This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.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 -
True.
And again, if so much violence has been done in the name of a fundamentally peaceful religion such as Christianity, how much more can be done (and already has been!) in the name of a religion that wholeheartedly endorses religious killing, and requires its followers to continually spread the religion until no other religions (or cultures) remain?
Read the Koran and the hadiths if you don't believe me.
Hey who was involved in the holy wars? I remember it involving armies from 2 religions killing each other .....
How about the Talmud? Read that, too.
How about the Talmud? Read that, too.
Some Muslims really are terrorists.
Some Christians are as well.
Where are all those Christian terrorists running around killing people for their beliefs? I must have missed that memo.
The Founding Fathers were not nearly as anti-Muslim as many current American Christians.
Islam is a form of government, designed to keep people living in the 7th century forever, it is claimed to be a religion but this is a disguise.
Where are those Christian terrorists?
One might call the US military's action in Iraq and Afghanistan just that. How can you defend the murder of so many innocent people?
How can you call 'US Military' Christian? Islam creates a political structural as well as a spiritual one ... Christianity operates exclusively in the spiritual realm ... there is no such thing a 'Christian Warrior' or a 'Christian Jihad' ... if one claims to defend Christianity by arms, he violates one of its most important tenets: love your neighbor. Christ forgives, he does not condone while Allah encourages violence (against the infidel) and rewards jihad (in the afterlife).
If 80% of Americans are Christian you would have to see a Muslim nation that gets invaded by the US as an invasion by "Christians".
LOL really? Hell go check Wikipedia for the light version.
The Crusades were a series of religiously sanctioned military campaigns waged by much of Western Christian Europe, particularly the Franks of France and the Holy Roman Empire. The specific crusades to restore Christian control of the Holy Land were fought over a period of nearly 200 years, between 1095 and 1291. Other campaigns in Spain and Eastern Europe continued into the 15th century. The Crusades were fought mainly by Roman Catholic forces (taking place after the East-West Schism and mostly before the Protestant Reformation) against Muslims who had occupied the near east since the time of the Rashidun Caliphate, although campaigns were also waged against pagan Slavs, pagan Balts, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Cathars, Hussites, Waldensians, Old Prussians, and political enemies of the various popes.[1][page needed] Orthodox Christians also took part in fighting against Islamic forces in some Crusades. Crusaders took vows and were granted penance for past sins, often called an indulgence.
This might be true for early Christians up to 400.
After that, Christian warriors have been by millions.
Jesus (or more exactly the Holy Spirit) himself engaged into violence against the unbelievers. It is in the Bible. Maybe reading it would help.
I don't think anyone on ZH condemns Jesus for overturning the tables of the moneychangers. :)
Noble effort, but not much point debating the hive.
Resistance is futile. You will be assimiated...
It's independent thought that spooks you. You don't have to pretend otherwise.
Said the apologist for a belief system that requires one to relinquish any independent thought... under threat of violence.
FAIL
Being opposed to killing innocent people does not make me an apologist for any belief system. It makes me a rational man.
What does your rabid hatred of your fellow man say about you? Jesus says you're going to burn in hell because of that hatred. Of course, I can neither confirm nor deny as I am not an apologist for that belief system.
My words are not hatred against anyone. It's just honest observation about what Islam truthfully IS sans concern for PC.
You fail to acknowledge the huge difference between Christianity & Islam. No one is forced to be Christian, yet there are many who choose to follow Jesus' example. On the contrary, under sharia law no one may choose to NOT be Muslim. This freedom does not exist. I don't necessarily have a problem with other religions as long as they don't infringe on another's right to practice the religion of his/her choice. I don't think it makes me a hater to again attempt to point out the obvious.
It's a shame that moderate Muslims have lost control of their identity to the radicals, but that's a fact of life. Your outright dismissal of the necessity of the rights guaranteed under the Constitution in favor of the Islamo-fascist ideal reaffirms my belief that you are NOT a reasonable man as you have repeatably claimed. And you obviously would prefer to live a 7th century existance under totalitarian psuedo-religious rule.
hint: if that's really what you want move to France or the United Kingdom. Your Utopia will arrive soon enough...
I said it once, I'll say it again. It's pointless to debate The Hive
Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
You fail to acknowledge the great similarities between Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Some practitioners of each of these religions have in the past and continue in the present to oppress those who are not like them.
Thank God I'm an atheist. We don't go to the hive on Friday, Saturday or Sunday and we live in the 21st century rather than in the 7th century or the 1st century or the 20th century BC.
It's not useless to debate those of you who occupy the hive. It keeps rational individuals on their toes and reminds us why we escaped the clutches of religion in the first place. Nevertheless I recognize the right of Muslims, Jews, Christians and all other faiths to practice their beliefs as they see fit. May God have mercy on your soul.
Thank God I'm an atheist
Interesting choice of words. No wonder you can't tell things apart.
Pray for a sense of humor.
I acknowledge and understand there are similarities between most religions. However, Christianity has matured. Christians are not seeking converts by the sword. Anyone who has read the bible understands it is wrong to kill.
Islam has no such restriction against violence/murder, provided it be done to further Islam. This is evidenced by the lopping off the heads of 'infidels' as regularly occurs (but seldomly reported by MSM). The basic tenet of Islam, requiring continual growth (to facilitate the conquest of new territory) may not stand out as unique compared to other religions. However, the violence used to facilitate the expansion *and later to enforce Islamo-fascist rule* certainly does. Islam merges religion with imperialism; a fact you still refuse to acknowledge.
I share this basic belief system as well with the exception that I cannot support a belief system that does not adhere to this code, as is the case with Islam regardless of whether you wish to accept it.
If you live in the USA and enjoy your Constitutional liberty, the irony of your statement is obvious. If ruled by sharia, Constitutional liberties do not exist. If one as any common sense, one should see that Islam is about obtaining power & control over others. One need not have any religious affinity to understand this.
You're more interested in argument than any defending any belief either for or against Christianity or Islam.
Troll
You have said that debating me is pointless and yet you continue to do so. Once you assess this contradictory attitude within yourself perhaps you can summon the strength to confront your other demons. Such is the power of reason. I welcome your willing conversion.
"Let there be no compulsion in religion" Koran 2:256
Not debating. Just refuting. It's not my concern whether or not you have faith in any religion. I just have to point out the irony in you defending this thing that will kill you if only given a chance. You're kind of a simpleton, Troll
Qur'an Sura (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah." There is a good case to be made that the overall context of these verses is defensive war, however, there are two worrisome pieces to this passage. The first is that the killing of others is authorized in the event of "persecution." The second is that fighting may persist until "religion is for Allah."vvQur'an Sura (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
Qur'an Sura (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
Qur'an Sura (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
Qur'an Sura (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."
So you claim that Islam is violent and yours is a religion of peace? Refute this:
Deuteronomy
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 LORDthy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.
Gospel of Matthew
10:34 Think not that I have come to send peace on the earth. I have not come to send peace, but a sword. 10:35 I have come to set a man at variance against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a bride against her mother-in-law; 10:36 and a man's enemies shall be those of his own house.
Riiiiiiight... OT verse... An eye for an eye.
Let me try to summarize the point I think you are trying to make (if there is a point)
I only claim that you're an idiot.
It is fair to say that Christianity was violent, and Islam is violent. Christianity is compatible with Constitutional liberty. The basic tenets of Islam are, by definition, incompatible with any other religion and thus also incompatible with the Constitution.
When was the last time radical Christianity was behind a suicide attack, or a hijacking, or dismembering a human body? Not saying it didn't happen centuries ago, but this does not describe Christians of the last several hundred years. However, this well describe 21st century Islam just as it does 7th century Islam.
You vehemently defend what hates you (you do proclaim to be a non-believer) and would like to see your head removed from your torso. That's a stupid position to take, if for nothing else than self preservation.
In truth, you don't care about anything, do you? I think you just enjoy the argument.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM
"This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while." -- President George W. Bush
"We're a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christian. Did I say Judeo-Christian? Yes. Judeo-Christian...The enemy that has come against our nation is a spiritual enemy. His name is Satan. And if you do not believe that Satan is real, you are ignoring the same Bible that tells you about God...(President Bush) was appointed by God" --General William G. Boykin
"We in the army of God, in the house of God, kingdom of God have been raised for such a time as this." -- General William G. Boykin
"Bin Laden is not the enemy. No mortal is the enemy. It's the enemy you can't see. It's a war against the forces of darkness." -- General William G. Boykin
"I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol." -- General William G. Boykin
"The enemy has got a face. He's called Satan. He lives in Falluja." -- Lieutenant-Colonel Gareth Brand, US Marines
“Jesus killed Mohammed." -- Motto on American Bradly Fighting Vehicle deployed in Sammara
You aren't really comparing Christianity & Islam. Rather you are comparing your intellectually dishonest construct of the Islamic ideal against the agenda of a handful of corporate fascists currently in power in the west, and dishonestly referring to the corporatists as "Christianity"...
While the corporatists may indeed have imperialist designs, this is not at all representative of Christianity. This agenda does, however, bear a striking resemblence to Islam... at least in terms of the relentless desire for expansion (Islam) / growth (corporate fascism).
Islam blurs the line between religion & totalitarianism. This dirty little secret does well to reconcile why MSM has so fully embraced PC in all matters affecting the Muslim world... Islam would serve the TPTB well as it provides the framework to strip away remaining Constitutional liberties. facilitating the complete/final deployment of fascist government in the USA... and since dissent is not tolerated in Sharia, this would effect the final authoritarian government deployment on the down low.
The motivations on both sides, seemingly at odds with one another, actually align. Corporate fascist vs Islamo-fascist... Think about it.
Your ignorant defense of a fascist pseudo-religion accomplishes nothing beside providing cover for TPTB while they continue making progress toward completely stripping away your liberty. Your time would be much better used if focused on your real enemy: fascism - all varieties.
Of course, if you intend your rhetoric to confuse the common man, then I suppose you are doing exactly what you want. Just know that many are able to distinguish these twisted words from truth.
As an atheist, I'm not defending Islam. I'm simply pointing out that historically and contemporaneously some Christians and Jews share the same blemishes and have exhibited equally flawed behavior as radical Muslims.
I speak out against socialists and fascists of all stripes while you defend the evil acts of those who cloak their crimes in Christianity. You are no friend of liberty. That's a shame because there are billions of Christians, Jews and Muslims who see the light and are not taken in by propaganda which demands the murder of innocents in the name of religion.
Ummm... no you don't.
I am able to distinguish between Christianity and corporate fascism. I never defended corporate fascism. I abhor it. I do believe in defending individual liberty & United States sovereignty though.
This trail of back & forth posts demonstrably shows you have taken upon yourself the task of defending fascism... in the form of Islam. because of your deep-seated hatred of Christianity. Your anti-Christian sentiment probably stems from some petty "wrong" you perceive was inflicted on you at some point back in your youth. Now it is your mission in life to undermine it... even at the expense of your own life and/or liberty.
You're a dope.
It's absurd to assert that I hate Christianity because I do not believe that Muslims are compelled toward violence any more than Christians or Jews are despite the fact that the sacred texts of each of these religions contain verses which are sometimes used to justify such violence.
The evidence is plain to see in the historical record and in contemporary life. My ability to see with my own eyes does not constitute hatred, it is merely an expression of rational thought.
You should spend a little time over at LewRockwell.com. There are several Christians posting on that site whom I admire a great deal. They'll set you straight. Peace be with you.
I've read several linked articles on the rockwell website but don't hang out there. I don't need anyone to "set me straight". I take the responsibility of thinking for myself, rather than regurgitating what others (MSM ? ) tell us how we ought to think. Try it sometime.
I'd also just point out that your statement, while of a somewhat concilliatory tone, does not deny a hatred toward Christianity.
You never finished this thought. Soooo..... Do you hate Christianity? If so, why?
Wa 'alaykum assalam
Of course I don't hate Christianity. You just have a persecution complex. Why do you believe that my opposition to killing innocent Muslims is an expression of hatred for Christianity?
And by the way, if you think that LewRockwell.com is the MSM or is politically correct then either you've never visited the site or you are quite, quite mad.
Work done is no longer to be done.
Please explain how a supposedly pluralistic country as the US ended with more than 80pc of same faith, this over a period of 200 years? Where are the other beliefs?
Work done is no longer to be done.
Crazy stupid post.
Show me the country in which more religions are freely practiced.
What do you mean by more religions are freely practised?
It means nothing.
Quick example: some religions include sacrifice of animals like choping the head off a chicken to draw omens from it. In the US, this is forbidden. Judgement by law is rendered than the sacrifice of the animal should be done in the manner of Judaism. (Happened in NYC)
How free is it?
And it is easy to check that many countries over the world are pluraler than the US when it comes to religion.
In the US, more than 80 pc of the population is Christian. So how a country where people are 30 pc this, 30 pc that, 30 pc something else is less plural than a country with more than 80 pc being christian?
Please explain.
80 pc of the population is nominally Christian. When asked about key parts of their doctrine, most fail miserably.
"Where are all those Christian terrorists running around killing people for their beliefs? I must have missed that memo."
They are in Iraq, Afghanistan, piloting drones over Pakistan, er, do I really have to continue?
GW, thanks for trying, but a lifetime of conditioned hatred/denial is the one of the toughest behaviors to overwhelm. As I am sure you can see by reading the comments here.
FWIW, I think every last one of the three Abrahamic faiths are headed by nutters who should all be regarded as 'armed and dangerous'. What a batch of morons, if they had the slightest clue they would be falling over each others' dogmatic cognates to form alliances rather than killing each other (and anyone else who happens to be around) over which day of the lunar calendar it is appropriate to celebrate 'Jesus riding forth on hisseth dinosaur'.
Regards
I'm afraid you're quite incorrect.
Most of the western warfighters in Iraq and Afghanistan are not Christian extremists.
Also, while there certainly are many Christian extremists, it's important to note the difference from Islam -- There is nothing in the New Testament that justifies killing, and those who do so, do so against their faith.
Islam, on the other hand, strongly encourages murder and death threats in the name of Islam.
Try reading the Koran and the hadiths. You'll find that Islam is a different beast entirely from any other world religion, and is the only religion that specifically calls out other religions for destruction (namely, Judaism and Christianity).
If so much killing has been done in the name of a fundamentally peaceful religion like Christianity, how much more bloodshed can be done (and has been!) in the name of a religion that specifically and wholeheartedly endorses killing?
Christianity calls for the destruction of other religions. All abrahamic religions do.
Untrue for Christianity if you mean by its followers - the destruction of other religions is implicit in the ultimate triumph of the Christ, where "every knee shall bow", and is an act not done by adherents. In that respect you are correct. Islam calls for the destruction of all non-islamic people by its followers. Heed the words of the bali bomber who stated that his suggestion was for people to convert to islam as quickly as possible.
Maybe.
But the well-respected former Indonesian president admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings
See this for more information.
Fair enough, but that doesn't free the participants. Maybe it's a partnership or cartel? Still doesn't detract from the fact that islam sees all non-muslims as infidels.
This is a relatively recent and extremist phenomenon. Technically speaking, infidels (kafirs) are those who do not believe in the One True God (God of Abraham) and specifically excludes People of the Book - Christians, Jews (and others). That is how the majority of the Muslims I know view it anyway.
Infidel is historically a Christian term used to describe anyone who not a Christian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infidel
How is it untrue for Christianity and its followers?
Was Peter a follower of Christianity?
If yes, how do you absolve him from his behaviour?
I explained the first question. Is there a problem with that explanation?
As for two, Peter was a follower of Christ.
What behaviour, and what power would I have to absolve him if he behaved badly?
I think that every last one of the atheist faiths are headed by nutters who historically killed more people than all the world's religions combined.
The test for a true hater is whether or not they can acknowledge they are capable of it. All leftists nominate themselves as moderates, and all atheists nominate themselves as being free from hate because they are free from the shackles of religion. That frees them from having to be bound to any stupid calendar as it pertains to what day they slaughter infidels - as history attests.
If only we would all get in touch with our Inner Hitlers we'd surely find true happiness. Well, at least if we then acted accordingly.
Who to exterminate . . .
all atheists nominate themselves as being free from hate
I'm an atheist and I'm pretty sure I hate you. Would you care to try again?
Atheists often blame religion for the world's problems, conveniently excluding lack of religion as being responsible for any hurts of the world. That's what I meant by nominating themselves as being free from hate. By extension, it means you are the worst haters, because as an atheist you have the lowest value of human life of anyone.
By extension, it means you are the worst haters, because as an atheist you have the lowest value of human life of anyone.
You enslave the world to an invisible man who flies in the sky forever and I'm the one who doesn't value human existence?
I don't see the world enslaved to anything but our own selfish desires, which means that the enslavement is the triumph of the disbelief in God, rather than the belief in God, at least according to the Christian faith. The self is god in atheism, and your doctrine is ultimately whatever you want it to be. Atheism values individual existence, not human life.
The self is god in atheism.
I believe no such thing. Would you like to try again?