriving economy. Why the difference? IMO, it’s the result of a belief in a radically different God, one of justice and mercy, and so, a radically different belief system, one which is not based on fatwas, and one which rewards initiatve. 2) It's not too likely that investors are going to be flocking to build infrastructure in the Muslim part of the world, when the chances of their investments and workers being blown to smithereens is likely. Without massive investment in that part of the world, industrialization won’t happen. 3) Let's also consider Africa: its inhabitants have been living lives of tribal misery for centuries—not much improved by colonialism, which left some infrastructure for progress, now largely destroyed. Just because there are large numbers of people in a given area is no proof that industrialization WILL occur. 4) North America: with a small population compared to land mass, it rapidly moved from an agricultural to an industrial economy. How come?

Let’s look at first things: The crucial difference in all of these examples appears to me to be attributable to the underlying belief system and practices of the inhabitants. Those countries, based on the Judeo-Christian dispensation, respected cooperation, in accordance with their religious ideals of justice and mercy (exceptions included), as well as freedom to choose belief or not. Such DEMOCRATIC countries have tended to thrive and provide important freedoms to their inhabitants (such as Perun). (Unfortunately, these freedoms are now sometimes being exploited by immigrants with axes to grind.) Those countries with Muslim and animist deities, who control by fear, coercion, and violence have tended to be chaotic, miserable backwaters, ruled by despots. (Notice that $BILLIONS of Western aid has made little difference. Most of it ends up in some despot’s pocket.) And, as if things weren’t bad enough for their own people in Muslim and animist countries, the Muslim jihadists have now decided to export their violence and misery to the citizens of the democratic countries of the world.

So, a healthy scepticism re happy outcomes from initiatives by a group of moderate Muslims does not seem misplaced. E.g., Although these men—I’m betting they’re all men—may be sincere about moderating Islam, by what authority are they doing so?
There is no Muslim Magisterium: each imam is his own authority. So, even if the reformers arrive at a fine document, reinterpreting the excesses of the Qur’an, this document will have no authority or compulsion over those who wish to ignore it and continue to use intimidation and violence to carry out their agenda—to establish a modern day caliphate.

Yes, dialogue is a good thing. Trying to understand the motives and means of those who are a part of the community that wishes our destruction, may give us much needed insights. But a solution to this problem? I don’t think so. Think Neville Chamberlain: these imams cannot speak on behalf of their bloodthirsty, violent co-religionists, so, no matter what these men of (possible: where were they 6-5-4-3-2-1 years ago?) good will say, the problem of jihad is still with us. We need to remember that there is a very critical mass of Muslims who have no intention of “getting along” with the West.

Thank you for your kind words Belisarius. Your 10 points were a bit like an adult playing T ball but it is always fun to match wits with a worthy "foe". Personally I would like to see dialogue between all religions (beats bullets and bombs anytime) but at the same time I am sceptical about the results. As in anything I am never certain or the other's sincerity and hidden purposes. I truly want to see and believe the best in everyone except life experience tells me otherwise. While I have nothing against anyone individual who practices Islam, indeed I respect many of them for their fervent devotion, I do see in reading the Qur'an and talking to various Muslims I have had the opportunity to get to know that the Muslim mindset is not one that is easy for me to grasp. In all the study and interaction I have had with Muslims I come away feeling like Thomas Jefferson who went over to the Middle East on a good will tour. He met with some potentate over there and expressed the ideal of we are all humans lets get along. The potentate's response was something along the line that it was the job of Islam was to wipe out all Christians. Seems kind of hard to make peace with an enemy who wants war. no?

“You spend most of your time on small dead animals posting ignorant hateful and mindless rants about muslims and Islam"

I suspect the sad man with the flowery name will be circling the wagons shortly with his band of blow holes after your last comment

You are, attempting to reach, for the most part, an angry, small minded, racially motivated group of simpletons. Hate propaganda is a crime I sense a thin line is being walked on this site.”

- Perun

Islam has been on a war path of conquest for 1350 years.

The Ottoman turks committed genocide against 1.5 million Christian Armenians in the early 20th century. The US senate now agrees.

It is claimed that Muslims killed up to 80 million Hindus during their conquest and occupation of India. It is further claimed that the Muslims killed up to 2 million Hindus in East Pak/Bangladesh during the early 70’s.

It is estimated that up to 2 million have been killed so far in the Sudan.

Although it is openly still practiced, Saudi Arabia made slavery illegal in the early 1960’s.

There have been 9600 terrorist attacks since 911.

Obviously, there’s a problem.

Is the cause, as ET believes, "pastoral nomadic reaction to the expansion of agricultural Christianity (within the Roman empire) of the 5th, 6th, 7thc into the Arabian Peninsula?”

Or, is it foundational and perpetual violence commanded and rewarded by Allah, as written in the Quran, combined with the command for Muslims to emulate Mohammad?

In the latter case, my (and many others) opinion, based as it is on fact, is nonetheless construed as hate, in order for the facts to be silenced.

It appears that not only Perun agrees with this, but ET, Belisarius, et al agree also - with the standard obfuscation added by others by way of cultural and moral equivalency.

Strange times.

There's one fundamental flaw in the imam's proposal.

Unlike the Muslim world, western civilization has never been a theocracy.

The Bishop of Rome (the Pope) cannot decree that western states are not allowed to use military force.

Contrast that to Iran. Through western eyes, Ahmedinijad is the president of the country. Yet, even his power flows from the imams.

I guess this is kinda the same point that an earlier poster made.

The Muslim world does not understand the concept of separation of church and state, a concept in the US Constitution which protects religious feedoms by prohibiting the state from designating an official religion.

The US forefathers came from European nations which did exactly that. Since the forefathers were persecuted because they did not bow to the state religion, that was motivation enough to write a constitution that guaranteed freedom from persecution because of religious beliefs.

It's a concept that unfortunately has been lost on today's intolerant and hateful secular progressives.

lookout - for heaven's sake, you simply don't understand the terminology.

Israel is NOT inhabited by a 'tribal people'. By 'tribal' I mean POLITICAL tribalism, which is a specific mode of governance, based around hereditary authority, and operative in a Non-Industrial economy.

And all economies are directly related to their population size. You try sustaining a hundred thousand people using only an hunting-gathering economy! It can't be done; a H-G economic mode can only provide food for a few hundred in a group.

Tribalism is a political mode found in an agricultural economy - a horticultural, swidden or pastoral nomadic economy. Israel was not and is not a tribal political mode and is not and was not a non-industrial economy. The people who immigrated to Israel were western Jews, coming from a democratic political mode and an industrial economy. That's what was replicated in Israel.

Again- Israel does NOT and never has, operated within a tribal political mode or non-industrial economy.

How come N. America moved into industrialism? The colonists were bringing with them the infrastructure of industrialism from Britain, Germany, France - all nations that were moving from 'late agricultural economies' (high population, market economies, democratic political systems, high surplus economies)..into industrial technologies (steam power using coal and gas). The colonists brought all of this perspective with them!!!

The focus on individualism, which is a foundation for inventiveness and self-organized entrepreneurship is the foundation of the USA - a product in the 18th c, of the emergence of the industrial technology.

So- you simply don't understand what tribalism means, don't understand population ratios and the close link that economic and political modes have with each other.

You don't 'choose' a political mode; if you have a large population in the millions - then, you could only have and sustain such a size by industrialism. Either direct or indirect (the Muslim world is indirect industrialism; it hasn't invented a single industrial technology but buys it all from the West).

The problem in the ME is that even though they have been able to purchase industrial technology, and enable an exponential increase in population, they haven't changed their political mode from one that privileges hereditary tribal leaders - to empowering a middle class. That's the 'root cause' of Islamic fascism.

The fact that you don't understand these basic facets of social organization, and think it's all about 'choice' - is something that I can do nothing about. And - it has NOTHING to do with religion or 'god'.

Look, I'm not going to tell you again.

If you don't stop it, I will TURN THIS THING AROUND, MISTER!

irwin daisy - I fully agree with perun's concerns, and have made them before. Your, and other's focus on the rhetoric, while ignoring the causes of the rhetoric, and your reaction to that rhetoric, is bigoted.

I've outlined before, how the various religions arose; no ideology emerges and is taken up, in a vacuum. No society is just an ideology but operates within a particular economic mode, and sustains that mode by its political, legal, family modes.

And, no non-industrial society is able to operate outside its biome. You can't have an agricultural economy in the arctic; you are limited to a hunting/gathering economy. And each economy can only sustain a certain size of population.

So, your refusal to explore why and when each religion emerged and became a common ideology, means that you are confined to the rhetoric. This is an unreasonable action; it means that you cannot make informed conclusions for you are trapped within the rhetoric.

So- your view that Islam is basically violent, ignores the historical context of its original emergence and why it became accepted. No ideology emerges and is accepted without reason; lots of people come up with ideas - and are ignored. Why was this one accepted??? Think about it - the historical and economic context that made it acceptable.

Your complete rejection of history, of context, of economic forces - reduces you to the rhetoric of the text. You refuse to consider anything else, ie, the causes for those words. Therefore, your conclusions about Islam are, in my opinion, completely wrong.

It was a reaction to loss of economic viability when it emerged in the 7th c - and Islamic fascism is a reaction to the political tribalism of the ME. Can Islam be reformed? Of course it can, and there are Muslim scholars intensely interested in doing this. Can the ME's political tribalism be ended? Ahh..that's a question. The ME has no choice - but - the tribal leaders are fighting tooth and nail to retain their power.

So- I agree with perun and have been equally appalled by some of the rhetoric in these threads.

Once again ET, very well said. We all know there are big problems in the world today with Islam and Islamic terrorism. But clearly there are solutions to these problems, and many, many Muslims are equally interested in finding them. That should be our goal. The "my religion is better than your religion" talk really isn't helpful.

"Hate propaganda is a crime I sense a thin line is being walked on this site." by Perun

Come one Perun, you stated, "Thanks for bringing some balance and knowledge to this subject Belisarius! It is and has been entertaining and refreshing, albeit, I fear your efforts may not be fully comprehended by this lot." I guess it is okay to bash Christians, but speak the truth about Islam, and you call it hate propaganda. You are so obviously a hypocrite that it is mind-boggling how you call the kettle black, but think it is the color red.

Both ET and Belarius persist in prattling on without knowing anything about Islam. Islam is not a religion, it works under the guise of a religion but it is actually a predatory/parasitic criminal organization guilty of enslaving the free will of its adherents. The Quran is to be thought of as the words of Allah as delivered to Mohammed by the angel Iblis/Gabriel. The words of "God" are not reformable. The Quran is organized and arranged by the length of each book, longest to shortest. It is not chronological nor coherent in its instruction. The only consistency is the condemnation of Jews, Christians, polytheists and everyone and thing that is not Islam ( of course,"bad muslims"as well)and a call for destruction of obstacles to the spread of Mohammeds dream. The basic call from Allah to all Muslims is simple...make all religion in the world ONLY for Allah. How can that be done? By the sword or by artifice and deceit and the spreading of terror. How did you read the Quran and miss that ET? Obviously you weren't paying attention to those nomadic tribesmens modus operandi or that sort of thing runs counter to your theories.

This isn't about evil muslims either, they are the first victims of Islam and have to live it. If they are serious about their "religion" they must work towards Allahs demand of Islamic supremacy and suppression of all opposition. No they won't cut all your heads off although Allah decrees a great slaughter is initially required to shock and stun the unbelievers into Dhimmitude. Dhimmitude is for Jews and Christians who don't want to revert to Islam (everyone in the world is born muslim, they just don't know it, thats why you revert and not convert to Islam). Jews and Christians can pay the Jizya tax and live as Dhimmies. Kind of like double your income and property tax compared to your muslim neighbour on top of your recognized second rate status in the community. Polytheists have no such choice, they must revert to Islam or die. So living UNDER muslims is possible but never on equal societal conditions.

Like Cassandra I howl from the walls. Please know the force that comes to deceive and adulterate life with evil. Find out about Islam by reading the Quran,Hadiths, Sunna. Save your cultures future and perhaps rescue 1.5 billion people from darkness, ignorance, violence and poverty.

ET, Belarius, if your want to debate something specific to Islam and it's history I would be happy to engage you.

"We're not fighting a war with mainstream Islam, we're fighting it with Jihadists. Otherwise, what would all of those Iraqi and Afghan battalions be doing fighting and dying beside our soldiers?" by Belsarius

You know when you get a bad feeling about something and you do nothing about it, that is where the West is on Islam today. Even though Muslims can be good neighbors and good people, they still consider us 'infidels.' I'm afraid too many mainstream Muslims have committed terrorist acts, so to think that we aren't having the wool pulled over our heads is plain ole daft.

We are fighting with them, for them. When is the last time Muslim battalions fought for us......ummmm, hummm, ..... I'm really cheering for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, and even Iran, but Sharia Law is not what I eventually want to be governed under. If Muslims chose Sharia Law, so be it, but not in my neck of the woods, thank you.

Perun had the guts to come out and say what a lot of us have been thinking.

There you have it.

ET agrees with abolishing factual criticism of Islam, by construing it as hate. Exactly what Islamofascists are attempting to do throughout the world.

Further, she thinks her unsupported theory trumps factual cause for all too read in the Quran, Hadith and Shariah.

She will continue to peep into her petrie dish, ignoring the cause of much of the world's violence today and Islamic pograms throughout history.

Pathetic.

"I know a number of Conservatives who used to read and comment regularly on Kate's blog, but got so sick of the nutjob fundamentalist Christian commentary that they have stopped doing so." by Belsarius

So, do you refer to Muslims as nutjobs too, or just Christians?

Joanne, I think the proportion of nutjobs in each religion is probably about the same. I know a lot of Priests and Ministers whom I have the highest respect and regard for, and find them to be excellent ambassadors of Christianity and the teachings of Jesus.

But I've also met those from the fringes of Christianity. These are the ones who view the creation of the State of Israel and the rise of Islamic terror as signs that the End of Days is upon us and the Return of Jesus is imminent. They eagerly anticipate a war with Islam, hoping it will provoke Armageddon and the fulfillment of prophecy. A rapprochement with Islam is the last thing they want.

I too was shocked by ET's hate tag offensive against irwin daisy who has taken the time to learn a great deal about Islam.

ET fails to understand that Islam is indeed "unreformable". There is a semantical confusion, however, in her offensive. By unreformable irwin daisy refers to the fact that the Koran is considered the direct unintermediated word of Allah. This is where Islam is stuck. Here, and also in the hadiths and sira -- Muhammed, a monster for any age -- is the perfect model for mankind. Islam cannot be reformed, only replaced with un-Islam, in other words, destroyed as Ayaan Hirsi Ali points out. Or smacked down good and hard for a few more decades or centuries.

ET, being a scholar herself and way too much in her head, believes that this little journal she refers to is evidence of reformability. It isn't. That is mere navel-gazing. There is no reform movement whatever in the upper echelons of Islam -- the four schools of islamic jurisprudence. Zero.

If these "reformers" are not anonymous it will mean one of two things: 1) taqiyya or 2) total irrelevance.
The tiny "reform movement" has zero traction in the Islamic world. Period. Tho I wish it well!

Finally, we Israel-supporters did not call ET a bigot. We attempted to correct her false narrative with factual historical information.

There is no reconciliation with Islam. Only dawa, submission. Islam is indeed the Religion of Peace -- peace properly understood: when all the world is Dar Al Islam, in the house of Allah.

This is just another call to Islam before war.

As in legal matters, you must be very careful to understand the defintions of the words. See Anjem Choudry on what "innocent civilians" means.

You must fight cognitive egocentrism.

Belarius

For the handful of Christian fringe members with no direct political power to be cast as promoters of armageddon is quite interesting because another group are actively trying to provoke armageddon in the middle east. This group however runs Iran. Khamenie and his puppet Amadinajad are the promoters and hopeful producers of the 12th Imam, who will come and scrub the world clean for Shia Islam but only when the world is in chaos. Iran aims to start that chaos. Anyone here familiar with this fact of Islam?

Blackbird - if defining Islam as 'actually a predatory/parasitic criminal organization' isn't bigotry - then, what is?

And, you haven't mentioned a thing about Islamic history; again, if you don't analyze the factual historical context of an ideology, and instead, like irwin daisy, rely only on the text, you are committing a critical error.

To claim that a text is the cause of that ideology, is simply erroneous. It's 'backwards'. Is Darwin's text on evolution the cause of evolution? Is Einstein's article on mass and energy the cause of this equation? Is Hitler's Mein Kampf the cause of nazi fascism? The answer to all - is NO.

Your tactic is empirically not verifiable.

Second, to utterly ignore the actual causes of an ideology, is akin to wilful ignorance. The failure to differentiate between the actual and the conceptual is a serious error.

me no dhimmi - to attempt to denigrate those Muslim scholars who are attempting to modernize Islam, by calling ONE of their journals 'little text' is hardly constructive. First, you haven't read any of their works; second- your set-in-stone conclusion is that Islam is unreformable and you have no wish to hear otherwise. Why is that? Of course they are not anonymous. Go read a few journals and books on reforming Islam. Or perhaps - you'd rather remain with your unreformed opinion.

No- your view of Israel is your view. My view is not false; YOU say it is false; that doesn't make it false. There's a difference!

She will continue to peep into her petrie dish, ignoring the cause of much of the world's violence today and Islamic pograms throughout history.

What's more there is a very good reason for this. It has often been noted that the secular leftist and the intellectual atheist seem to side with Islam in its struggle against western ideals, Christianity and Judaism. The reason is spiritual and not intellectual.
When the Muslim asserts that we are all born Muslim, he is not too far from the truth. We are all born with an unregenerate nature. However in some people’s lives a transformation takes place and that unregenerate nature is supplemented with a regenerate nature.
The nature we have regenerate or unregenerate seeks out common cause with those who share the same nature. Thus a regenerate Christian will find support from another regenerate Christian or regenerate Jew. An unregenerate atheist will find support in an unregenerate Muslim. That is not to say that regenerate Christians find much in common with regenerate Jews or the secular atheists have much in common with unregenerate Muslims but when conflict arises between the regenerate and the unregenerate we all choose sides based on the nature we were born with or reborn with depending on the circumstance.
This is why Jesus told us to go and make disciples. We aren’t going to win any intellectual arguments with a person who is wilfully plugging their ears and or wilfully remaining blind but using Spiritual words that speak to the spirit of man the unregenerate will come to a place where they too bend their knee before the Lord of lords and King of kings. As I have posted before ‘we struggle not with flesh and blood but against powers and principalities in the spiritual realm’.

re: ann coulter

if a christian is a "perfected jew" then is a muslim a "perfected christian"?

Ok, ET,

Here's a little quiz for you. To satisfy your premise, it's both textually and historically accurate.

1) The definiition of dar al-Islam and of dar al-Harb, and the relationship that is to be established between the two.

2) The basis for all Muslim jurisprudence pertaining to treaties and agreements with Infidels -- that is, the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya.

3) The concept of Muhammad as a "perfect man" and the behavior of Muhammad in his 78 military campaigns, including the stated reason for the campaign against the Jews of the Khaybar oasis, and the execution of the Jews of the Bani Qurayza taken prisoner.

4) Sura 9:29 of the Qur'an.

5) The doctrine of naskh, or abrogation.

6) What the word "Sunnah" comprises, and the contents of some of the best-known hadith (stories about the acts and sayings of Muhammad) that express the correct Muslim attitude toward Infidels.

7) The Qur'anic verses pertaining to women. The most relevant hadith pertaining to women. The women in Muhammad's life, including the story of his last, and favorite, wife -- young Aisha, whom he married when she was 6, but demurely waited to consummate the marriage when she was 9 years old. The significance, or lack of it, of this part of Muhammad's life for Muslims today.

8) The atittude toward the Christian belief in the divinity of Christ. The relevant passages in the Qur'an about believers in "shirk."

9) The concept of the kuffar. What is the Bilad al-Kufr? Why is it now permissible, as it once was not, for Muslims to migrate to the Bilad al-Kufr and live there? What do the Muslim websites explain?

10) What does the phrase "umma al-islamiyya" mean? Do whom, or to what, must Muslims owe their allegiance? Are they permitted to owe their allegiance or loyalty to anything else? Could they ever possibly fight on the side of Infidel fellow-citizens against Muslims from another country?

11) What is the concept of "taqiyya"? Does it differ from "kitman"? People of all religions lie, but is there another religion that formally sanctions lying in order to protect that religion or its Believers?

12) How are Jesus and Moses viewed in Islam?

13) What are the "djinn" in the Qur'an and where do they come from?

14) When was the Qur'an written? Over what period of time? And who wrote it down, if Muhammad was "unlettered"? And who dictated it? Why are there so many elements of both the Old and the New Testament to be found in the Qur'an? Which came first?

15) Why did the original Arab conquerors have such astounding success in subduing large swaths of territory? Did the belief-system they brought with them help or hinder that success, in the light of what you now know about Islam?

16) Can the hadith that are regarded as "authentic" be changed? That is, can one simply get rid of those hadith that say unkind things about Infidels?

17) Why are those who are Muslims not allowed to change their religion without the threat of severe punishment, including death?

18) Why do Muslims call Infidels who become Muslims "reverts" rather than "converts"?

19) What does the word "dhimmi" mean? What are the ahl al-dhimma? What is the "pact" that was made between the Muslims and the "People of the Book" who were allowed to live, and even practice their religion, under certain conditions? What requirements were laid upon the dhimmis in order that they might be treated as such? What does it mean to be a "protected people" -- "protected" from what, exactly?

20) Was Islamic Spain a paradise of interfaith harmony, that it would be advisable to try to reproduce today, if only we could?

21) What are the vast benefits that either "interfaith dialogue" or a "dialogue of civilisations" can bring to us?

Here is what I propose. If Either you, or your cohorts wish to utter a word about Islam, or about the relation of the tenets of Islam to how Muslims actually treat non-Muslims, and have done so for 1350 years, you will have to take this test. Otherwise, your opinion is - in your words - invalid.

"your view that Islam is basically violent, ignores the historical context of its original emergence and why it became accepted. No ideology emerges and is accepted without reason; lots of people come up with ideas - and are ignored. Why was this one accepted??? Think about it - the historical and economic context that made it acceptable."

Then you must also read the most recent scholarship on the origins of Islam -- John Wansbrough, Patricia Crone, Michael Cook, Yehuda Nevo, Gerd Puin, Christoph Luxenburg, Ephraim Karsh (A history of Islamic Imperialism), et al.

Had this kicking around. Here's some more text for you:

The unbelievers among the people of the book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures. (98.6).
Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve. (8.55)
The unbelievers are your inveterate enemy. (4:101)
Mohammed is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. (48:29).
It is unlawful for a believer to kill another believer, accidents excepted. (4:92)
Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. (5:51)
Make war on them [non-Muslims] until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme. (8:40)
Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme. (2:193)
The true believers fight for the cause of God, but the infidels fight for the devil. Fight then against the friends of Satan. (4:76)
We will put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. (3:150)
I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers. (8:12)
When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. (9:5)
Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe in neither God nor the Last Day, ... until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued. (9:29)
Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. (9:73 and 66:9)
Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. (9:123)
When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads. (47:4)

Wow, aside from Belisarius, ET, and Perun there is little of note to read here. Talk about religious paranoid zealots; this blogs got them.
Belisarius, as Perun stated, your points will be lost here. They will continue to operate from a position of ignorance and displace fact to fit their rheoretic, to make their sad and infantile conclusions and call to arms. Reminds me of Shrek when the angry group of farmers all grabbed pitch forks because an ogre was spotted down the road somewhere.
Belisarius tried to get you to understand the poor logic of painting all muslims with the same brush. There are good and bad and extremes at either end, just as there are good and bad christians, with extremes at either end. In fact, I would venture to say the Dasiests and christian fundamentalists on this site have aptly proven his point ten fold. They display they are operating at the extreme end of christian fundamentalism, and in the end, appear more similar to the Muslim extremists they despise, than with mainstream western soceity they live in. They appear to be calling for a western jihad against the middle east muslim countries because of a few. Thankfully, their voices appear as small as their ability to be balanced in their thinking.
Although I admire your posts Belisarius, and ET, and Perun's insight, I think it is fruitless to attempt to reason with the bigotry and racism that is entrenched here. I do hope none are my neighbours.

ET: I didn't denigrate the scholars -- in fact I wished them success. I merely pointed out their utter irrelevance. Repeating: the tiny navel-gazing reform movement has zero traction. And I tried to point out that the "reform" would not be reform but a replacement of Islam with UN-Islam. Islam is un-reformable using the word reform as I understand it. As mentioned, semantics.

When I start hearing reform-oriented things from say Al Anzar (sp?) university and other high seats of Islamic learning, I will become more constructive on this. I will not he holding by breath.
And when I start seeing bona fide gestures of good will from the Islamic world to reciprocate our dhimmi gestures, I will be more constructive. In the meantime, I'll be street-smart and on guard. I'll be from Missouri.

In the meantime, I believe this "reform" fantasy helps disarm us in the war of Islam against the West. And that's not bigotry that's fact. I take them at their word.

On guard against cognitive egocentrism, ET.

Good post irwin daisy.

But remember to ET and other apologists, the text is not important.

On guard against western liberal cognitive egocentric kool-aid.

this has basically turned into atheists defending Muslims from Christians/Jews. I think that Joe is on to something.

Does it really matter what caused the ideology to arise? In the case of Judeo/Christian ideology it exists and has given rise to the civilizations where everyone on the planet want to live.

In the case of the ideology of Islam, it exists, and its societies are the worst places on the planet to live.

In the case of atheist/communist ideology, it too has given rise to the worst kinds of living conditions from which people try to escape.

Not all ideologies are equivalent in the kinds of societies they establish. Saying that Islam is a terrible ideology does not mean that you hate all Muslims. Saying that Nazism is a terrible ideology does not mean that you hate all Germans. Saying that communism is evil does not mean you hate Chinese or Cubans.

Islam does not want to change - it wants us to change so there will "peace". check out the latest demands of Islam in "Palestine" - they want the Kotel too (the Western Wall, the last remaining piece of the Second Temple - the Temple that Jesus was in, the Temple that Arafat says did not exist there.

Atheism and Islam are threatened by the existence of Christians and Jews.

Haouk, hack, or whatever,

Rhetoric? You've posted nothing but ignorance. Not a fact, nothing.

"Call to arms?" Since there's nothing to your argument, I suppose you need to resort to making things up, of course.

"Perun's insight?" What insight? Ad hominem attack is insight in your world? The call for shutting down factually based criticism and free speech is insight?

"Belisarius tried to get you to understand the poor logic of painting all muslims with the same brush."

I have done no such thing. I have clearly stated that violence is foundational to Islam. That the violence is commanded and rewarded in the Quran and in the command to emulate Mohammad's example. These commands are true to the Quran, Hadith and Sirah, which all Islamic sects hold in common. These commands have been executed throughout history to the present day.

Because of this foundational violence the inherent problem is chronic. That despite the fact there are good Muslims, the problem/cause can skip generation(s) and manifest itself again and again. This is why western people, including Muslim parents are 'bewildered' by so-called 'home grown' and newly converted terrorists.

This is not debatable. It is a fact. If you would like to disprove this then I invite you to do so, based on fact. However, as usual, not one has been able to do so. If you cannot, your opinion is moot.

BTW, Belsarius also said:

"Irwin Daisy,

I've been reading some of Robert Spencer's stuff and have to say I've been pleasantly surprised. His position on the state of Islam and Jihadism isn't nearly so far from that of most Muslim reformers as I'd thought. From jihadwatch.org:

I encourage any Muslim individual or group who is willing to work publicly for the reform of the Islamic doctrines, theological tenets and laws that Islamic jihadists use to justify violence. But this must be done honestly and thoroughly, confronting the texts of the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira that are used to justify violence against unbelievers, and decisively rejecting Qur'anic literalism."

I agreed with him.

ET, I'll grant that modern day Israel is not tribal. But it is industrial and DEMOCRATIC because of its ideals, which are altogether based on the Jewish faith.

You say about the USA, "The focus on individualism [the dignity of the individual is a very important tenet in both Judaism and Christianity], which is a foundation for inventiveness and self-organized entrepreneurship is the foundation of the USA - a product in the 18th c, of the emergence of the industrial technology."

Your denial that this has ANYTHING to do with Christianity—“social organization . . . has NOTHING to do with religion or 'god'”—is, to say the least, disingenuous. (Look at the 20th century secular states which massacred millions of their own citizens. Do you really believe that this had “NOTHING to do with religion or 'god' "?)

In 1835, among other things, Alexis de Tocqueville observed while in the USA: “There is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America."

And, in an article in the National Review (October, 2002) by Michael Novack: “What happens when religion is pulled out from the foundations of the republic? Alexis de Tocqueville reflected more deeply on the inherent weaknesses of democracy, stripped of religion, than anybody at the ACLU today. His thesis went something like this: The premises of secular materialism do not sustain democracy, but undermine it, while the premises of Judaism and Christianity include and by inductive experience lead to democracy, uplift it, carry it over its inherent weaknesses, and sustain it.”

You have the right to disagree with this thesis but not, like you remind the rest of us, by mere assertion—and by ignoring inconvenient truths. In fact, your convolutions and unwillingness to admit the obvious often seems like gnosticism to me. Why not speak plainly, avoiding “shock and awe” and smoke and mirrors?

I appreciate the input of irwin daisy batb, joe, set you free, Joanne, other Christians, and posters like ex-liberal, Me No Dhimmi, and Apollyon. I find their opinions strong and clearly stated. To try and construe them as hate or the comments of “nutjob fundamentalist Christian[s]” (Belisarius) is out of turn. E.g., Belisarius writes, “But I've also met those from the fringes of Christianity. These are the ones who view the creation of the State of Israel and the rise of Islamic terror as signs that the End of Days is upon us and the Return of Jesus is imminent. They eagerly anticipate a war with Islam . . . ”

These words most certainly don’t express the opinions of any Christian poster here. Perhaps Belisarius would like to document his unpleasant suggestion.

Me No Dhimmi,

"But remember to ET and other apologists, the text is not important."

Nor is history important. Hey, what the clerics/scholars/imams say is not important. Come to think of it, neither is religious justification for Islamic political leaders calling for the extermination of Israel and the west important.

The only thing that's important is their unsupportable opinion. making up bogus and irrelevant moral equivalence claims and ad hominem attacks.

It's astounding. Especially from ET.

ex-liberal

Atheism is not akin to communism. Kindly check out the definitions of both, and realize that atheism as an ideology existed long before communism as an ideology. You are quite wrong to attempt to merge the two. You do it, as a tactic of insulting the atheist; but, if you do want to insult someone, at least do it based on facts.

Equally, your claim that someone analyzing a society's economic base is a 'marxist' shows yet another ignorance of marxism. Ever heard of Hayek, the famous economist, a 'small-l liberal' or conservative - and most certainly not a Marxist. Same with Milton Friedman (Nobel in Economics)...and so on.

me no dhimmi - Of course I disagree with the thesis that democracy requires Christianity and Judaism. And all one can do with such a claim is to rebut it with assertion. There can be no factual empirical proof of the validity of the claim or the non-validity of the claim. Either way, it has to remain an assertion.

After all, to assert that democracy rests on a particular religious base (Christianity, Judaism), you would have to explain why democracy only appeared in Europe, with difficulty and great resistance from the church, from the 15th c on..and didn't really emerge until the 17th c.

de Toqueville's chapter is entitled "The influence of democracy on religion" - and this suggests that causality is the other way around to your suggestion of the religion as the base. And he cautions (p 152 ch 17) that 'religions ought to confine themselves within their own precincts" and not seek to establish their power beyond religious matters'.

Democracy is not, and cannot be proven to be, a religious institution. It is, in my view, a political mode that is necessary within a multimillion size population that requires a middle class. A middle class is the essence of democracy, for one's position in such a class is not hereditary but by merit.

Irwin daisy - I don't have to take your or any test in order to exercise my speech. - we will have to disagree on all issues.

ET:
me no dhimmi - Of course I disagree with the thesis that democracy requires Christianity and Judaism.
Misattribution here. I don't recall saying this.
While democracy doesn't require Christianity, still as an atheist myself, I can't shake the notion that its evolution was energized or informed by Christianity in some way. However, I frankly admit being very confused on this matter.

I'm with you on morals and religion. I don't think a lack of religious belief precludes the development of morals. I see morals as self-interest, properly understood. Kind of free market economic thinking, golden rule etc.

I also agree with you ET that atheism was not the cause of communist mass murder. Perhaps an enabler in some way tho.
I find your arguments warning about confusing correlation and causation very compelling. I learned this from the investment business -- the hard way a few times. :)

Something I just picked up: according to Pope Benedict (I think) Islam introduced not one single new ethical concept. I had that sense from my amateur reseach on the subject.

Finally: I believe it was in Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, a quite intriquing notion: that free market enthusiasm may be made easier by strong religious convictions. In both cases one needs to be comfortable not understanding how things work as they do and have the humility to just accept them.

A campus restaurant at the University of Toronto at Scarborough has begun offering halal meals for Muslim students.

The Muslim Students Association at UTSC has ignited a fierce debate on the particulars of halal food on campus, refusing to support a long-awaited halal option at a Bluff’s, a UTSC campus restaurant.

The result of numerous faculty, staff and student requests, the new menu was introduced to the campus on May 29, making all chicken and beef options certified halal. Despite this, many MSA members say that any establishment that also serves alcohol and plays dance music is an unsuitable environment for their dietary needs.

Jaballah also argued that patronizing such an establishment is wrong because Muslim students would provide revenue for Bluff’s to purchase alcohol—an action forbidden by hadith, a Prophetic saying.

From the varsity.ca

"an action forbidden by hadith" Despite the fact the infidels are forced to eat halal - "making all chicken and beef options certified halal."

Just another example of text not being important.

----------------

"Irwin daisy - I don't have to take your or any test in order to exercise my speech."

However, as you've previously agreed, you'd gladly take that 'free speech' away from others. What a bloody hypocrite.

ET

I made a factual claim in saying Islam is a predatory /parasitic ideology. If you know its history. You call me a bigot for stating the truth. What does that make you? You said Islam got upset when early Christians invaded the land of Islam. Now are you lying or just stupid? It was islam that attacked the Christian lands of the Byzantine empire. Not the other way around. So your wrong out of the gate. Any other revisionist history you would like cleared up? It's odd that those self loathing westerners automatically revert to accusations of bigotry and racism when confronted with Islamic truth. Perhaps thats why the right view the left as such weak sisters. Ignorant and opinionated.

There is no purpose in casting pearls before such as you ET if you are too stubborn to admit that you are dead wrong on Islam. But I suppose you have never been incorrect about anything in life.

blackbird - I didn't say that 'Islam got upset when early Christians invaded the land of Islam'.

There wasn't any 'Islam' at the time; there wasn't any 'land of Islam'. What I said was that there were tribes that lived by pastoral nomadism in the ME and Arabian Peninsula; this type of economy requires a large land base. The devt of settled agriculture in the region, enabled by the Roman Empire's devt of roads, irrigation, safe transportation, money, etc, meant that this type of economy (settled agriculture) was able to support larger populations. This meant that the population was expanding and requiring more land.

The acceptance of Christianity (334AD) as the official religion of this region was based on Christianity as an ideology promoting collaboration, neighbourliness etc - rather than tribal fighting. So - the settled area was expanding, and was moving into the Arabian Peninsula, threatening the nomadic economies' land base.

Islam as an ideology emerged as a 7th c. reaction to this loss of economic land. Islam is obviously, if you read the texts, a pastoral nomadic society. Nothing parasitic/predatory.

So- don't make claims about what I said that are false. The invasion into Europe and Europe's invasion of the ME was much later.

me no dhimmi - I thought Pope Benedict's speech on Faith and Reason - and the rejection of Reason by the Islamic faith, was magnificent. I'd agree; I don't think that Islam has introduced any new ethics but, as you also point out, ethics doesn't require reason. What is more disturbing about Islam, is its adamant rejection of reason, of the individual freedom. That is why it must change; no society in our modern world can live without the use of individual reason.

irwin daisy - the text, alone, without the context, is without meaning. And no, I've never advocated denying anyone the right of free speech. I do, however, advocate the right to critique opinions.

Mike Haouk -

The reason why I want Christ to return is so the suffering of mankind can end, not the suffering of mankind can begin.

ET can trace her timeline all she wants and point to all kinds of reasons she thinks that Islam exists but the fact of the matter is that St Paul predicted the existance of Islam back when it was doubtful that Christianity would survive its infancy. Galatians 4:21-31 speaks of the two sons of Abraham, one the son of the law which points to Arabia and one the son of the promise which points to the new Jerusalem. This also harkens back to my point about the unregenerate and regenerate spirit in an above posting. I am always in awe of the One who brought forth the two sons so that we might have a clearer indication of the path that we should follow.

ET: Well done. I had in fact been meaning to ask you for a brief on the settled vs. nomad. From your earlier explanations I had the impression that you were sorta justifing Islam as some kind of "blow back".
But was the "settled area" really moving into Arabian peninsula. Remember the Jews were there and were a settled community.

Islam is obviously, if you read the texts, a pastoral nomadic society. Nothing parasitic/predatory.
That however strikes me as fatally flawed. The nomadic culture fed off the settled culture through razzias didn't it?

Yes, I too read Bendict's speech and it was indeed magnificent. And Bennie seems to continue to speak courageously which I find heartening. He seems to be less inclined toward the meaningless "interfaith" gesture demanding some kind of minimum standards of Islam.

Finally, I am intrigued with your arguments about economics as root cause, for I have been known to explain to my own un-listending adult children that "everything is economics" when you boil it down.

ET said...

"Islam emerged as a 7th c. reaction to this loss of economic land..."

How can you say this? Agriculture did not arrive with the Roman empire and there was no land grab from Islamic holdings.

After Mohammed spent years failing to draw more than a handful of followers for his bastardized twisting of Christian and Jewish texts he was finally driven from his home for being an annoyance. In his wilderness phase he discovered that if you wed religion to caravan robbery you can draw more believers. Soon he swelled his ranks with the promise of "booty" for his followers. Anything taken is divided into 20% for Allah and his messenger and 80% to the actual thieves. All blest and sanctioned by God. After defeating his local enemies and rivals he never looked back and growth by the sword and intimidation was all that was needed to establish his empire. Islam swept all the middle east and began forays outside its natural range. Islams entry into India has cost 80 million Hindu lives since it's arrival there. North Africa was taken in a generation. After taking the Byzantine lands of the Eastern Mediterranean it began a 700 year long attack on Constantinople until the eastern Roman Empire finally fell. The assault on Western Europe in the 7 hundreds out of muslim conquered Spain was only meant as a distraction (battle of Tours etc.)for the main assault on eastern Europe which fell apart due to the untimely death of the current Caliph and the unexpected loss in the west. For centuries more Islam sought by force majuer to conquer Europe. The Crusades were a response to muslim attack and destruction of Christian holy places after 300 years of unrelenting Islamic assault. When Islam began to slip behind in technology and could no longer conquer by invasion it was forced into Piracy and slavery to earn a living. The Barbary pirates fed off shipping and tribute (at one point in it's early years the USA paid one quarter of its GDP in tribute to the Islamic pirates) for centuries before it was stopped by Frances conquest of Northern Africa leaving them only with the slave trade (Islam took more than 1 and a quarter million white slaves from raiding European coastal towns during the time of the Barbary pirates and they are responsible for every black slave sold out of Africa.) When the slave trade was shut down Islam became the moribund society that it is today. A society that officially banned the acquirement of knowledge and education, banned literature, painting, music and dance.

The Ottoman Empire was the last vestige of the Ummah and when it was dissolved after ww1 Islam was left adrift before the societies that advanced and promoted knowledge as a natural base for progress.

Then new life...Oil and it's wealth has infused new life in global jihad. In other words we supply the money that Islam attacks us with. Islam must make it's last stab at global domination before it is subsummed by western cultural pressure and they are doing the best they can. They know it cannot be done by force on their part anymore (look at the history of Islamic vs, western forces in the last century )so they will try to overturn us by using subterfuge and chronic intimidation. By allying themselves to the unthinking left they hope to end free speech and have largely succeeded. The cartoon fiasco ended free speech in the west as far as discussing Islam goes. As is evident here, you cannot criticize Islam without a leftard calling you a racist or a bigot. (what "race" is Islam anyway?)

Oh yes...there was no Golden Age of Islam, they stole credit for the concept of zero from the Hindus as was the method of all Islamic claims at learning. Islam has contributed nothing to mankinds store of information. As far as protecting western thought by keeping ancient texts safe, well after Constantinople was conquered and the muslims took possesion of the libraries I don't see a need to thank Islam for not burning all the books the stole.

Thats a concise description of the history of Islam. No pretty but neither is islam.

me no dhimmi - yes, apparently the settled agricultural economies of the ME were moving into the Arabian Peninsula. I'll have to look for the reference on that.

A settled and expanding agricultural economy was enabled by the Roman devt of the ME; as I said, roads, safety on those roads, irrigation, trade, markets, devt of towns etc.

I think Constantine's proclamation of Christianity as the official religion was a clear statement against the previous economy of the region - which was small scale local village agriculture, and transhumance (a combination of horticulture and small animal husbandry).

These small economies were, because of the Roman technology and safety, expanding in both ability to produce surplus and support a larger population. But - previous separation of these populations when they were smaller, required that the larger communities had to 'get along'.

And, in differentation from polytheism, which is a religious ideology based around local gods, Christianity is a 'merging, collaborating, everyone getting along' ideology. Absolutely perfect for the deep economic changes in the area that required people to get along.

The Romans were moving into the Arabian Peninsula - and meeting up with the pastoral nomadic economies. No, a PN economy doesn't require raids into settled areas; they can get along by trading a few animals for grain. But, what the PN economy requires, is a large land base, with a lot of the land left empty and fallow, to regenerate from the animals. A PN economy must move; if it's forced to 'stay put' the animals will overgraze the lands - and that's the end of that.

What was happening in the centuries after the official acceptance of Christianity, was the expansion of this agricultural settlements - and moving more and more into the 'vacant' lands of the PN peoples.

The reaction, in my view, was a militant ideology, Islam, which asserted its identity as PN - and the necessity to fight for the land base of a PN economy.

The Jews were more in the ME rather than the peninsula, and, going by their rules, I'd say that they were a settled people, not nomadic, and their economy was horticultural. My reason for saying this is because they are tribal, BUT, not like the Muslim tribal nature. The Jewish hereditary link is matrilineal, by the mother. This suggests that their economy was based around the work of the women, ie, a garden economy, ie, horticultural.

The Islamic privileging of the men etc, is very obviously a patrilineal and a 'large animal' economy, based around the herding of larger herds and animals - pastoral nomadic.

So, warfare will usually only come about when the economy is threatened. Most tribes will keep a 'no-man's zone' between themselves and other tribes or peoples. When problems arise with food supply - that's when this zone is weakened, and warfare can arise.

As far as the economy being basic - I'm quite committed to that. The way I always taught it, the first thing anyone had to consider was the biome, or the envt. What was the soil like (rich or thin etc); what was the source of water (no rain? seasonal rain? torrential rains? requiring irrigation? etc); and the climate (cold, hot, seasonal, etc). The envt determines what animals, what plants can exist; and what you need to be able to live in that area. A society is an adaptation to this basic envtal reality.

Then - you move on to the economy. How does a society sustain a population? How many people can that envt and that technology support? There are limits!
Then, we'd move on to the political structure, which explains how decisions are made. Who has the authority to make decisions.
And then - the legal system. The family structure. The educational system. The religious system.

Oh hi ET

still smarting from when I called your analysis "Marxist". I did not say that studying economics (Freidman, Hayek) makes you a Marxist. I probably didn't explain myself very well (I usually only have a few minutes to write these posts)-what I meant, and what others have said here, is that you cannot explain Islam by boiling it all down to materialism (eg. Christians invaded their pastoral, nomadic, tribal existence; Jews stole their land etc etc). Historical materialism would say that economic material existence determines consciousness - in this case Islam. As I tried to state above, it is the other way around - consciousness/ideology determines social, economic and material existence.

Communists are totally 100% against the God of the Bible. That is why they hate Jews and Christians. For them there can not be an Absolute to whom all are accountable. If this is insulting to atheists (all the ones I have spoken with are against the God of the Bible) then so be it.

ET: Very interesting for a guy not learned in these matters and therfore not used to conceptualizing this way. Fascinating.

However, as BL@CBIRD points out, this is true too:
After Mohammed spent years failing to draw more than a handful of followers for his bastardized twisting of Christian and Jewish texts he was finally driven from his home for being an annoyance. In his wilderness phase he discovered that if you wed religion to caravan robbery you can draw more believers. Soon he swelled his ranks with the promise of "booty" for his followers. Anything taken is divided into 20% for Allah and his messenger and 80% to the actual thieves.

This accounts for the sea change in the Koran from the earlier peaceful spiritual passages of Mecca to the warlike passages of the later Medina period. Which, as I understand it, abrogate or replace the earlier ones.

As you know the jizya is a very central concept in sharia law. The tribute required of the "peoples of the book" who do not convert. In our day, all those UK imams on welfare are collecting jizya in their view. Jizya = parasitism doesn't it?

So while I find your analysis extremely interesting and compelling from a big picture POV, so too do I feel that Islam was indeed parasitic as evidenced by the jizya and dhimmi status of non-believers.

And YES indeed, all is economics or put more crudely "follow the money".

It's late in this thread, but I find this most interesting.

BL@KBIRD,

"they stole credit for the concept of zero from the Hindus"

And have contributed as much ever since.

ET,

You are a master chameleon. This thread alone stands in testament to that. Well done!

Although, I must say, your opinion vis a vis economy/survival as a blow back is one that I'll agree with, to a degree, and in hindsight only. Additional to the most obvious cause of Islamic violence that the world is still dealing with and must deal with, again. Text + personal conviction + action = History.

ex-liberal:
consciousness/ideology determines social, economic and material existence.

Now there's a chicken-egg conundrum.

Certainly, in the ME it seems to be so. They can't progress economically because they have the wrong thoughts. Zero sumism for one. Your gain is my loss. Rule or be ruled, etc.

ET writes, "After all, to assert that democracy rests on a particular religious base (Christianity, Judaism), you would have to explain why democracy only appeared in Europe, with difficulty and great resistance from the church, from the 15th c on..and didn't really emerge until the 17th c.” Would I? I certainly notice that all the countries whose institutions, political and otherwise, were informed by the Judeo-Christian dispensation are democracies, which have prospered and are the destinations of millions from miserable places where Christianity—which grew out of Judaism—did not inform their institutions. And, places like India are now democratic BECAUSE of the British, Christian influence.

She also says, “de Toqueville's chapter is entitled ‘The influence of democracy on religion’ - and this suggests [it does?] that causality is the other way around to your suggestion of the religion as the base. And he cautions (p 152 ch 17) that 'religions ought to confine themselves within their own precincts" and not seek to establish their power beyond religious matters'.” Let’s not confuse the issue—something ET’s very good at. The Americans, before 1776, were largely British and a critical mass were committed Christians: to suggest that their faith was not integral to the formation of their democratic institutions is rubbish. (My husband said the word “rubbish” is too kind for such wilful blindness.) De Tocqueville said and I’ll repeat, “There is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America."

In a, failed, I might add, attempt to discredit her opponents, ET says, “Democracy is not, and cannot be proven to be, a religious institution.” Who the heck said that, ET? You enjoy playing games and are not direct or, at times, even honest in your arguments. NO ONE has ever suggested such a ridiculous idea as “democracy is a religious institution”.

ET also writes, “What is more disturbing about Islam, is its adamant rejection of reason, of the [sic] individual freedom.” Interesting she should say that because, in fact, Judaism and Christianity are the religions that promoted both reason and individual freedom—the basic values of democracy.

Lookout - as if things weren’t bad enough for their own people in Muslim and animist countries, the Muslim jihadists have now decided to export their violence and misery to the citizens of the democratic countries of the world.

Countries with highest murder rates:

1. Honduras (Christian)
2. South Africa (Christian)
3. Swaziland (Christian)
4. Columbia (Christian)
5. Lesotho (Christian)
6. Rwanda (Christian)
7. Jamaica (Christian)
8. El Salvador (Christian)
9. Venezuela (Christian)
10. Bolivia (Christian)

lookout,

ET argues on behalf of her own ego very well. Truth and reason are secondary.. On some of her points - by accident - you, me and others will find agreement with her. A victim of knowledge, not perfected by humility. Wisdom, she'd never ask for.

A horrible indictment, I admit.

Iraq didn't have any stats but it's logical to assume it would be #1. A more recent list bumped Russia into the top 10.

Bel-are-you-serious?

I suppose it's the same sort of preposterous argument that you floated previously - that Nazis are Christian?

I understand your simpleton conclusions. The world is divided by supposed non-Islamic countries, that are therefore by default, Christian - and countries governed in whole or mostly by Islamic sharia?

I suppose the so-called Christian, so-called democracies will also be handicapped by the separation of church and state, while Islamic countries?

Whatever happened to the Rastas? They'd be so disappointed that you grouped them with Pentecostals and Catholics.

Regardless, these Christian Rastafarians! They're always yelling"God is great" before killing everybody after a drug deal gone bad.

Hell, you're a Canadian athiest, no? "How dare they call Canada a Christian country!" Have they not heard of separation of church and state? And diversity?!!! And, and, multiculturalism?!!!!

What a world. What a country. What a blog. What fun.

I made no conclusions and presented no argument, ID. After "Lookout"'s comment I became curious about worldwide stats for crime, murder etc. and how they relate to the dominant religion in each country.

Personally, I think the two are unrelated. Other much more important factors are at play. But it's still interesting, no?

How about separation of church and state?

ET also writes, “What is more disturbing about Islam, is its adamant rejection of reason,

Well yeah, in order to truly accept reason beyond your own petty little thoughts one has to accept the Logos of God whom we Christians have come to know as Jesus Christ. Since Islam rejects the divine Logos they also reject Reason. Funnily enough they seek after the Will of God which of course mankind can not reach or understand without approaching through the Reason of God. Thus the Islamist flails about trying to please a Will he can never know.

Equally funny ET rejects Will clinging to the hollowed out reason of a shallow human mind. Of course Reason can not exist without Cause but many ivory tower types can’t understand that fundamental fact. So strong is their faith in reason that they completely disregard will as a relevant factor.

Yet there is one factor that Islam and ET both reject and that is the Nature (Spirit) of God. Of course rejecting any one of the three Will, Word or Spirit is a rejection of the whole. As Jesus said I (the Word) and the Father (the Will) are one. From Will springs Reason both having their place in the Nature and yet ruling over the Nature.

However this indeed is Good News for each and every one of us by Divine Conscious Will are carried in the Divine Nature, the physical manifestation of which is the universe.

However our purpose here is not to remain here naked and broken but to move from this place to the Heavenly realm. Shedding as we go our unregenerate nature and putting on the Divine Nature with which we shall at last be fully integrated and gloriously clothed.

That being said in truth we drag our feet like petulant children defiantly yelling at our Father “you’re not the boss of me” Our Father with infinite patience and love grasps us a little more firmly and drags us until finally we stand before him a grown being full of grace and mercy even as our Father is full of Grace and Mercy. Wouldn’t it be so much easier just to fall in step with Him and learn from His Wisdom?

Yet by God’s Grace from the ignobility that is base humanity shall indeed spring truly noble sons of Almighty God. You and I have a destiny that far surpasses our understanding yet we sit here and squabble over the rightness of our version of history. We bicker over the righteousness of our anthropological imaginings and ignore the reason for our existence. As an old familiar TV show used to say “Look up. Way up”.

Look up and weep at the depth to which we have sunk. By now we should be eating whole foods and here we are, needing pabulum again. We should be chowing down on Spiritual steak and here we are fighting over our baby bottles each thinking the other’s has more milk. Good thing God loves us because nobody else could.

Belesarius, your point addressed to me has nothing to do with what I was saying . . .

However, I believe there are other, much more important factors, than these countries being ostensibly Christian, to explain the serious dysfunction and violence they experience. Think about it.

In fact, if one were to visit these places, many of them benighted hell holes, I'd not be surprised if some of the best of what's happening there is somehow connected to Christians: schools, hospitals, medicine, mentoring programs, agricultural resources, shelter, dedicated indigenous believers and foreign missionaries serving others, often at great risk to themselves, etc.

E.g., Not too long ago, a world famous, agnostic war photographer in Africa described what he saw as right out of a Heronymous Bosch painting . . . except for, in the midst of destruction and death, an orphanage for blind children run by penniless Catholic nuns.

Think too of Mother Teresa’s Sisters of Charity and a multitude of other Christian orders and groups in trouble[d] spots all over the world. I don’t think any other religion can match the outreach of the Christian churches to those in need, whatever their religion. Think the Good Samaritan, a parable at the heart of Christian teaching: “Love thy neighbour as thyself.” I’d be willing to change my assessment if there were evidence that I'm overstating the case. However, for those with ears to hear and eyes to see, the facts of the matter are pretty conclusive.

(irwin daisy, I appreciate your note. Thanks.)

lookout at October 12, 2007 10:21 PM

Well argued! I too was wondering, 'if not for Christian outreach' how much worse it may have been.'

As you've probably seen by now, Belisarius has conceded that the murder rates-Christianity are not related. Which has one wondering 'why post them in the first place'.

Thanks, and my sentiment, exactly, Me No Dhimmi.

Unfortunately, I think I know the answer to your question: there's a lot of anti-Christian sentiment out there. (As I once mentioned, despite so-called "equity" policies, anti-Christian put-downs are regularly overlooked and allowed in the public school system: similar slip-ups--swear words, jokes--directed at the protected groups would be dealt with swiftly and sometimes harshly. Not so when it's "only a Christian" who's been disparaged or offended.)

Sad. (Unfair too.)

MND - Belisarius has conceded that the murder rates-Christianity are not related. Which has one wondering 'why post them in the first place.

Saying I conceded it is putting the case too strongly. I said, "in my opinion". They might well be related. Even so, its very interesting that murder rates are so much lower in the supposedly violent, oppressive Muslim world.

I posted them because I was curious if reality matched "lookout"'s statement about the violence of Muslim states. Overall crime rates are also very interesting. Guess which North American country makes the top 10. Guess which one doesn't.

Oh yeah, no Muslim countries on that list either.

By the way, a big shout out to Mike Haouk. You're a stand-up guy.

lookout,

Such is the mockery wholly towards the greatest power to become carnate in our time. Should make even the most perverse mind wonder.

Wonder, among so many accusations and such well thought out conspiracies, exactly why, prior to Guttenberg, the Papal leaders and their vasals didn't demand the writers justify holy actions in holy writ?

A strange and unexplained phenomenon.

ET

You discuss the 7th century AD ME like it was 37th century BC Mesopotamia. We can read the driving motivations of the very individuals involved and it has nothing to do with Christian insertion into NP zones. The Arabian Peninsula is a desert ET. Was then and is today. There are no grazing lands to replenish themselves in the Arabian Desert. Why do you persist in your nonsense? What is your agenda? How can you remain so obtuse?

Correction: "justify their own actions in holy writ."

No derogatory remark meant That is, it's odd how the Crusades. various inquisitions, etc, cannot be justified in the NT? Or, by all rights of imperialism, should not have been made holy writ?

"Prominent Muslim scholars..."

Huh! Now there's an oxymoron if I ever saw one.

Belisarius, did I misread this or something (re: Christianity-murder rates).

Personally, I think the two are unrelated. Other much more important factors are at play. But it's still interesting, no?
Posted by: Belisarius at October 12, 2007 9:33 PM

"Prominent Muslim scholars..."
Huh! Now there's an oxymoron if I ever saw one.
Posted by: Joe Canuck at October 13, 2007 12:19 PM

As I say ever single word/term needs to be explored: "peace" "tolerance" "innocent civilians" "scholars" "rights" et al.

Even "religion" for it is not a religion at all in the Western sense. It is a self-contained fascist political ideology, fascist on the micro level: regulating every aspect of your life including how to go to the bathroom, and the macro sense: how to cover the planet with sharia law.

On guard against liberal cognitive egocentrism.

ET
You discuss the 7th century AD ME like it was 37th century BC Mesopotamia. We can read the driving motivations of the very individuals involved and it has nothing to do with Christian insertion into NP zones. The Arabian Peninsula is a desert ET. Was then and is today. There are no grazing lands to replenish themselves in the Arabian Desert. Why do you persist in your nonsense? What is your agenda? How can you remain so obtuse?

BL@KBIRD at October 12, 2007 11:51 PM

I greatly appreciated your comments on this thread and when all is considered, I completely agree with your observation here and overnite had come to the same conclusion about the driving force of individual characters. In Mo's case, as a traveller he came into contact with the Jews and greatly admired their learning -- was jealous of it in fact, and set out to invent one of his own, one which is entirely devoid of spirituality and ethics. After his intitial failure -- after being considered a total clown for his derivative pretensions -- he got "mad as hell and wasn't gonna take it anymore". At which time he discovered that he needed to provide strong economic motivation for his prospective bedouin followers. That motivation was loot through murder and mayhem.

Another thought last night: Islam can not be "reformed".

Reformed, Islam would become Waslam!

Wahoo! Great line, MND. Thanks.

"Reformed Islam would become Waslam."

Hilarious.

Also, if you support the separation of church and state, it's irrational to support Muslim immigration. The two are diametrically opposed.

id, you've definitely got a point here.

Thanks, irwin daisy and lookout:
Yeah, I went bolt upright in bed last nite with that "revelation". I had a good chuckle over it so glad I'm not totally nuts.

BTW: lookout; I can't believe I'm saying this but I saw pastor McGee (sp?) on Glenn Beck -- about the "end times". His views concurred with my own totally secular view that we're coming to some kind of climactic blow-off. And I completely agreed with his diagnosis -- that the root cause of societal collapse is the destruction of the family. From a secular libertarian pov, the monster state - Leviathan -- destroys the family by making its need less urgently felt.

MND, I don't know who either Pastor McGee or Glenn Beck are, but they're right on the money re the family. It is the foundation of our society and the most important mediating institution between the individual and the raw power of the state. Families can raise children who have beliefs and thoughts not dictated by the state. When the state takes over the care of our kids—the NDP/Liberal/Bloc, feminists', and socialists' "national child care policy"—watch out! (It's unfortunate that atheism has no structure to help form or nurture families, the way religious institutions do.)

And, no, you're not totally nuts! In fact, you're one of the most sane and intelligent voices here, IMO.

For both MND and irwin daisy, re id's comment about Muslims and the separation of church and state: I'm just reading Richard John Neuhaus's monthly survey, The Public Square, in the October, 2007 issue of First Things and have come across something that made me run to my computer:

"There are commentators who routinely site Turkey as an example of a more or less successful democracy in a country with a Muslim majority. But as Mustafa Akyol, a Turkish writer, has pointed out in these pages ('Render Unto Ataturk', March/07), the appearance of democracy is at the price of enforcing a 'naked public square.' The circumstance is put nicely by Onur Oymen, the main opposition leader to the government led by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan: 'In a country with a Muslim population, you can't have democracy without secularism.'"

BINGO!

Whoops, I left out the next sentence, which I know MND and id have anticipated: " . . . Which means, it would seem, in a country with a Muslim population, you can't have democracy."

"...that the root cause of societal collapse is the destruction of the family." by Me No Dhimmi

The root cause of the societal collapse of the family is the falling away from Christian beliefs and laws. People no longer believe they are held accountable to God or anyone for their behaviour. There was a time when a man would feel too ashamed to abandon his wife and children, but now it is extremely commonplace. People go into marriage believing that if it doesn't work out to their level of tolerance, they can just move on. I bet every destructive force against the family can be contributed to people being led into temptation and thus, into the breaking of the biblical laws and statues.

A Quote from Mustafa Akyol:

I want to refute two diametrically opposing camps: Islamist terrorists and some of the harsh critics of Islam. Interestingly, both camps agree that Islam is a cult of violence, whereas for me, and for hundreds of millions of Muslims around the globe, Islam is a path to God. We just wish to cleanse that path from the distortions of the politically oriented radicals and intolerant bigots.

More here: http://www.thewhitepath.com/

lookout - (quoting Tayypi Erdogan)'In a country with a Muslim population, you can't have democracy without secularism.' BINGO!

Democracies in countries with a sizable Muslim population:

* Albania (Europe) (70% Muslim)
* Algeria (North Africa) (99%)
* Bangladesh (South Asia) (83%)
* Comoros (South eastern Africa) (98%)
* Indonesia (South-East Asia) (88%)
* Iran (Middle-East) (98%)
* Kyrgyzstan (Central Asia) (75%)
* Lebanon (Middle-East) (59.7%)
* Nigeria (West Africa) (50%)
* Malaysia (South-East Asia) (62%)
* Mali (West Africa) (90%)
* Morocco (North Africa) (98.7%)
* Niger (West Africa) (80%)
* Senegal (West Africa) (94%)
* Sierra Leone (West Africa) (60%)
* Turkey (Europe / Asia) (99.8%)
* Yemen (Arabian Peninsula - Asia) (+90%)

MND - I can't believe I'm saying this but I saw pastor McGee (sp?) on Glenn Beck -- about the "end times".

Did he have an ETA for Jesus?

Did he have an ETA for Jesus?

I'm assuming that Pastor McGee is J. Vernon Mcgee that has been preaching on the radio for all those many years. I used to listen to him on occasion and he came across as one of those old "end times" preacher. I've never heard him venture a guess on the end times any more than Jesus who said when asked "only the Father knows". Pesonally I'm not a big fan of end times preaching because it almost inevitably leads to end times predictions which equally inevitably are wrong. However the error has created a lot of anxiety and led countless people astray (JW's come immediately to mind). I find it sufficient to know that we are here by God's Grace and rejoice in the sure knowledge that He will never leave us or forsake us despite our own often vile stupidity.

"...into the breaking of the biblical laws and statues (statutes)."

....I didn't mean statues.

Belisarius, interesting statistics. And how are things--e.g., freedom of religion, speech, association (especially for women), etc.--going in each of these countries? I'd be interested to know and grateful for your input.

Regarding Christians in Canada, you seem to be seriously concerned about their influence and the doctrine of separation of church and state.

Consider the eventuality that a critical mass of Canadians are Muslim: perhaps you could comment on how you think this doctrine would play out then.

Pastor McGee, on Glenn Beck's show, has his own and I'm sure his followers, interpretation of the scriptures. I wish Glenn Beck would get a pastor on who knows what he is talking about and can back it with biblical scripture. No wonder people think Christians have spent too much time in the sun. But hey, that is just my opinion.

Joanne
I tend to agree with you on pastor McGee and his followers. I have a problem with most radio/tv preachers simply because of the amount of time they have to fill to make the daily broadcast. Ask any church leader if he would like to preach 5 sermons a week and he would laugh at you. I could do it - if someone else wrote 4.5 of them. As it is most often my sermon notes are half written scribbles and the sermon I deliver never sounds like what I had in mind as I was writing it. In other words I'm not sure how much thought goes into what is being said.

Lookout - Belisarius, interesting statistics. And how are things--e.g., freedom of religion, speech, association (especially for women), etc.--going in each of these countries? I'd be interested to know and grateful for your input.

They range from poor to not too bad. Depends on the country. For most countries on the list - poor.

Regarding Christians in Canada, you seem to be seriously concerned about their influence and the doctrine of separation of church and state.

Not at all. If I gave you that impression, then let me state clearly that I'm not worried about that at all. I am, however, concerned about certain fringe elements in the Christian community who seem intent upon provoking confrontation with Muslims rather than seeking solutions to our differences.

Consider the eventuality that a critical mass of Canadians are Muslim: perhaps you could comment on how you think this doctrine would play out then.

The majority would continue to cherish the freedom of worship they enjoy here today. Separation of religion and state would remain in force.

In the Ottoman Empire of 1856, following the abolition of dhimmi status for Jews and Christians:

“All forms of religion are and shall be freely professed in my dominions,” proclaimed the sultan in the Reform Edict of 1856. “No subject of my empire shall be hindered in the exercise of the religion that he professes.”

(Quoted in "Render Unto Ataturk" - Mustafa Akyol, April 16, 2007)

“All forms of religion are and shall be freely professed in my dominions,” proclaimed the sultan in the Reform Edict of 1856. “No subject of my empire shall be hindered in the exercise of the religion that he professes.”

(Quoted in "Render Unto Ataturk" - Mustafa Akyol, April 16, 2007)

And fifty years later they slaughtered over a million Christians. Selling young Christian girls into the harems of Arabia and forcing them to convert to Islam.

Nice try at cherry picking though.

A terrible and inexcusable crime to be sure, Joe. And one that it is high time the Turks acknowledge.

Tell me though, do you think that the 20th century's first mass murder had more to do with Islam wanting to slaughter Christians or with the rise of a warped form of Turkish ethnic nationalism?

By the way, here is another very interesting article by Mustafa Akyol, which details how Turkey's Diyanet - the highest Islamic authority in the country - is reforming the practice of their religion.

http://www.thewhitepath.com/archives/2006/07/a_feminist_islamic_reform_in_turkey.php

"Which means, it would seem, in a country with a Muslim population, you can't have democracy."

And then Bel-are-u-serious counters:

Democracies in countries with a sizable Muslim population:

* Iran (Middle-East) (98%)

Game. Set. Match.

Separation of church and state vs. Islam.

Choose your side.

Bel-r-u-serious writes:

"The majority (Muslims)would continue to cherish the freedom of worship they enjoy here today. Separation of religion and state would remain in force."

Once again, the majority of Muslims in Canada prefer some form of Shariah (CBC poll Feb, 2007).

And then:

"In the Ottoman Empire of 1856, following the abolition of dhimmi status for Jews and Christians:

All forms of religion are and shall be freely professed in my dominions,” proclaimed the sultan in the Reform Edict of 1856. “No subject of my empire shall be hindered in the exercise of the religion that he professes.”

Dude, you can't help yourself can you?

As Joe pointed out,

"And fifty years later they slaughtered over a million Christians. Selling young Christian girls into the harems of Arabia and forcing them to convert to Islam."

Also, read up about the Jannisaries.

Not to mention, Turkey's military mandate is to ensure democracy through separation of church and state. Why is that?

Islam vs. separation of church and state. Choose.

Me no dhimmi:

Your humorous insight is going to become famous.

What do you call reformed Islam?

Waslam.

Belisarius—long delay because I'm just lately back from church and various obligations—I appreciate your courteous response. I believe it's been well rebutted by both joe and irwin daisy. (Thanks.)

I'm interested to know where you're coming from. E.g., I'm a Christian WAS-(formerly)-P who cherishes the British, Christian heritage of this country. Not forgetting the contribution of the Quebecois, it is because of my (and many other SDA posters') ancestors' British education and skills (later joined by all kinds of Europeans), as well as their CHRISTIAN beliefs, that this enviable country was built and became the desired destination of masses of people fleeing the many repressive regimes elsewhere in the world. (BTW, saying this—stating the obvious—publicly would be considered a subversive act, which could even threaten my job or see me hauled before a Human Rights Commission. Some freedom: I’ve noticed that every “right” discovered, via the Charter for a minority group, diminishes the freedoms of Canadians like me.)

You seem to be a revisionist who has a problem with the reality of Christian Canada past, and the fact that Canada present is still motivated by Christian ideals—for how much longer, I have my doubts—that certain immigrant groups may undermine (on top of the untold damage already done by home-grown secularists).

Again, I'm interested to know where you're coming from.

irwin daisy: Yeah, I'm still chuckling over it; bon mots are generally not my forte. And thank you again for your great stuff on Islam. Are you aware of Centre for the Study of Political Islam? (CSPI) and their "simple Koran" re-organized chronologically?

Concerning the Ottoman "capitulations" Belisarius excitedly refers to, these, I believe, were essentially forced on the Ottomans by the British and French empires. This was not the kind and generous outreach Belisarius implies. Economic necessity I think.

lookout: Interesting question "where are you coming from". Last night and while jogging this morning I was wondering exactly this. What exactly is Belisarius trying to say? Is he suggesting that other religions do well in Islamic countries? If so he needs to read Bat Ye'or (I've read 5 of her books) on the fate of non-muslims in muslim countries throughout history.

A recent statistic I encountered: Christians as a percentage of the population in the ME have declined from 6% to 1.5% over the past 100 years. That's a 75% reduction. How did that happen Belisaruius? Moreover, have a look at the diastrous decline of the Christian population in towns like Bethlehem.
Also look at the tragedy that is Lebanon -- the former Paris of the East. It had been 60% Christian until they kindly permitted "Palestinian" "refugees" to sette there and re-produce. The pop. has now reversed and the expected disaster has ensued.

Another stat just encountered: apparently there are THREE TIMES as many Lebanese Christians living outside Lebanon as inside. Why Belisarius?

Belisarius if you're still around, how about an honest short paragraph on what you're trying to accomplish here: if it's to show us that "not all Muslims are bad" don't bother. We know this. Also, please stop for a moment and ask yourself how reliable statistics from totalitarian countries would be.

MND, your knowledgeable input—thank you for the information you've provided—and thoughtful comments are always welcome. (And I SHOULD have been jogging this morning!)

I hope Belisarius responds to my query and I'd also like to know about his name, especially its relationship to the content of his posts.

(Waslam: jolly well done!)

Belesarius you asked a pertinent question as to whether the Armenian genocide was religious or ethnic in nature and in truth I don’t know for certain. I don’t usually subscribe to the “one cause” school of thought and as such I ask the question did the Islamic religion act as an accelerant in this genocide or serve as a brake. You posted a few days ago about the Nazis and postulated that Christianity was an accelerant in the Holocaust. Most people on this blog argued against your position as did I. I think the Holocaust was much more enabled by the diminution of Christianity thanks to secular philosophers like Hegel, Nietzsche, Darwin and the ‘Christian rationalists that did so much to undermine the authority of Holy Writ. Of course I don’t think that the rationalists would have had quite as devastating effect had not the early reformers demanded “Wherein is it written” based on the idea of Sola Scriptura but never the less Christianity had lost much of its influence in the overall German society and even in the rest of Europe and North America Christianity lost a lot of influence following the slaughter of the first world war. Many of the Christian leaders at that time were first hand witnesses to the blood bath and many vowed “never again’. They somehow equated Christianity with that conflict and began to preach a more ‘peaceful’ gospel. You might recognize it as the social gospel. However within that message was hidden the idea that right and wrong didn’t actually exist and while an individual man was basically good, societal institutions were inherently evil. This potent brew allowed a group of people to seek the ‘natural’ religion of the German people and to elevate the German people to their “rightful” place. Of course Germany along with most of Europe resented the Jews as moneyed immigrants so began the Holocaust. Many Christians did what they could to save as many Jews as they could but most Germans were Christian in name only having subscribed to the Zeitgeist of post world war one Germany.

I don’t doubt that the proclamation you cited was in response to the end of the Crimean war and I don’t doubt that the Armenian genocide was related to the end of the Crimean war as the Jewish holocaust was to the end of the First World War. Neither of the genocides should ever be excused. Forgiven YES, excused no. However the real question that is pertinent to our discussion is did Islam allow or prohibit the Armenian genocide. During the Jewish Holocaust true Christians, as opposed to secular Germans, defended Jews and often lost their lives in the process. Did people motivated by their Islamic faith risk life and limb to protect Armenians? I have never heard of such an occurrence which doesn’t mean it didn’t happen but with my limited understanding of the Muslim tradition I would rather doubt it. Having read of other similar but much smaller events it seems that the more devout the Muslim the more likely he is to engage in or at least incite acts of violence, rape and what you and I would call murder.

The purpose of all of my posts above has been to refute the claim that reform in Islam is impossible. Even Robert Spencer acknowledges it is. I have posted clear evidence that not only is it possible but that it is actually happening.

I've stated time and time again that there is a big problem with Islamic extremism in the world today. Mainstream Muslims acknowledge this readily too. MND, there really is no point in trying to get me to argue with you on this point. I agree!

Where we differ is in solutions, and in the origins of the problem. I don't think you truly understand the origins or history of Islam, and how it has produced the Islamic world we see today. Regardless, I see no point in demonizing the religion as a whole. This will simply bolster the arguments of extremists that there is a war against Islam by the Christian world, and drive more mainstream Muslims into their camp.

Of course, as I have also mentioned, there is a fringe element of Christianity which would welcome an all-out war with Islam. I'm glad to hear none of you believe this "end of days" nonsense.

MDN, you seem to read a great deal on the subject of Islamic extremism. That's great. But I urge you to explore some other viewpoints as well. Both ET and I have provided numerous suggestions.

Joe - I don’t usually subscribe to the “one cause” school of thought

Me either. In the case of the Armenian evidence, it seems to have been principally about ethnic nationalism, but there was also an element of jihadism amongst some of the participants.

You posted a few days ago about the Nazis and postulated that Christianity was an accelerant in the Holocaust.

No, I didn't state that Christianity was an "accelerant". I simply stated that the religion of the people who carried out the Holocaust (Germans) was Christian. Germany had a very long and sickening history of carrying out pogroms against the Jews, and this seemed to have been its final manifestation. As you and others have pointed out, many church leaders and other Christians in Germany opposed it. The other Germans? As you say, Christians in name only, although they surely thought otherwise.

Did people motivated by their Islamic faith risk life and limb to protect Armenians?

I don't know.

Having read of other similar but much smaller events it seems that the more devout the Muslim the more likely he is to engage in or at least incite acts of violence, rape and what you and I would call murder.

I don't know how you could possibly establish such a correlation. Saudi Arabia is a highly devout country which follows the most extreme strain of Islam - Wahhabism. Yet it has extremely low rates of all three types of crime (and very harsh punishment for those who commit them).

Lookout - Again, I'm interested to know where you're coming from.

7th century Thrace ;-)

Belisarius - prophecy in the Bible states what will happen before the return of Christ, and it will be frightening to say the least, but Christians looking forward to the return of Christ does not mean they look forward to an "all-out war with Islam." The 'end days' will be compromised of much more than a war with just the followers of Islam. God has a way of using mother nature and the enemies of his people to punish them for their sins and to bring his people to their knees to beg for forgiveness. I would imagine this all sounds rather 'baked' to you, but follow the prophecy in the Bible and see for yourself the future unfold according to the Word as it is today.

Belisarius writes, "Saudi Arabia is a highly devout country which follows the most extreme strain of Islam - Wahhabism. Yet it has extremely low rates of all three [violence, rape, and murder] types of crime (and very harsh punishment [violence and murder?] for those who commit them)."

And, this "devout country" provided 15 of the 19 men involved in the 9/11 atrocities.

So, what's your point, Belisarius?

joe asks, "Did people motivated by their Islamic faith risk life and limb to protect Armenians?"

Belisarius replies, "I don't know." Well, Belisarius, maybe you should.

Lookout - And, this "devout country" provided 15 of the 19 men involved in the 9/11 atrocities.

Right. So extremist Wahhabism has produced a disproportionate number of terrorists. Yet even so, the population of Saudi Arabia commits violent crime at far lower rates than western countries. The correlation is between extremism and terrorism, not devout Muslims and violent crime.

Well, Belisarius, maybe you should.

Why? Will it make them any worse than the Nazis? Or Christian Serbs who massacred 8000 Muslim men, women and children in Srebrenica in July, 1995? How about the Dutch soldiers who stood by and did nothing! Please stop trying to pretend that Christians haven't carried out genocide. Or that moral behaviour is solely reserved for Christians.

Joanne - follow the prophecy in the Bible and see for yourself the future unfold according to the Word as it is today.

People have been saying this for the past 2000 years. Early Christians thought Nero was the anti-Christ! I much prefer Joe's opinion on the matter. Only God knows.

No Belisaruius, you have not proven that "it is happening". You/ET have listed totally irrelevant apparently moderate groups who may even be practicing taqiyya. Are you familiar with the term dawa? At one point you even provided a link to a Islam site from a ME country -- the country that owns Al Jeezera. In English. You're not sucked in by this are you?

Fringe and irrelevant because they have zero traction. Reform will be apparent only when the clerics in the high seats of Islamic "learning" start changing their minds about the Koran -- referring to it as the work of men, not the direct unalterable word of Allah. And that all the late jihadist suras -- that abrogate the earlier peaceful ones -- are to be considered null and void for the modern world. This is not happening my friend.

And we need to see real -- not arrogant empty duplicitous words -- evidence that the Muslim leadership are changing their supremacist views and real evidence that Christians, Copts, Jews, Zoroastrians, Bahais, etc., have real equal rights in Muslim countries. This isn't happening anywhere. In fact the reverse! When we see Saudi Arabia -- which runs thousands of mosques in the west where anti-western sedition is encouraged -- allows a single church or non-Islamic religions symbol to be displayed in Saudi Arabia. That's not happening.

When we see in the Islamic world -- anywhere -- a parallel to what happened in NYC when the Empire State Building was lit up in Islamic green. That's not happening -- anywhere.

In fact, what's happening is that Islam is on the march, is intensifying. The opposite of "reforming". AND, sharia is being installed inch by inch in the West. Week by depressing week.

You need to understand the multiple prongs of Jihad especially what's going on in the mosques, Middle East Studies departments in Universities bought out by big Saudi money, even government agencies like the FBI which bring in terror fronts like CAIR to give "sensitivity" training.

Obscure journals and moderate Muslim sites are just mere talking shops -- not "happenings".
You're new to Robert Spencer. In fact, he has very little confidence in the prospect of Islam reforming.

Belisarius (spelled correctly). The level of violent crime IN Saudi Arabia is immaterial. It's exported Wahhabi violence that matters. And as mentioned the billions they're spending infiltrating and undermining western institutions!

PLUS, how in g_d's names would you know anyway. That's a totalitarian country whose "stats" cannot be trusted. But again, it's irrelevant.

Perhaps you'd like to see sharia law in Canada too, eh? To reduce crime? It would, let's be clear about that.

Belisarius
I think you and I have a real point of contention in your assertion that the religion can be the state and not the individual where I think religion is the individual and never the state. This disconnect I find interesting because your assertions seem to come from an Islamic world view. Leading me to speculate that you might have been raised Muslim even though your practice of the faith is less than your Imam would like to see in you.
I don't think that any person who states their religious affiliation is that religion simply for making that statement. When I was a kid going to university I decided after reading a couple of books that I would be a Buddhist. I had no idea what the religion was all about and I still don’t. I didn't follow any of its practices nor could I be bothered to understand what Buddha actually said. Was I ever a Buddhist? Seemingly by your standard yes but I now laugh at myself.
At a Church I led a few years ago was a woman that was to put it mildly a royal pain. She had grown up in this particular denomination and was adamant that everything be done her way in the Church. The Church was in no way beholden to her so we carried on despite her many protestations. One night we actually had to shut down a Bible study because she was not getting her way. I received a call to another Church and so I was not there to witness what happened but several congregants told me about one Sunday as the sermon was being delivered this woman rushed the pulpit fell on her knees in front of the Church weeping loudly. She confessed that all these years she had been trying to fool herself and everyone in the Church into thinking she was Christian. Before the whole congregation she asked their forgiveness because she confessed that she was not yet a Christian but now wanted to become one. As I have said before if going to Church means you are a Christian then going to the garage makes you a car.
I know there are lots of North Americans who describe themselves as Christian yet there is nothing in their lifestyle that would back up their assertion. They don’t go the Church, they don’t read their Bible, they don’t pray, they have no affiliation with anything Christian except maybe as infants their Mom and/or Dad took them to the priest and they had some water sprinkled on their head. By definition Christian means disciple of Christ. Disciple – discipline same root it means student or follower. I try to be a disciple of Christ by reading His words every day and endeavouring in my own strength and the strength that He gives me to lead my life accordingly. Are secular Canadians Christian? Of course not. Were the Nazis Christian? Nope. Are secular Europeans Christian? Getting the picture yet?
You seemingly resented my assertion that Muslim on Christian violence continues to this day. I get some of my information about Muslim/Christian conflict from Christians who have suffered at the hands of Muslims. One short example: In Malaysia during the 1990’s a family of Christians was attacked by a group of Muslim men. The Muslims attacked without warning and seemingly without provocation. The Christian men were killed almost immediately their dying ears filled with shouts of, “Allah Akbar”. Once the men were safely dead the women were repeatedly raped. Finally the attackers tired of their sport and killed the women too. We only know the details of this episode because one of the Christian girls survived by playing dead after she had been raped. As she lay naked and bleeding, eyes closed, breathing as shallowly as possible she listened to shouts of “Allah Akbar” as her mother and sisters were raped and slaughtered.
Personally I find such mindless evil hard to reconcile with any religion but talking with the ex-Muslims I know they all assure me that these acts are indeed done by practicing Muslims one even said that these acts against infidels might actually elevate the perpetrator’s status in the religion.

MND - This is not happening my friend.

Oh really?

http://www.thewhitepath.com/archives/2006/07/a_feminist_islamic_reform_in_turkey.php

This time read it.

Joe - ...your assertion that the religion can be the state and not the individual where I think religion is the individual and never the state... because your assertions seem to come from an Islamic world view. Leading me to speculate that you might have been raised Muslim even though your practice of the faith is less than your Imam would like to see in you.

Joe, you're an interesting cat. You make a lot of assumptions about my beliefs that really surprise me. When exactly did I make this assertion about religion being the state?

I wasn't raised a Muslim. United Church, although we rarely attended. I've got friends who are nominally Muslims, although none of them attend services at the Mosque. Actually, one of my very best friends is an evangelical Christian. He fears for my soul, apparently.

In the last ship I served aboard in the Navy, two of the very best sailors were Muslims: one born in Yemen and the other Algeria. Good guys, and popular members of the ship's company. Both grew up in Canada. Post 9/11, they volunteered to serve with our Task Force in the Persian Gulf, acting as translators for boarding parties and Arabic language radio communicators for maritime interdiction operations. As Naval Reservists they didn't have to do this, but they wanted to contribute. They put their lives on the line for their country.

Let's concentrate on fighting Islamic extremism and stop trying to turn this into a religious war.

Islamic extremism IS a religious war—the Muslim jihadists' religious war against us, the infidel, which includes every other non Muslim in the world. What is it about this some people don't get? (Aayan Hirsi Ali gets it.)

Re "moderate" Islam: it is responsible for discriminatory treatment, e.g., unequal status (dhimmitude, it's called) for and the loss of freedoms of the very citizens who have welcomed Muslims to their (once) free countries.

Examples abound. Just a few: the removal of national symbols Muslims dislike (Cross of St. George); the banning of harmless Western artifacts they dislike (piggy banks); the prescription of where and what other (apparently, free) citizens are allowed to eat: e.g., in some public institutions no eating in front of Muslims during Ramadan when they're fasting (how come Catholics have never been extended the same courtesy on their fast days?), and Halal meat in cafeterias of public institutions, which will exclude Jews who are Kosher; what about the hookah smoking Muslims in Vancouver who are the ONLY citizens given the right to smoke inside (because it makes them acclimatize better to their new environment)? Then, of course, there’s the abomination of the Danish cartoons, where freedom of expression was sacrificed on the altar of expediency, fear, and appeasement. Etc., etc., etc. . . .

If this creeping—I think trotting by now—subjugation of the free citizens of the West, called DHIMMITUDE, isn’t part of the jihadists’ strategy, what is it?

Hiding one’s head in the sand has never been an effective strategy for dealing with inconvenient truths. I think some people should stand up straight and face the facts.

Re hookah smokers, "the right to smoke inside" should read "the right to smoke inside PUBLIC BUILDINGS".

"Joanne - follow the prophecy in the Bible and see for yourself the future unfold according to the Word as it is today.

People have been saying this for the past 2000 years. Early Christians thought Nero was the anti-Christ! I much prefer Joe's opinion on the matter. Only God knows."

Posted by: Belisarius

Belisarius - prophecy speaks to the future, and the future has been occurring for thousands of years. Prophecy is far easier seen after it has occurred, but these days, it is just too obvious to dismiss, but go ahead and dismiss what you should be heeding as warnings and evidence of God's existence, that is your perogative and most likely, your desire anyhow. God certainly is all-knowing, but the Word was not written to keep us in the dark, but to bring us to the light.

Posted by: Joe at October 14, 2007 11:52 PM

Joe - it is absolutely terrifying that people can be so evil, and at the same time believe they have done good in the eye of their God - Allah. Doing good, feels good, but more importantly, the good deeds done make the recipients feel good too - I'd venture to say that family slaughtered was not the recipients of good vibrations. It is fortunate our God is just, and those who die in Christ will be resurrected to live without sorrow and pain.