[valis]

Originally Posted by aka Brett

Perfect you just admitted you fear Islam at the same time you are defending them........

you missed the 'fanatic' part.

fanatics are to be feared. They are in the same group as extremists.

[aka Brett]

Originally Posted by buffoon

Absolutely. But as I have pointed out many times before; religion has often been used (and is) as a convenient tool to which one can most easily rally the masses. By the rabble rousers that invoke religion for the furthering of much baser causes.

I didn't see one. To them I was a "man of the book". Allah, Yahwe, God, all the same to them. Just that we had different ways of worship (they of course assumed theirs to be the only right one but one encounters that anywhere).

I didn't tell them that I'm not a believer. That would have gotten me real contempt. Faithlessness is unforgivable.

Saudi BTW is stone age Islam (Wahabism). Great influence upon the Taliban who were taught it in the Madrassas of Pakistan as refugee children.

We're not watching the Saudis enough

I would be very concerned about any Christians who lived by the old testament...for we would all be stoned,tarred and feathered and various other torturous activities,for merely looking at our brothers wife.
There were also various other things that had nothing to do with one actions,but perhaps the past of his family etc...Good thing we wrote the new testament and did not follow the old one that well or we would have killed ourselves off....Much time has passed since it was written but it took many centuries for harmony to evolve to the level it is.Several religions follow the king james version.

We dont use our bible for law but merely model it after such..it is my understanding in Islamic countries that the book is the law..therefore women are less respected than a family pet..cant show their face get beat in the street and the sort...I am sure this does not happen everywhere but it does appear to be common...The more the book is lived by the worse for civilzation.Most here do not follow the bible fully..and I expect the same is true in Islamic countries...I find it hard for myself to accept the following of the book....I respect their faith but can not accept the followings

[aka Brett]

Originally Posted by valis

dude..........there IS no barrier between the two religions...........I'm telling you, I've lived it. I was invited to a traditional Islamic wedding, and for me, it was a refreshing cultural change.

You gotta remember, holmes, that we are all here on the same planet. Roman Catholics, Christians, Muslims, Presbyterians, Mormons, and the beat goes on.

We all have to live side by side.

I'm a yankee's fan. My best friend is a bosox fan. Mortal enemies. And yet we have dinner together regularly.

Alll religion is is a belief system. Yours is, mine is, bin Laden's is. That's it. A belief system. bin Laden is an extremist; you and I (or I period) are not extremists. In short, we are not willing to take the life of another or ourselves to further our religious 'beliefs'.

Therein lies where you are missing the pivotal step, the link in the chain, what have you.....

peace

v

There may be no barrier for the casual Muslim...but the die hards that live by the word of the book{which would be extremeists} there is a barrier for it is written in the book regarding christians.....By no means does every muslim follow this...much as most of us dont follow our book in detail either....However I do find it of enough concern for holding a place{job} involved with national security....After all we have no idea of how strong the beliefs are....but the muslim faith is the faith of choice

[aka Brett]

Originally Posted by valis

you missed the 'fanatic' part.

fanatics are to be feared. They are in the same group as extremists.

I have to jab at Fidelista when I can.......unless we are talking about airplanes....its pretty much the norm for us.

[iltos]

where to start.....how about here?
i agree with this

Originally Posted by valis

nah, brettman's a good guy, just misinformed.

as you must also, brett, because you concede

Originally Posted by brett

to be honest...I am not familiar with their book...never had one in my hand.

bringing into question the entire issue of "the ten points", something you seem genuinely interested in addressing in this thread.

Originally Posted by aka Brett

refute the ten points..perhaps something useful can come out

i think you're right....something useful can come out....it simply depends, imo, on whether or not one's mind contains an idol cast from one belief system or another.......and i maintain you (not the personal one....the generic one) got your q'uaran literalists on one side of the scale, and your bible literalists on the other side...and the balance they seek on the scales of justice has got little to do with the picture you paint
but let's leave the "ten points" for a bit and take a look at that picture....your response to >f's concerns about the government you'd like to see

Originally Posted by aka Brett

A dollar would still be a dollar...there would be no gay marriage...you can have as many wives as you want...you would pay a 25 percent tax and be done....The mexican border would be guarded like the canadian border.
Pot would be legal....Food has no tax....Farmers dont get paid to not farm.
You will hate this part....No unions....No govt grants for college---thus lowering tuition....no free public housing for dead beats..no govt funded abortions....you get the idea


I believe in all being equal...this is where you create the very problem of racism IMO...IF we are all equal then let all be equal..let stop crying hate crimes/..and everyone is prejudice....I say crush all organization that seperate themselves for we are all human...that means the kkk the nccap
All of them...no one has any special rights....put on your boots and gloves and show up for work...no one cares about the color of anyones skin

this is an honorable pov, imo...i don't agree with all of it, but i respect it as a personal view of "what would be best" for everybody....
it is steeped in a great deal of trust in our fellow man and the ideals of both indivdual freedom and responsibility.........as such, there is the unspoken belief, i feel, that we are all in this together and must reserve some place in our hearts and minds for the idea of "pulling each other through"

otherwise, it is simply "every man for his self", and leaves no room whatsoever for what i see as the common ground buried somewhere in ANY religious belief....something other than "self"

so it's interesting to me that all mention of "religious freedom" based on "equal for all" has been purged from your description....and that religious freedom is also the one -most significant- thing that separates that description from the precepts laid down in the constitution.

so my mind circles back to ponder this phrase

I believe in all being equal

you use the failings of this ideal, brett, as a descriptor for the roots of racism....and i think you nailed it

what remains, of course, is that it is the exact same failings of that ideal wrt to religious beliefs which you have chosen to ignore in your posts

instead, you have latched onto the "ten points" as a work around for the concept of religious freedom, and created this -frankly- rather nutzo roadmap for arriving at a destination where practicing muslims are not welcome to paint your picture with the rest of us.

i borrowed the word, but did not use it lightly....muslims are -according to the "ten points"- infidels.

i find it fascinating that a site devoted to the supremacy of christanity would serve as the unspoken forward to your honest and eloquent statement, one which is apparently based on the premise of an "equality" which ignores religion altogether.

so...in the interests of trying to discover whether "something useful can come out", i'll take a look at those ten points
"Can a devout Muslim be an American patriot and loyal citizen?"
i am looking at the word "devout" in this sense...

This adjective means that someone has a strong belief in a religion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/le...ohun_Roy.shtml

1. "Theologically, no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of Arabia, turned monothistic."

most arguements lead with their strongest point....not this one....this answer is based on the idea that the christain "god" is actually a triad (father, son, holy ghost -i think ), and the logical extension, of course, it that if you don't believe in the triad, you'll make a lousy patriot and/or loyal citizen....forget the Department of True Religion for a sec.....hindus have too many gods...buddist don't even have one.....so point #1 eliminates EVERY religion that doesn't worship a triad......how many religions does that leave?

2. "Scripturally, no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran."

this is pretty much the same arguement...simply pointing out the devout muslims are different than devout christains.....but then, so are buddhist or sufis or hindus or you name it.....at this point, i'll just go ahead and re-introduce the Department of True Religion.

3. "Geographically, no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca to which he turns in prayer five times a day."

i can't refute this, except to say that while it definitely leaves a devout muslim with an attachment to the mid-east, various christain sects also have foreign attachments.....the vatican springs to mind immediately.....
i guess catholics are out, too, then

4. "Socially, no. Because his allegiance to Islam demands that he make no friends of Christians and Jews (Q. 5:51)"

that's exactly 5:51 says....in nearly all english translations....so that's one place to stop and say "SEE!!"
but what do muslims say?
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Islam-947...im-friends.htm....you tell me, brett

5. "Politically, no. Because he must submit to the mullah, who teaches annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan."

rather than refute this, i'll just ask that you defend it, keeping in mind that not all catholic priests molest kids (not that it matters much.....we've already demonstrated that catholics cannot be patriots or good citizens.)

6. "Domestically, no. Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Q. 4:34)."

again, you decide, based on what muslims say about their own beliefs
http://www.flwi.ugent.be/cie/bogaert/bogaert4.htm

7. "Religiously, no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam—intolerance (Q. 2:256)."

this statement is the height of irony, imo, coming as it does from a source that is apparently willing to eliminate most religions as instruments of patriotism and good citizenship (see #1 and #2)
but in finding a source to refute it, i came across The Authorized English Translation of the Qu'ran", and it says this

[2:256] There shall be no compulsion in religion: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way. Anyone who denounces the devil and believes in GOD has grasped the strongest bond; one that never breaks. GOD is Hearer, Omniscient.http://www.submission.org/suras/sura2.htm

8. "Intellectually, no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is established on Biblical principles, and he believes the Bible to be corrupt."

welpers.....the key to this one would be: "is a muslim taught that the bible is corrupt?"
you tell me http://www.answering-islam.org/Bible/jrwhy.html

9. "Philosophically, no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is dictatorial or autocratic except Turkey."

what is this saying?....turkey is a fluke?....or does the exception prove a fallacy in the logic? i'd say the latter: the logic assumes that the answer lies in religion....i'd argue that the answer lies in politics: for that reason, i'm leavin this to someone with a much firmer grasp of history that i have.

10. "Spiritually, no. Because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian’s God is a triune God, while the Muslim’s is one entity called "Allah," who is never a heavenly Father, nor is he ever called "Love" in the 99 excellent names."

this one is just thrown in here to emphasize the wonder of christainity (just in case you weren't already convinced )....it's just #1 with toast and orange juice and has been addressed.

[ekim68]

Originally Posted by buffoon

We're not watching the Saudis enough

A number of us have been saying that for years now...Let's see now, almost all of the 911 pilots were Saudi so we invaded Iraq....(Sorry brett, a little off topic..)

[aka Brett]

Iltos i will have to respond to your post later as it is very lengthy.....better known as the extended softening approach and will comment on mikes

Your multi quote didnt work correctly will let you edit quote tags before responding..so I am not quoting myself

[aka Brett]

Originally Posted by ekim68

A number of us have been saying that for years now...Let's see now, almost all of the 911 pilots were Saudi so we invaded Iraq....(Sorry brett, a little off topic..)

Its all topic mike.
Most of the countries over there are rather small....basically about the size of a state here in the U.S. Things change rapidly borders are crossed at will.
There are those that argue to the Saudis are nothing to worry about and could be considered an ally.....it goes both ways
The terrorist groups jump around..and have support in many places...maybe not by the majority..but none the less,,,they dont care if they are there.
Are they accepted or do the countries just accept them due to fear of retaliation?

[buffoon]

Originally Posted by iltos

9. "Philosophically, no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is dictatorial or autocratic except Turkey."

what is this saying?....turkey is a fluke?....or does the exception prove a fallacy in the logic? i'd say the latter: the logic assumes that the answer lies in religion....i'd argue that the answer lies in politics: for that reason, i'm leavin this to someone with a much firmer grasp of history that i have.

You rang, Sir ?

Just comes to mind that Indonesia and Malaysia must be flukes too. Syria, Lebanon?
The dictatorialness of "any" Muslim government is highly questionable. The above all have had elections and are by nature Republics.
So is the answer that Muslim countries with a monarchical system are more prone to autocratism and religious-fundie law making (like Sha'aria?).
In the case of Saudi yes but Jordan is a monarchy as well. As is Oman. The latter two don't flog anybody in the streets.

In Singapore (which cannot qualify as Muslim or autocratic in any way)
felons are caned. Not the way we do it (never mind that it was custom at one time) so does that make Singapore barbarian?

Turkey is, as you rightly say, what it is due to its politics. For very similar reasons to those of the US, it precludes clergy from interfering with government. This move came in the wake of deposing the last Sultan at the end of WWI in an attempt to salvage at least some of what had once been an empire and had been run down by a meanwhile decrepit line of "royalty" that also always provided the spiritual head of Islam (the caliphate was synonymous with the Sultanate, at least where Ottoman rule extended to).

Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist.

Brett's ironic mistake lies in looking so far away, because in the US they clearly do.

[buffoon]

Originally Posted by aka Brett

I would be very concerned about any Christians who lived by the old testament...for we would all be stoned,tarred and feathered and various other torturous activities,for merely looking at our brothers wife.
There were also various other things that had nothing to do with one actions,but perhaps the past of his family etc...Good thing we wrote the new testament and did not follow the old one that well or we would have killed ourselves off....Much time has passed since it was written but it took many centuries for harmony to evolve to the level it is.Several religions follow the king james version.

I never cease to be amused by the superiority that many hold their faith to have over that of others. The King James bible is a prime example. The way it is quoted as "the" source (the one all to end all) one would think that Christianity evolved in English speaking countries.

Equally amusing is the German view that Protestantism has its source in Germany alone (although Luther was the first to slam popery as such).

There seems to be a propensity for each "newer" religious take to assume itself to be superior to the one it takes its roots from. Christianity is the "truer" interpretation of monotheistic faith as opposed to the Jewish faith (without which it actually would never have evolved) and Islam, the latest of the three big monotheistic religions, is obviously the truest of the lot, completely ignoring that it wouldn't even exist without either the mosaic or the Christian faith (having taken a lot from both). The Mormons probably are truer than the lot of us and it goes on and on.

If I were God I'd bring the plague to the whole bloody lot of us.

We dont use our bible for law but merely model it after such..

You have to think in longer time spans than the relatively short existence period of your very young country Brett. The Bible and the clergy's take on it was law most anywhere in Christianity. The US is not unique in having having obtained a certain measure of secularity by the simple expedient of its founding. That has been achieved elsewhere in "Christian" countries and the roots of such religious freedom were being laid long before the US were ever founded. The founding fathers didn't pull the concept of religious freedom out of their hats overnight. They had precedents to go by.

it is my understanding in Islamic countries that the book is the law..

mainly, yes

therefore women are less respected than a family pet

where do you get these things from?

..cant show their face

in orthodox Jewry the "Rebbetzim" still can't show their hair, so what?

get beat in the street and the sort...

There are archaic forms where public floggings (of men as well) are administered

I am sure this does not happen everywhere but it does appear to be common...

You need to do some research of the millions of Muslims in the world and then ascertain how many of them actually live under such regimes

The more the book is lived by the worse for civilzation.

Their book again, eh?

Most here do not follow the bible fully..and I expect the same is true in Islamic countries...I find it hard for myself to accept the following of the book....I respect their faith but can not accept the followings

It is the common denominator of religion that has been instrumental in creating the civilization we know. Cordoba (not far from here) had street lighting, the biggest and most popular university in the known Western world, a library containing all of Greek art, science, mathematics etc. without which all that knowledge would have been forever lost to all of us today, public baths etc.

Under Islam.

While the barbarian Franks and others to the North lived in trees, stank like hell, were completely illiterate and as religiously intolerant as it could get.

Jews had it good here (they were well respected under the Muslims). Some of the greatest thinkers of Jewry (e.g. Moses Maimonides) were born in Spain.

A superior civilization and culture went completely south (literally) with the reconquest of Spain by Christian forces. Henceforth the darkness of religious intolerance and persecution reigned. Until it had to be overcome (here and elsewhere) by something else because the status quo was so stagnant that it stifled all development.

I guess the founding fathers musta torn a page from this particular book here as much as from the many others when they "decreed" freedom of religion. They may not have had many Muslims around in 17 hundred whatever but I'm fairly certain they would have meant it for them as well.

[buffoon]

Originally Posted by aka Brett

Its all topic mike.
Most of the countries over there are rather small....basically about the size of a state here in the U.S.

Just for the sake of interest, how many times do you reckon you can get Alaska (your biggest state) into the Saudi desert? Or into Iran?
D'ya reckon you could fit Texas into Afghanistan? (you can't but only by a small margin, they're almost equal).
What states would fit into Iraq? To give you a clue, Iraq is more than half the size of Texas.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by aka Brett

Iltos i will have to respond to your post later as it is very lengthy

i thought you wanted a complete answer

.....better known as the extended softening approach

information can do that sometimes

Your multi quote didnt work correctly will let you edit quote tags before responding..so I am not quoting myself

hmmm...i have no idea what you're talking about here, brett....it was a pain in the patoot to address your concerns thoroughly and clearly: i see nothing confusing in simply hitting the quote button and responding.

[TooBad]

Buffoon, Iltos,

I know you are both smart and usually quite reasonable, but how can the incident in Ft. Hood TX yesterday be squared with your complete defense of Muslims? The perpetrator obviously took his oath to Allah more seriously than his oath to the Constitution and the Army. How many of our servicemen have to die at the hands of a fellow soldier because he was Muslim and followed his oath to Allah and not to his fellow soldiers and country? I don't know the correct answer, but it seems that there is a war between religions and Christians and Jews did not declare it.

I agree that not all Muslims seem to be radical, but how do you tell the difference when many of those that commit atrocities seem to be moderate right up until they act. I don't see any easy answers, but if I were the military, I would have all Muslims renounce there faith to ensure that they take their oath to the country and Constitution as sacrosanct. Sounds harsh and against freedom of religion, but what can be done to prevent these tragedies? I really would like to know what alternatives there are.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by aka Brett

I always honor religious beliefs,,,however the muslim beliefs are to not be in harmony with christians...thats the problem...not a good choice for jobs in national security

How can you honor religious beliefs and in THE SAME SENTENCE say they are "to not be in harmony with Christians"

Perhaps I simply do not understand your poor English here. What is it you are implying?

Are only Christians a good choice for National Security positions?

Dude, you've hit bottom in this hole. But you are still digging.

Show me how this choice is somehow extremist in his beliefs, or back off and admit that you jumped to a knee-jerk reaction.

Did it ever occur to you that a knowledgable Muslim may actually be the PERFECT choice for this position? Really, if you believe that it is the religion of Islam that is terrorist, instead of terrorists using Islam, then who better to know the best way to combat the enemy???

Put down the shovel and move on already. Else show me something extreme from the appointee.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by TooBad

Buffoon, Iltos,

I know you are both smart and usually quite reasonable, but how can the incident in Ft. Hood TX yesterday be squared with your complete defense of Muslims? The perpetrator obviously took his oath to Allah more seriously than his oath to the Constitution and the Army. How many of our servicemen have to die at the hands of a fellow soldier because he was Muslim and followed his oath to Allah and not to his fellow soldiers and country? I don't know the correct answer, but it seems that there is a war between religions and Christians and Jews did not declare it.

I agree that not all Muslims seem to be radical, but how do you tell the difference when many of those that commit atrocities seem to be moderate right up until they act. I don't see any easy answers, but if I were the military, I would have all Muslims renounce there faith to ensure that they take their oath to the country and Constitution as sacrosanct. Sounds harsh and against freedom of religion, but what can be done to prevent these tragedies? I really would like to know what alternatives there are.

I cannot believe that I am reading this from you guys.

I couldn't disagree with you both more.