This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Founding Fathers Weren't Anti-Islam
The Founding Fathers were not nearly as anti-Muslim as many current American Christians.
As Ted Widmer writes at Boston.com:
The
Founders were way ahead of us. They thought hard about how to build a
country of many different faiths. And to advance that vision to the
fullest, they read the Koran, and studied Islam with a calm intelligence
that today’s over-hyped Americans can only begin to imagine. They
knew something that we do not. To a remarkable degree, the Koran is
not alien to American history — but inside it.No book states
the case more plainly than a single volume, tucked away deep within the
citadel of Copley Square — the Boston Public Library. The book known
as Adams 281.1 is a copy of the Koran, from the personal collection of
John Adams. There is nothing particularly ornate about this humble
book, one of a collection of 2,400 that belonged to the second
president. But it tells an important story, and reminds us how worldly
the Founders were, and how impervious to the fanaticisms that spring up
like dandelions whenever religion and politics are mixed. They, like
we, lived in a complicated and often hostile global environment,
dominated by religious strife, terror, and the bloodsport of competing
empires. Yet better than we, they saw the world as it is, and refused
the temptation to enlarge our enemies into Satanic monsters, or simply
pretend they didn’t exist.Reports of Korans in American
libraries go back at least to 1683, when an early settler of
Germantown, Pa., brought a German version to these shores. Despite its
foreign air, Adams’s Koran had a strong New England pedigree. The first
Koran published in the United States, it was printed in Springfield in
1806.Why would John Adams and a cluster of farmers in the
Connecticut valley have bought copies of the Koran in 1806?
Surprisingly, there was a long tradition of New Englanders reading in
the Islamic scripture. The legendary bluenose Cotton Mather had his
faults, but a lack of curiosity about the world was not one of them.
Mather paid scrupulous attention to the Ottoman Empire in his voracious
reading, and cited the Koran often in passing. True, much of it was in
his pinched voice — as far back as the 17th century, New England
sailors were being kidnapped by North African pirates, a source of
never ending vexation, and Mather denounced the pirates as “Mahometan
Turks, and Moors and Devils.” But he admired Arab and Ottoman learning,
and when Turks in Constantinople and Smyrna succeeded in inoculating
patients against smallpox, he led a public campaign to do the same in
Boston (a campaign for which he was much vilified by those who called
inoculation the “work of the Devil,” merely because of its Islamic
origin). It was one of his finer moments.This theory was
eloquently expressed around the time the Constitution was written. One
of its models was the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution, which John Adams
had helped to create, and which, in the words of one of its drafters,
Theophilus Parsons, was designed to ensure “the most ample of liberty
of conscience” for “Deists, Mahometans, Jews and Christians.”As
the Founders deliberated over what types of people would ultimately
populate the strange new country they were creating, they cited Muslims
as an extreme of foreign-ness whom it would be important to protect in
the future. Perhaps, they daydreamed, a Muslim or a Catholic might
even be president someday? Like everything, they debated it. Some
disapproved, but Richard Henry Lee insisted that “true freedom embraces
the Mahometan and Gentoo [Hindu] as well as the Christian religion.”
George Washington went out of his way to praise Muslims on several
occasions, and suggested that he would welcome them at Mount Vernon if
they were willing to work. Benjamin Franklin argued that Muslims should
be able to preach to Christians if we insisted on the right to preach
to them. Near the end of his life, he impersonated a Muslim essayist,
to mock American hypocrisy over slavery.Thomas Jefferson,
especially, had a familiarity with Islam that borders on the
astonishing. Like Adams, he owned a Koran, a 1764 English edition that
he bought while studying law as a young man in Williamsburg, Va. Only
two years ago, that Koran became the center of a controversy, when the
first Muslim ever elected to Congress, Keith Ellison, a Democrat from
Minnesota, asked if he could place his hand on it while taking his oath
of office — a request that elicited tremendous screeches from the talk
radio extremists. Jefferson even tried to learn Arabic, and wrote his
Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom to protect “the Jew and the
Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of
every denomination.”Jefferson and Adams led many of our early
negotiations with the Islamic powers as the United States lurched into
existence. A favorable treaty was signed with Morocco, simply because
the Moroccans considered the Americans ahl-al-kitab, or “people of the
book,” similar to Muslims, who likewise eschewed the idolatry of
Europe’s ornate state religions.
What are Muslims Like?
Some Muslims really are terrorists.
Some Christians are as well.
In
truth, the percentage of Muslim and Christian terrorists is very small
compared to the huge numbers of adherents of those faiths.
Just
like Christians range from abortion doctor killers to mystics, Muslims
range from jihadis to poets like Rumi (Sufism - the mystical branch of
Islam - is peaceful and contemplative).
As prominent Christian writer, psychiatrist and former army doctor M. Scott Peck wrote, all humans - no matter what religion might be dominant in their culture - go through 4 stages of development:
1st: Chaos (a heroin addict, for example, who robs to support his habit)
2nd:
Fundamentalism (clinging to dogma in order to fight off chaos;
believing the book - whether Bible, Koran or Bhagavad Gita - is THE
truth, and anyone who disagrees is evil)
3rd: Skepticism and questioning (feeling stable enough to question the dogma of the dominant religion and other institutions)
4th:
Maturity (keeping the skepticism and questioning, but also being open
to life's beauty, love and mystery; using both one's head and heart;
being passionate and dedicated to making the world a better place)
(These
4 steps are not necessarily the full and complete truth, but they
present one possible description which is useful for starting a
discussion on religion).
Ignore the clothes, the skin color and the accent, and what do we see?
A drug addict in Saudi Arabia, America or Israel will look fairly similar. Fundamentalist
Christians, Muslims and Jews all think the other guy is evil, and that
God wants them to wipe the other guy out. Skeptics look the same
everywhere. And people who integrate their head and their heart all are
operating out of the same basic dynamic.
We Helped Radicalize Islam
Moreover - in order to know our history and perhaps become a tad more humble in the process - it is important to recognize that we helped to create "radical Islam".
President Carter's National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski has openly admitted that he created the Mujahadeen to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. And it continued under President Reagan (here's a picture of President Reagan meeting with some of these folks).
As the Council on Foreign Relations writes:
The 9/11 Commission report (PDF)
released in 2004 said some of Pakistan's religious schools or
madrassas served as "incubators for violent extremism." Since then,
there has been much debate over madrassas and their connection to
militancy.
***
It was Pakistan's leading
role in the anti-Soviet campaign in neighboring Afghanistan during
this time that radicalized some of these madrassas. New madrassas
sprouted, funded and supported by Saudi Arabia and U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, where students were encouraged to join the Afghan resistance.
And see this.
And veteran journalist Robert Dreyfuss writes:
For
half a century the United States and many of its allies saw what I
call the “Islamic right” as convenient partners in the Cold War.
***
Today
it’s convenient to speak about a Clash of Civilizations. But ... in
the decades before 9/11, hard-core activists and organizations among
Muslim fundamentalists on the far right were often viewed as allies for
two reasons, because they were seen a fierce anti-communists and
because the opposed secular nationalists such as Egypt’s Gamal Abdel
Nasser, Iran’s Mohammed Mossadegh.In the 1950s, the United
States had an opportunity to side with the nationalists, and indeed
many U.S. policymakers did suggest exactly that, as my book explains.
But in the end, nationalists in the Third World were seen as wild cards
who couldn’t be counted on to join the global alliance against the
USSR. Instead, by the end of the 1950s,
rather than allying itself with the secular forces of progress in the
Middle East and the Arab world, the United States found itself in
league with Saudi Arabia’s Islamist legions. Choosing Saudi
Arabia over Nasser’s Egypt was probably the single biggest mistake the
United States has ever made in the Middle East.A second big
mistake ... occurred in the 1970s, when, at the height of the Cold War
and the struggle for control of the Middle East, the United States
either supported or acquiesced in the rapid growth of Islamic right in
countries from Egypt to Afghanistan. In Egypt, Anwar Sadat brought the
Muslim Brotherhood back to Egypt. In Syria, the United States, Israel,
and Jordan supported the Muslim Brotherhood in a civil war against
Syria. And ... Israel quietly backed Ahmed Yassin and the Muslim
Brotherhood in the West Bank and Gaza, leading to the establishment of
Hamas.Still another major mistake was the fantasy that Islam
would penetrate the USSR and unravel the Soviet Union in Asia. It led to
America’s support for the jihadists in Afghanistan. But ... America’s
alliance with the Afghan Islamists long predated the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan in 1979 and had its roots in CIA activity in Afghanistan
in the 1960s and in the early and mid-1970s. The Afghan jihad spawned
civil war in Afghanistan in the late 1980s, gave rise to the Taliban,
and got Osama bin Laden started on building Al Qaeda.Would the
Islamic right have existed without U.S. support? Of course. This is not
a book for the conspiracy-minded. But there is no question that the
virulence of the movement that we now confront—and which confronts many
of the countries in the region, too, from Algeria to India and
beyond—would have been significantly less had the United States made
other choices during the Cold War.
And the chief of the visa section at the U.S.
consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia (J. Michael Springmann, who is now
an attorney in private practice) says
that the CIA insisted that visas be issued to Afghanis so they could
travel to the U.S. to be trained in terrorism in the United States, and
then sent back to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets.
In other words,
if the U.S. and our allies hadn't backed the radical violent Muslims
instead of more stable, peaceful groups in the Middle East, radical
Islam wouldn't have grown so large.
Stopping the Bad Guys
That's
not to say that we don't need to stop the handful of Muslim terrorists
that are threatening the U.S. (to give you an idea of numbers, there
may be less than 50 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan according to the CIA itself).
But war is not the way to protect America, and defeating Islam is the way to safety. And see this.
Specifically, according to top security analysts, the global war on terror is weakening, rather than strengthening, our national security, and making us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks:
For
those who still think that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are
necessary to fight terrorism, remember that a leading advisor to the
U.S. military - the very hawkish and pro-war Rand Corporation -
released a study in 2008 called "How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qa'ida".
The report confirms that the war on terror is actually weakening national security.
As a press release about the study states:
"Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism."
Former U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski told the Senate that the war on terror is "a mythical historical narrative". And Newsweek has now admitted that the war on terror is wholly unnecessary.
(And no ... 9/11 did not "change everything".)
Beware of False Prophets
The neoconservatives who launched the wars in the Middle East may not even be people of faith themselves.
As I noted last year:
The godfather of the Neoconservative movement - Leo Strauss - taught
that religion should be used as a way to manipulate people to achieve
the aims of the leaders. But that the leaders themselves need not
believe in religion.As I have previously written:
Leo
Strauss is the father of the Neo-Conservative movement, including
many leaders of the current administration. Indeed, some of the main
neocon players were students of Strauss at the University of Chicago,
where he taught for many years. Strauss, born in Germany, was an admirer of Nazi philosophers and of Machiavelli.Strauss believed that "A
political order can be stable only if it is united by an external
threat . . . . Following Machiavelli, he maintained that if no external
threat exists then one has to be manufactured" (quote is by one of Strauss' main biographers).Therefore, it is unknown whether the [Neocons] who [launched the wars in the Middle East] actually believed that the brown-skinned people they wished to [destroy] were Satan-worshippers who needed either to be converted or destroyed.
More
likely, they just followed the old Straussian playbook in creating a
threat which didn't exist - Satanic Muslims who wanted to take over
the world - and using religion to rally the mid- and lower-level
participants in the ... program to carry out their orders.
Atheists Versus People of Faith
I want to address one more divisive issue related to religion, which I think disempowers those of us working for a better world.
Many
atheists believe that all religious people are pedophiles, idiots,
crackpots or charlatans, and many people of faith think that all
atheists are selfish, rootless, valueless and crude.
But let's look at the facts.
Initially, about two-thirds of American scientists believe in God if you count the social sciences. About 40%
of physical scientists believe in God, and that number has stayed
constant for almost 100 years. So atheists shouldn't assume that all
people of faith are idiots.
And the Bible says that you shall know them by their fruits, not by what they say. So believers shouldn't assume that all people who say they are Christians are good guys.
Some Christians are pedophiles, murderers and con men. But others are fighting hard for justice, truth and social justice.
Some
atheists are selfless, valueless hedonists. But others are tireless in
their struggle for liberty, have a passion for freedom which they are
willing to sacrifice their lives for, are selfless in their service and
their love for the smallest of us.
Making the other side the "bad guys" only adds to the ability of the powers-that-be to divide and conquer us.
The
left-right split is false, and hundreds of millions of Americans are
waking up to the fact that the whole Republicans-Versus-Democrats
things is a dog-and-pony show. They are waking up to the fact that
both parties serve the big banks, big pharma, military-industrial
complex, and the whole oligarchy.
These
Americans realize that it doesn't matter whether a politician wears a
red tie or a blue one: he or she either serves the big money boys or
the American people, and that the "team" he's on doesn't matter.
We also have to wake up to the false dichotomy about faith.
Just
as it is urgent that we recognize the left-versus-right split for the
game it is, we atheists have to tolerate religious folks ... and we
people of faith have to tolerate non-believers.I am lucky to call
some incredible atheists and some amazing believers my friends and
colleagues in the struggle for a better world. We may not see
everything exactly the same ... but it is a big tent.
Postscript: Granted,
there have always been some radical factions in Islam, just as there
have always been radical factions in Christianity and Judaism. But -
contrary to what fundamentalists would tell you - Muslims claim that
the Quran does not promote going out and killing non-Muslims.
While
there might be some stage 2 (using M. Scott Peck's system) Muslims
who believe the Quran commands them to kill the "other guys", just
as some stage 2 Christians or stage 2 Jews think that the Bible
commands them to kill Muslims (the Crusades, for example) or atheists or abortion doctors or others. And remember, governments often use tactics to make the other guy seem more violent.
But again, the problem isn't any
particular religion, it is the immaturity of a small handful of its
followers, and the misuse of religion by the powers-that-be to divide
and conquer us.
- advertisements -
Democrat Keith Ellison is now officially the first Muslim United States congressman. True to his pledge, he placed his hand on the Quran, the Muslim book of jihad and pledged his allegiance to the United States during his ceremonial swearing-in.
Capitol Hill staff said Ellison's swearing-in photo opportunity drew more media than they had ever seen in the history of the U.S. House. Ellison represents the 5th Congressional District of Minnesota.
The Quran Ellison used was no ordinary book. It once belonged to Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and one of America's founding fathers. Ellison borrowed it from the Rare Book Section of the Library of Congress. It was one of the 6,500 Jefferson books archived in the library.
Ellison, who was born in Detroit and converted to Islam while in college, said he chose to use Jefferson's Quran because it showed that "a visionary like Jefferson" believed that wisdom could be gleaned from many sources.
There is no doubt Ellison was right about Jefferson believing wisdom could be "gleaned" from the Muslim Quran. At the time Jefferson owned the book, he needed to know everything possible about Muslims because he was about to advocate war against the Islamic "Barbary" states of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Tripoli.
Ellison's use of Jefferson's Quran as a prop illuminates a subject once well-known in the history of the United States, but, which today, is mostly forgotten - the Muslim pirate slavers who over many centuries enslaved millions of Africans and tens of thousands of Christian Europeans and Americans in the Islamic "Barbary" states.
Over the course of 10 centuries, Muslim pirates cruised the African and Mediterranean coastline, pillaging villages and seizing slaves.
The taking of slaves in pre-dawn raids on unsuspecting coastal villages had a high casualty rate. It was typical of Muslim raiders to kill off as many of the "non-Muslim" older men and women as possible so the preferred "booty" of only young women and children could be collected.
Young non-Muslim women were targeted because of their value as concubines in Islamic markets. Islamic law provides for the sexual interests of Muslim men by allowing them to take as many as four wives at one time and to have as many concubines as their fortunes allow.
Boys, as young as 9 or 10 years old, were often mutilated to create eunuchs who would bring higher prices in the slave markets of the Middle East. Muslim slave traders created "eunuch stations" along major African slave routes so the necessary surgery could be performed. It was estimated that only a small number of the boys subjected to the mutilation survived after the surgery.
When American colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American merchant ships lost Royal Navy protection. With no American Navy for protection, American ships were attacked and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the "Dey of Algiers"--an Islamist warlord ruling Algeria.
Because American commerce in the Mediterranean was being destroyed by the pirates, the Continental Congress agreed in 1784 to negotiate treaties with the four Barbary States. Congress appointed a special commission consisting of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, to oversee the negotiations.
Lacking the ability to protect its merchant ships in the Mediterranean, the new America government tried to appease the Muslim slavers by agreeing to pay tribute and ransoms in order to retrieve seized American ships and buy the freedom of enslaved sailors.
Adams argued in favor of paying tribute as the cheapest way to get American commerce in the Mediterranean moving again. Jefferson was opposed. He believed there would be no end to the demands for tribute and wanted matters settled "through the medium of war." He proposed a league of trading nations to force an end to Muslim piracy.
In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the "Dey of Algiers" ambassador to Britain.
The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote to appease.
During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey's ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.
In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."
For the following 15 years, the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800.
Not long after Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, he dispatched a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress.
Declaring that America was going to spend "millions for defense but not one cent for tribute," Jefferson pressed the issue by deploying American Marines and many of America's best warships to the Muslim Barbary Coast.
The USS Constitution, USS Constellation, USS Philadelphia, USS Chesapeake, USS Argus, USS Syren and USS Intrepid all saw action.
In 1805, American Marines marched across the desert from Egypt into Tripolitania, forcing the surrender of Tripoli and the freeing of all American slaves.
During the Jefferson administration, the Muslim Barbary States, crumbling as a result of intense American naval bombardment and on shore raids by Marines, finally officially agreed to abandon slavery and piracy.
Jefferson's victory over the Muslims lives on today in the Marine Hymn, with the line, "From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli, We fight our country's battles in the air, on land and sea."
It wasn't until 1815 that the problem was fully settled by the total defeat of all the Muslim slave trading pirates.
Personally I dont care if the problem is religion or the acts of religionists in years gone by. I only care about what is happening today. And today I dont see christian suicide bombers, I dont see buddhist supremicists, I dont see jewish slave owners. But I do see muslim suidcide bombers. I do see muslim supremicists. I do see muslim slave owners. The unique difference for me is that in the case of christians and others doing evil they are clearing acting outside their own faith and are outside of their faiths' reformations. The muslim evil doers are often either clerics themselves or students who are extremely well schooled in their religion and who can specificaly cite the teachings of their faith as commandments for what they are doing. This is the key difference for me.
Ayway, this article mischaracterizes the early American's interest in Islam. it was not about fascination with the technology and wisdom islam acquired from its conquests nor was it about some respect for the shared abrahamic belief, which is a 500 year post ipso facto lie. The American's interest in the koran was in trying to understand the motivation of the muslims attacking their trade ships and taking americans as slaves.
Jefferson traveled to Paris for peace talks with Ambassador Abdrahaman of Tripoli, who told him that all Christians are sinners in the context of the Koran and that it was a Muslim’s “right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to enslave as many as they could take as prisoners.” Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if you but knew” (9:41) was cited as the religious doctrine of the koran justifying slavery of Americans who do not pay the dhimi tax and jefferson took that koran back to the usa in his capacity of commander in chief of the armed forces to study it, not as some multiculturalist tourist. This whole article smacks of the deliberate rewriting of other people's history to me.
It is true that the founding fathers were not against islam. They simply had no interest in it or its system of Sharia that denies one their liberty and free choice. But it is not equally true that islam was not against the usa at that time. Any more than it is now.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/mtjprece.html
this blog and many comments reminded me of this , one
of my favorites, thanks for the memories .......
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daRC0sQj5fw
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghz4_kikLkE
.
google the title, you may have heard this one,
and there are many verses many are not familiar with,
and good ones too!
so ... move on....
" america the beautiful "
not pricey, or valuable, or influential or
stable or in stable or inflated or otherwise.
just "the beautiful".
dig? need i post the lyrics?
founding brothers , the farewell. ..pg 139-140.
joseph j. ellis
.
"for jefferson also had a national vision and a firm conviction about where
american history was headed, or at least where it ought to be headed. the future
he felt in his bones told him that the true spirit of '76, most eloquently expressed
in the language he had drafted for the declaration of independence, was a radical break
with the past and with all previous versions of political authority. like voltaire, jefferson
longed for the day when the last king would be strangled with the entrails of the last priest.
the political landscape he saw in this mind's eye was littered with the dead bodies of despots
and corrupt courtiers, a horizon swept clean of all institutions capable of coercing american
citizens from pursuing their happiness as they saw fit.
thomas paine's "the rights of man" (1791) captured the essence of his vision more fully
than any other book of the age, depicting as it did a radical transformation of society
once the last vestiges of feudalism were destroyed, and the emergence of a utopian world
in which the essential discipline of government was internalized within the citizenry. the
only legitimate form of government, in the end, was self government.
.
shortly after his return to the united states in 1790, jefferson began to harbor the foreboding
sense that the american revolution, as he understood it, had been captured by alien forces.
as we have seen the chief villain and core counterrevolutionary character in the jeffersonian
drama was alexander hamilton, and the most worrisome feature on the political landscape
was hamilton's financial scheme, with it's presumption of a consolidated federal government
possessing many of the powers over the states that parliament had exercised over the colonies.
under hamilton's diabolical leadership, the united states seemed to be re-creating the very
political and economic institutions- the national bank became the most visible symbol of the
accumulating corruption- that the revolution had been designed to destroy. jefferson developed
a full blooded conspiracy theory in which bankers, speculators, federal officeholders, and a small
but powerful congregation of of closet tories permanently alienated from the agrarian majority
("they all live in cities," he wrote) had captured the meaning of the revolution and were now
proceeding to strangle it to death behind the closed doors of investment houses and within the
faraway corridors of the federalist government in new york and philadelphia."
.
.....
copyright 2000.
S&P 500 FINANCIALS INDEX - an important chart:
http://stockmarket618.wordpress.com
John Adams and John Hancock:
We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and No King but Jesus! [April 18, 1775]
Christianity supports the state to act in accordance with the principles of a "higher law" that checks the state’s arbitrary power. The legacy of Christianity is the notion that law and liberty are inseparable.
The Bible, accordingly, has been historically recognized as the most important book for the development of both the rule of law and democratic institutions in the Western world.
America’s Constitution and Bill of Rights, rooted in the Declaration of Independence, protect the individual’s God-given liberties and check the growth of state power over the individual. Such recognition by law of the intrinsic value of each human being did not exist in ancient times. The idea that all men are equal in the eyes of God lit the torch of freedom that spread the flame of Christianity like wildfire across the ancient world, from slave to free men alike.
Now, alas, the forced erosion of Christianity via the courts these past decades has once again allowed the malignant growth of state power over life and liberty. And, either the courts begin to interpret Constitutional law as the Founders intended or a) we begin to replace them with new justices, or b), we override their rulings with mass outpourings--the point being, we don't follow it. One judge’s change in the interpretation of America’s Christian-based law does not mean we the people have to change with it.
The reason that Zionists, Muslims, agnostics, atheists, Hollywood, the media, the Marxists, the socialists… fight Christianity is not because they want a secular government, it’s because they want to stop Christianity from its influence over government. It is the one unified moral and ethical resistance in the world against the unified tyranny of the state.
Paul L. Maier, Professor of Ancient History at Western Michigan University, said, “No other religion, philosophy, teaching, nation, movement—whatever—has so changed the world for the better as Christianity has done.”
The great historian Carlton Hayes said, “Wherever Christians’ ideals have been generally accepted and their practice sincerely attempted, there is a dynamic liberty; and wherever Christianity had been ignored or rejected, persecuted or chained to the state, there is tyranny.”
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." Attributed to Sinclair Lewis.
The Bible was written by many men and some women over two thousand years. The koran was written by one man who changed his mind over time. So that what he said in his youth, has been replaced whith his thoughts as he became a very ugly old man. One man versus many. Thomas Jefferson, went to war with Islam because he realized there was no reasoning with them. Islam only gave up slavery in the 1920's and they still enslave women. Islam says that Allah turned the Jewish Race into monkeys. All Muslims wish to conquer all nations and bring their lovely ideology to the entire earth and they are doing a fine job of it too.
Whether folk agree with what's said or not, its worth taking a step back. Fact is, religion is the tool of choice to organize the ranks, brainwash the masses, and maintain power in poorly educated societies.
Lets take Classical Arabic. Its exceptionally difficult to translate. It isn't spoken anymore, and the process of translation can provide some interesting results. Read a Koran translated by two different sects of Islam, and you'll be reading two different books. Those that have read a translated book - regardless of what your position maybe - you may want to consider the intent of the author. Even those translations that are produced by the highest echelons of Islamic authority are manipulated by those that translate it. Naturally, well-educated Muslims around the world should question everything they read, and make a well informed decision..., but therein lies the rub.
In an uneducated world, where religious teachings are provided without audit, religion becomes an excellent tool to establish power. The Islamic world is filled with poor rates of education and literacy. Add to this the fact that, in many of these countries, the people in power aren't elected (monarchs/dictators), in order to sustain power, organized religion is the tool of choice.
And, when it comes down to it, its f*cking disgusting. Whether you're dealing with a terrorist leader, or the King of Saudi Arabia - all they want is power. They will manipulate the religion to do as they please. And they do. Bunch of unemployed 20 year olds - no problem - lets wage a war against the Zionists. Oil rich Saudi Prince that's worried about their lifestyle - no problem - limit media, outside influences and education in your Country. Oh, and here's an easy way to keep 50% of your population in the dark and uneducated - no women rights. Of course, the Saudi royals need to keep that oil wealth somehow. (I just recently read about a 17 year Saudi prince with a custom made Ferrari who takes it to Europe for a long summer drive. I wonder what he gets up to in all those Eastern European countries...).
The list goes on. I wonder if they have a Saudi version of "The Girls Next Door" (some of these Princes have over 100 wives). Are the leaders of the Holy Land upholding the teachings of Islam? HA! This is power, greed and over indulgence that makes Wall Street look good.
Anyone who thinks this religion hasn't been manipulated to serve the needs of those who currently use it to maintain power is naive, at best. And, on the flip side, I know many individuals who have sought spiritual enlightenment from the readings of Islam and found a moderate, western confirming religion. To use a blanket statement that it isn't possible, or is entirely incompatible, is a simplification that is simply incorrect.
Aside from the zany beliefs of many American christians, I could also care less for the islamic beliefs as well. While I'll tolerate Christians I will NOT tolerate ANY religion that does not allow a reciporacle treatment of other religions/beliefs in its homeland. Islam needs to change or perish.
I will NOT tolerate ANY religion that does not allow a reciporacle treatment of other religions/beliefs in its homeland.
Israel hit by Bible burning row
Messianic Jews in Israel say they want an inquiry into the burning of hundreds of copies of the New Testament by Orthodox Jews in Or Yehuda last week.
The books were given to the town's Ethiopian Jews by the Messianic Jews, who believe in Jesus as a saviour.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7413134.stm
Religion is irrational, Middle Eastern Science fiction from the 7th century is rather silly.
All religion is irrational. Belief in God requires faith and not reason.
I added a new postscript in the main post to address those who say that the Quran says to go out and kill non-Muslims.
Save your breath GW. It is easier to hate than to come to terms with the fact that our own government is screwing us into the third world, impoverishing our tomorrows, depriving us of our liberties and killing in the name of.
Who makes up Congress, the Fed, Wall Street, the political and financial elite? Who passed the bailouts against the majority of the public will? Who buys Congress with the equivalent of sofa change? Who shipped our manufacturing offshore - to an avowed enemy? Who fails to defend our borders? Who, through ongoing failure of any energy policy at all, continues to keep this country dependent on foreign sources of oil - again sending billions of dollars to people who who really don't like us at all, so we can continue to drive the Escalade to the end of the drive and check our mail? Who fails, year after year, to provide policy and leadership that puts the well-being of American citizens first? Who continues to spend money we've never had (or will likely ever have) on pursuit of empire and vote-buying entitlements?
Seriously, just who the FUCK is destroying this country?
Is it some Castro wanna-be in South America?
Is it the ghost of some Saudi whack-job allegedly hiding in a cave someplace, evading the most powerful military ever fielded in history for almost a decade? Seriously?
Just how many Muslims are in Congress, in the government, run Wall Street, run the banks, and the Fed? Do Muslims make you buy shit from Wal*Mart to support the Chinese economy? Did Muslims make you take out your liar or ninja loan for a house 10x your income and then use the damn thing as an ATM? Did Muslims dumb down our education system? Do Muslims make you watch hours upon endless hours of television, put 40 million Americans on food stamps or pass the fucking law that forces you to buy health insurance, whether you have the money or not, or face a penalty?
Seriously people, you need to wake the fuck up.
I agree with what you wrote and I agree with the F words cause well, those who disagree, I wonder what kind of situation they are waiting for to use them
+1
F word if I know....
I agree with what you just wrote above (minus the f-words which are unnecessary to get your point across). Does this surprise you? None of us here is in 100% support of the U.S. government or the actions of each and every Christian on the planet. Many of us were against Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. but do not believe the U.S. Constitution is compatible with Islam.
"do not believe the U.S. Constitution is compatible with Islam"
Good grief. That is like saying you don't like the way the deck chairs are arranged on the Titanic while you wait in line to get on a life boat.
The country is being looted, our sovereignty undermined in the name of profits and political expediency and all you can do is whine about some perceived incompatibility?
The US Constitution is not compatible with an entity other than the federal government printing money - especially money not backed by gold or silver. The US Constitution is not compatible with lobbyists bribery, corporate citizenship, dual-nationality citizens at the highest branches of government, wars of aggression, social welfare, corporate welfare, unprotected borders or an activist judiciary.
The US Constitution is not compatible with public debt owned by a foreign power, warrant-less searches and wiretaps, rendition, ownership of the means of production and illegally transferring private losses to public debt.
It is not Sharia law you need to concern yourself with, it is the lack of rule of law.
I will say it again.... Yes, I am concern with all those issues as well! They are also unconstitutional!! Now I am waiting for you to say "Sharia should not be allowed to be practiced in the United States. It is unconstitutional."
You will not hear me say (nor see me type) it because it is irrelevant. Sharia law is not an (or the) issue, the destruction of the US Constitution and the disintegration of the rule of law is - that is the ball you need to keep your eye on.
The trumped up threat of Sharia law in America is a distraction. Islam hatred is a distraction. Red vs. Blue is a distraction. Left vs. Right is a distraction.
Many of us were against Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. but do not believe the U.S. Constitution is compatible with Islam.
Care to be specific?
Bravo!
But he [Cotton Mather] admired Arab and Ottoman learning, and when Turks in Constantinople and Smyrna succeeded in inoculating patients against smallpox, he led a public campaign to do the same in Boston (a campaign for which he was much vilified by those who called inoculation the “work of the Devil,” merely because of its Islamic origin). It was one of his finer moments.
I don't have a primary source confirmation at my fingertips just now but I believe, when Bostonians were dropping like flies of smallpox, an African slave told Mather how his village elders, back in the day, would expose people to the slaughtered flesh of animals carrying smallpox in order to inoculate them. Credulous but desperate, Mather tried it and it worked.
Don't trust The Boston Globe with history farther than you can remember.
- - - - - - -
I believe that the reason neo-conservatives are called neo-conservatives is that they used to be Leftists, communists and Trotskyists. I don't think religion had a heck of a lot to do with it one way or the other. Christopher Hitchens, no Bible-thumper he, is one such example.
- - - - - -
Still another major mistake was the fantasy that Islam would penetrate the USSR and unravel the Soviet Union in Asia.
Yeah, because they would never tolerate that kind of crap. End of story. But Sharia law in London or Detroit? Oh yeah, by all means, three cheers for multi-culturalism. Don't try and sell a cookie in December with red and green ribbon at a high school bake sale though.
- - - -
I remain underwhelmed by by the efforts of the world's tolerant Muslim population to curb the violent activities of their more bloodthirsty brethren and their even lesser concern with promoting pluralism and economic opportunity in theocratic, Mid-East Muslim states. And generally I think sanctimonious athiests give way more space and benefit of the doubt for trendy faiths that they would ever extend to boring old Christians and Jews.
You say: "I remain underwhelmed by by the efforts of the world's tolerant Muslim population to curb the violent activities of their more bloodthirsty brethren and their even lesser concern with promoting pluralism and economic opportunity in theocratic, Mid-East Muslim states."
I agree 100%.
Similarly, I remain underwhelmed by by the efforts of the world's tolerant Chrisitan population to curb the violent activities of their more bloodthirsty brethren and their even lesser concern with promoting pluralism and economic opportunity throughout the world.
See:
The Crusade Continues in Iraq U.S. Military Officially Endorses Crusade Torture is a Form of TerrorismHere's a little about the real George Washington:
Torture Is Not a Partisan Issue . . . George Washington - Who Was Neither a Democrat or Republican - Forbid All TortureGive me a break, like the same outrage by the same people would ever be generated if the other side (terrorists or not) were doing similarly with Koran verses on their weapons. Killing the enemy is OK but really it's the bad words that make Obama cry... Please.
I think we can get what we need to get done without torture too and that such activities should be considered beneath us as Americans but when we set ridiculously high standards of comportment for ourselves and next to none for the enemy or other cultures or both...we're doomed, it's that simple.
Thx George,
There is a good book, what shows the crusades from Arabic point of view:
The crusades through Arab Eyes from Amin Maalouf.
I have the last month, that you can write in peace even as so many people try to spit on you, it is very interesting.
One subject i do miss untill now: How the warm gulf current to the North will stop much faster then expected, because the not ending oil BP disaster.
Thx for your articles
Islam has been a radical religion and an aggressive culture since it came up out of Saudi Arabia. For the most part, Christianity did not spread by war. It spread by preaching peace not inciting war. That is not to ignore the Crusades - but they were a reaction not a unilateral attack in an effort to spread a religion and a culture.
However, the historical facts show that Islam did spread by conquering. They conquered Persia and then N. Africa to Gibraltar, across the Iberian Peninsula, and all the way to France until Charles Martel stopped them in 732 at the Battle of Tours.
To say that Islam is/was not militant is to either ignore or misrepresent history.
Yeah the spread of Chrisianity was peaceful - unless you didn't accept Christ as your savior and then you were executed.
Actually, it was the other way around. Christians were notorious pacifists and were routinely rounded up in the first 4 centuries by Romans and ordered to deny their God or die. Ignatius, Polycarp, Cyprian, St. Augustine and many other Christians were all martyrs for Christ. I am aware of examples of cruelty by Christians; sometimes it was physical torture and sometimes psychological, but they were not an attempt to spread a culture by force of armies.
You cannot name a single country in the world where Christians are a majority and use force to convert non-believers. However, there are several examples of Moslem countries where Christians are told to convert or die. Sudan is the most glaring example. Practicing Christianity in many Moslem countries is punishable by death. Iran is an example and Afghanistan under Taliban rule is another.
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4602
read then think. yes i have read the other's also.
Wake Up... where is CD when we need him on myth's to who is really controlling you. You cannot protect people from themselves until they awake and think for themselves.
"You are apparently living one of those egalitarian EuroZone Socially Democratic utopias" - All of them are
AND FIX THE DAMN CAPCHTA! plz
Waste of space... why not create a geogewashingtonfromzh.blogspot.com and spare us your pointless articles.
Who forced you to read it? Nobody? Then what was your point?
What is the point/reason of this post again I ask?? Conflating two POV. I suggest that all you sharia lovers go to where it is sandy. Get involved over there and leave us alone with these 1000 word posts.
Light travels faster than sound. This why GW appears bright until you hear him speak.
here is a link to a video that showed me a striking perspective about the Muslim religion. my understanding is that the clerics are indoctrinating the mass population. they are led to believe that thier god is instructing them to behave as they believe.
This is very powerful, and the interview even revealed that Adolf Hitler found them as a resource for his objective. If key people get their way, the muslims could be more powerful than MULTIPLE NAZI forces.
Thier strategy is the slow cook the frog where it does not even realize it is getting cooked until it is too late.
I hope this message can and will expand all those who take the time to view this documentary and insight into the Muslim religious objectives.
According to Peter F Drucker, the seperation of church and state is a key element the US has been so successful.
Freedom is important. How can one protect freedom in a case where muslims may be using freedom of religion against its own domestic country?
Like HFT, until something greater can knock this situation off course, it will continue and the results will be significantly greater as the situation grows exponentially. i hope the muslim expansion is currently at it's zenith, however, turning points or pivots require significant volatility and chaos before turning the other way.
thanks to all for your time reading my post and clip.
here is the link:
here is the FAQ: http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/about_faq.html
video clips: http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/clips.html
Last I remember Founding Fathers basically said to hell with telling ANYONE what religion is good or bad. Let 'em free to do as they please as long as it does not violate the laws of the Republic... "All men are created equal..."
Or are some "more equal" than others?
I'm sure when western Europeans were at war with Native American Indians to conquer their lands the Native American religion was branded as the one "the savage evil of the time."
Revealing aspect of generalized criticism: The one spewing it is only seeing them self.
You wanna pin all evil on just one religion? You are sadly deluded. Go study your history friend...
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/legacy-the-origins-of-civilization/
7:1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither
thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations
before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the
Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the
Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier
than thou;
7:2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou
shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no
covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:
7:3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou
shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take
unto thy son.
7:4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they
may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled
against you, and destroy thee suddenly.
7:5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their
altars, and break down their images, and cut down their
groves, and burn their graven images with fire.
7:6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD
thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself,
above all people that are upon the face of the earth.
Man there is a lot of confusion, hatred, and irrationality in the posts here!
It makes things a lot easier to just think of Justice: those who aggress against others should face the social apparatus of coercion, viz. the police.
All the talk about who believed in which invisible deity when, is really superfluous.
I'm confused. Upon what moral system are you touting the concept of Justice? You'd better resuscitate that invisible deity, because you will need it to argue your point.
Do you think the police are morally neutral? How about police in a brutal regime? Are they dispensing justice? What about police in a free country? Hardly, on all counts. A nation's laws determine police actions. If you are in the right place, you can get a king size beating for no reason, and that's considered justice.
GW, everybody is entitled to their opinion. I do not disagree w/ you regarding muslims, et. al.
It's only the likes of missing_link (and you know what tribe they are), missing not only a "link" but a few screws as well, that will call you names.
Needless to say, I had noticed, based on this and other of your (previous) posts that you think these "founding fathers" and the bullshit "constitution" they concocted were the best since sliced bread. Well, I and others differ on that point. The US constitution was not crafted for the "we people". Please consider this link as a counter-point to your adulation with the constitution: http://tinyurl.com/dfztye . In any case, did you ever consider that the US constitution, designed by the aristocracy, was the first step to NWO? That's what I want to know.
yes. i am also find the mason's at it's highest levels involved in the drafting of the document. yes the document [constitution] presents freedom, however, the freedom is provided in EXCHANGE for worldly power.
No just thing as a free lunch. only quote an economist got right.
Long-winded nonsense.
First, it is plain to see that the Founders' beliefs and ideals are viewed as quaint and outdated. Look only at the death of limited government for this. Might as well point out that people these days don't follow the Founders' practices of prayer before congressional sessions, or the concept that congressional members serve at the pleasure of their constituents.
Second, Islam was a head-chopping blood cult with the first point being "conversion or death" from its very beginning. Pointing to the Crusades or more recent military excursions to the Middle East as root causes for the West's problems with Islam is ridiculous and shows an inept view of history. Want to discuss how much Free Speech is allowed in muslim nations? How about women's rights? How about the tolerance they show people of other faiths (i.e., Saudi Arabia and Kuwait confiscating Bibles from US soldiers during Desert Shield and Desert Storm -- while we were saving their asses?) in their ability to practice a different religion?
Mushiness in the last section -- "big tent" BS and "not every member of a group is a stereotype" naivete.
Muslim extremists have publicly sworn to destroy any portion of America they can under the moniker of a Holy War. In the grave, your namesake is doing enough revolutions to power the world for centuries. Couching it in terms of fanatics and comparing them to Xtian abortion clinic bombers is cheap and completely misses the scope of the underlying conflict.
Need to change your username to Leon Trotsky.
Oh Snap !
Well done
In the end it boils down to one simple question, do we want these kinds of people controlling the world's energy source.
A war will be fought to decide and religion will be a side show.
No, the question is why do we insist using an energy source that belongs to someone else? Does the cost of the military (empire) figure into the EROI of all that oil? Based on the relatively cheap cost of gas at the pump, I'd say no.
Iraq is about 1 year of the world's consumption now, Murder aside, the most assinine investment we ever made.
This article is creating a point that doesn't exist by saying the Founding Fathers we'rent anti-Islamist. They were of the Christian faith start to finish and any issue of Islam or any other religion wasn't the point. They were only concerned with the different sects of Christianity because they were trying to avoid the religious issues which helped give cause to, and then helped defeat the English Revolution of 1640 -1660, which in fact was more of a religious revolt against 'Popery' than a revolt against an economic system which is the traditional definition of a revolution. America was the great experiment but only made as much headway as it did because of the discourse and examination of Englands Revolution by thinkers such as Hobbs, Milton, and Locke and others. In fact, the common tongue and religion of America was commented on by various men of the age as one of its greatest strengths. It becomes tiring as leftward leaning pundits in America totally lose sight of the fact that America is a Christian Nation established upon Christian principals and traditions in both its private and public institutions. Yes, we tolerate any mans religion but they are not an over riding cause over and in contrast to our Constitutional and private institutions. For that matter, our common English language wasn't considered by our Founding Fathers, but if it had been brought to their attention they would have undoubtedly made allowances for its maintenance and preservation as being key to our Nations wealth and security.
One Nation, one language, won Freedom.