Creation vs. Evolution

[MikeFerrara]

I'm not sure if you meant it but this sounds very much like an attack on all Islam. Radical Islam is something small compared to the belief system, and actually these days based more on politics and how some nations treat others, or their own citizens, rather than anything actually anything religious. Anyone who thinks that

Read Genesis 16.

Christianity as a system has done better is simply denying history. The Crusades, the Inquisition, the slaughter and slavery of most of South & Central America (to name but a few examples) speak volumes for the attitudes of 'Christians'. Live and let live isn't particularly any part of the 'Christian' heritage IMO. What has been done in the name of various people is incredible when you look at what they actually said. Probably the most abused in this way is Jesus, although I'd lay bets Mohammed wouldn't be too pleased either.

I don't get it. You credit governments and politics with the rotten things done in the name of Islam but you let Spain and England off the hook and blame the Christianity for the worldly conquests undertaken by those nations?

As I already stated, I am not an expert on Islam but, as far as I know, Mohammed, was a general first and primarily engaged in the conquest of other lands by uniting the Arab tribes against his enemies. Is this incorrect?

 

[redacted]

Huh? You ain't payin' attention! It is the central theme of our terrorist enemies, and has been since the very foundation of Islam. The difference is in the radical Islam addendum, "kill the rest."
Rick

"Kill the rest" or let the rest go to hell -- Is the attitute toward others really that different?

 

[MikeFerrara]

not at all correct.

Islam says: convert all Arabs. the rest can live as they will so long as they pay taxes.
that's why Christians and Jews were able to live under Arab rulers for centuries,
and Christians continue to do so today. Jews, alas, since the foundation of Israel, have not done too well.

look up Christian Iraquis and Christian Iranis in both countries some time, and you'll see they are thriving, as they have for centuries (just to name two. same for Syria, Lebanon, etc.)

please inform yourself of that of which you speak

While there are Christians in the middle east, I don't think they have it as easy as you seem to suggest. The arab nations also seem bent on eliminating Isreal from the face of the planet and don't make any bones about saying so.

way broad overgeneralization.

to put this in perspective, roughly 3,000 civilians died on 9/11.

where was the wide US condemnation of the over 300,000 dead in Darfur?

does that mean we liked what happened? that we support it? that we are ethnic cleansers?

i grieve for the 3,000 dead in 9/11, but if you are calling that a slaughter, what do you call the approximate 40,000 Iraqi civilian deaths since the start of the US invasion?

I call the death of 40,000 civilians bad. The question I have is which ones are civilians? Now, before we go further, I have to divulge that my son is marine and a scout in the 1st LAR. When some one tries to blow him up are they going to be a civilian or a uniformed soldier? If he gets them will he be getting a soldier or a civilian?

God help me, I tried to send him to school or teach him horse shoeing or whatever but I don't want him there! If he wants to protect me, as far as I'm concerned, he can take a squirrel gun and sit in the back yard watching the house while I sleep rather than go into some desert where you can't tell soldier from civilian.

As a side note, he was home last weekend for the holiday. He doesn't have any hair but you know that he spent the week being hazed because he didn't go back with a fresh hair cut? Hazed, do you know what that is? I don't know who is sicker, the degenerates in Iraque or the degenerates at camp pendleton, Cal, USA!

If I coulkd kick some butt, I'm not sure where I'd start!

 

[MikeFerrara]

"Kill the rest" or let the rest go to hell -- Is the attitute toward others really that different?

Sure it is. God decides who goes to Hell but we decide who we kill. God's wisdom and justice is perfect while ours is flawed. We can kill the wrong person but God will not send the wrong person to Hell.

 

[lamont]

You are deceived... did you not see the widespread satisfaction throughout the Muslim world on 9/11? Or the thundering silence from the Muslim world when it came to condemning the slaughter?

Sorry, Rick, in this case, you don't know what you're talking about. There is a liberal tradition and history of tolerance in Islam which has been suppressed politically. No god but God by Reza Aslan is a good book which gives the background on how the different branches of Islam developed, and The Long War for Freedom by Barry Rubin lays out pretty well why liberal islam has been squashed between the corrupt regimes and the Islamists. As long as Americans think that Islam is inherently out to kill or convert all of them, we're definitely never going to solve all this crap...

 

[lamont]

While there are Christians in the middle east, I don't think they have it as easy as you seem to suggest. The arab nations also seem bent on eliminating Isreal from the face of the planet and don't make any bones about saying so.

Lets keep in mind how we started down this path. Rick asserted that all of Islam was inherently murderous. However, historically it was tolerant of people of other faith (provided they paid taxes like Andy said). There are also liberal branches of Islam which exist today, but they are not the ones in power. The Muslim world is largely caught in a power struggle between corrupt regimes like Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia and the Islamists in Iran, Hamas, Al Qaida and the Taleban, but this is due to historical and political forces, not due to inherent issues in Islam. If we can't separate the political from the religious then we will never be able to see the liberal forces that do exist within Islam and we will be unable to work to help strengthen them.

The same arguments that you are currently levelling against all of Islam could probably have been levelled against Christianity during the Crusades or the Inquisition, with equal validity -- but with the benefit of historical persepctive we know that it is not valid to paint all of Christianity with that brush.

 

[Rick Murchison]

Rick asserted that all of Islam was inherently murderous.

Absolutely false statement. Review my posts. I said that (1) the radicals added "kill the rest" and (2) based on the widespread celebrations and near total lack of condemnation in the Muslim world of the 9/11 attacks, the "tiny minority" of radicals popularly expounded is a gross underestimation. That says nothing about inherent qualities, only current reality. As for the contention that they aren't great proselytizers, the growth of the religion isn't happening because they're sitting on their hands.
As for Islam's tolerance of others, I for one do not care to join the dhimma.
Rick

 

[MikeFerrara]

The Muslim world is largely caught in a power struggle between corrupt regimes like Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia and the Islamists in Iran, Hamas, Al Qaida and the Taleban, but this is due to historical and political forces, not due to inherent issues in Islam. If we can't separate the political from the religious then we will never be able to see the liberal forces that do exist within Islam and we will be unable to work to help strengthen them.

I'm confused. What makes the liberal forces "liberal" and why is that better? Who are you saying are the corupt regimes Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia or Iran, Humas, Al Qaida and the Taleban?

In Christianity, I consider those who stray from the Bible because they don't like certain parts as liberal. In general, I consider those who stick closest to scripture as conservative. While some that call themselves conservatives might be nuts, I have no choice but to avoid all the liberals. LOL. Are the liberal Muslims the one who stick close to the Koran or the ones who stray from it?

What does the Koran say Islam is?

The same arguments that you are currently levelling against all of Islam could probably have been levelled against Christianity during the Crusades or the Inquisition, with equal validity -- but with the benefit of historical persepctive we know that it is not valid to paint all of Christianity with that brush.

I didn't level them against all of Islam. I stated that I have heard it both ways and that I didn't know which was true.

 

[lamont]

Absolutely false statement. Review my posts. I said that (1) the radicals added "kill the rest" and (2) based on the widespread celebrations and near total lack of condemnation in the Muslim world of the 9/11 attacks, the "tiny minority" of radicals popularly expounded is a gross underestimation. That says nothing about inherent qualities, only current reality. As for the contention that they aren't great proselytizers, the growth of the religion isn't happening because they're sitting on their hands.
As for Islam's tolerance of others, I for one do not care to join the dhimma.
Rick

I guess you're right, the quote you responded to was that radical islam was a tiny minority, and that's actually fairly wrong -- as can be seen by the democratic election of Hamas, the support for killing the Muslim in Afghanistan who converted to Christianity, etc. Its the liberal tradition in Islam which is in the minority right now.

Actually, on re-re-reading it, I still think that the turn of phrase: "widespread satisfaction throughout the Muslim world" and "the thundering silence from the Muslim world" is still at least sloppy. Muslims in American generally were horrified and generally spoke out against it and they're part of the Muslim world...

 

[lamont]

I'm confused. What makes the liberal forces "liberal" and why is that better?

To first order because they don't reject ijtihad.

Who are you saying are the corupt regimes Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia or Iran, Humas, Al Qaida and the Taleban?

Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia are examples of corrupt secular regimes and reflect the old movement towards secular arab nationalism (Hussein's Baath party was also one of these). The others are non-secular Islamist governments and organizations. Largely the power struggle in the Middle East are between these two forces (and between Sunni and Shia), while the liberal forces are caught in between. If you look at Saudi Arabia you see probably the most stark example of this where the secular regime encourages the Wahhabi schools, and both of them make common enemy with the liberals.

In Christianity, I consider those who stray from the Bible because they don't like certain parts as liberal. In general, I consider those who stick closest to scripture as conservative. While some that call themselves conservatives might be nuts, I have no choice but to avoid all the liberals. LOL. Are the liberal Muslims the one who stick close to the Koran or the ones who stray from it?

Generally they view it as incomplete, or in some places consider it in historical context. This is probably actually where you are wrt Christianity, since I doubt you view the Bible as being a complete set of all the Laws that man should have, and I doubt you take all of the Bible entirely literally (do you stone people for wearing two different cloths?).

What does the Koran say Islam is?

I don't know it that well. I do know that there are roughly two different branches in practice which allow interpreation and which don't. I'm hoping the one that allows interpreation wins or we're pretty screwed, because the other guys aren't generally very nice.