Minnesota elected a Muslim, Keith Ellison to the US House of Representatives. If he'd made his religion an issue, I'd be unhappy about this (just as I am about any other pious politician), but he didn't—even though his opposition did—so I'm not perturbed. He seems to be advocating the right stuff.
Ellison said his race and religion weren't as important as issues such as Iraq and health insurance for all. "We still have 43 million American uninsured. This is a problem for everyone in the United States," he said.
He advocates an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq along with strongly liberal views. While Ellison did not often speak of his faith during the campaign, awareness of his candidacy drew interest from Muslims well beyond the district centered in Minneapolis.
If you want to see people blowing their tops, you're going to have to go to Rapture Ready.
If I had my druthers, every leader of our government would be a Bible- believing, Christ -loving, running -after -God believer.
It is a sad day for America today. A happy day for Terrorist however.
The beginning of the end of Christianity in this nation!!! The fall of great civilizations usually begin with one small event. This very well may be that domino.
This guy is a security risk...BECAUSE he is muslim! He can NOT be trusted with any state secrets in the war on terror. Any information that would benifit the enemy can and will be leaked by this guy.
There's plenty of paranoia to go around there, and there's also an excess of irony. These two comments had me laughing.
NOT a good thing. You mark my words...within the year, we'll hear about an Islamic "prayer room" being set aside within the Congressional building(s).
I have yet to see a Muslim who can seperate their religion from anything. This is not a good thing at all.
Too bad they're completely oblivious to the fact that they're just seeing the country through the eyes of every American muslim, atheist, pagan, Hindu, etc. right now.
- Log in to post comments
I would love to see their reaction when an atheist gets elected to congress ...
"The beginning of the end of Christianity in this nation!!! .."
We can hope that this line of the rant is correct.
It reminds me of the Christian father up in the NW who was horrified to find that a buddhist monk was giving the prayer before a HS football game, he sat in horror and then rushed out. He felt violated and terrorized to be forced to see and hear that and felt he should never be obligied to be in the presence of such sights. And he wanted to remove all prayers from games, to be sure he would never be forced to see the sight of another religious practice, not his own, again.
HILARIOUS stuff. But these nuts just are, aren't they?
Ellison was so low-key about his religion that many people didn't even know he *was* Muslim until a couple of weeks before the election...hardly the behavior of an extremist.
That being said, Ellison apparently voted for legislation that "would require balanced treatment of evolution in state-mandated science standards" -- a stealth ID bill. My impression is that he's not a kook like Bachmann -- so how did this happen? Has he addressed this issue at all since?
Madam Pomfrey, which bill are you referring to? I was not aware that he had voted for it. Do you know in which session that was so I can check it out? I remember in the 2004 session there were several last-minute attempts to bring this to the floor, but considering Ellison's other stances, I would be surprised to see if he voted for any of them. Unless they were amendments to other bills related to education, and which he felt were important.
Not that it would change my support either way. I like him because he opposed a bill for Initiative and Referendum in Minnesota unless there were a provision that prevents Human and Civil Rights issues from being put before the electorate.
But, I don't live in his district anyway.
What this moron doesn't know, of course, is that there's been a prayer room there for years, probably decades. (Does he think that *none* of the Congressional staffers are Islamic? None of them?)
Wait a sec, posters at Rapture Ready wrote some stupid stuff? Stop the presses!
Greetings Mike...the conservative "Minnesota Family Council" lists Ellison as having voted in favor of (and having supported their position on) the following:
5. Require balanced scientific treatment of evolution in state-mandated science standards. A vote on an amendment to require that state-mandated science standards include an explanation of how new scientific new evidence can challenge scientific theories such as evolution. MFC supported this amendment. (2004 Journal, page 5557)
The record also shows that Ellison voted MFC's way on one other bill listed on that record: one that stops "the promotion of homosexuality in public schools." Ellison did not take the MFC position on the other bills listed there.
http://www.mfc.org/resources/Scorecard2005%20page%201.pdf
Honestly I am surprised that there haven't been any other Muslims elected before now, just out of sheer statistics. I think it is the fastest growing of the Abrahamic 3.
I also wonder how many agnostics, atheists are in Congress now (or how many would admit to being either in the current climate).
That reminds me of a thread that I read on Baptist Board several years ago in which the Baptists were complaining about Mormon missionaries coming to their house.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Japanese Americans heard that same rhetoric in WWII.
" I have yet to see a Muslim who can seperate their religion from anything. This is not a good thing at all."
Has he even met a muslim?
That's a bit of quote mining which at least slightly misrepresents one of the posters and shouldn' be done (If PZ had his druthers, wouldn't every leader be a Democrat and/or atheist?):
[quote]If I had my druthers, every leader of our government would be a Bible- believing, Christ -loving, running -after -God believer. Am I being so open minded that I would support a Satanist?? What a question! By your definition, anyone who doesn't serve God is one. ("If you don't follow God, who are you following? Satan.") So I guess that would suggest there are already a great many Satanists in leadership? My answer to that would be to increase our prayers for the salvation of this country's leadership.
[b]Here's the point I was trying to make: He might be very good for our country. He might support more conservative bills. He might support more conservative judges being placed in office. And he might not. We need to allow his actions, his fruit, his votes, to speak for themselves.[/b]
I also think that it shows Islam is gaining political clout in the US, and that does give me pause to think. It begs the question, "What do we do about it?" I believe people are hungering for God, and that the Christian church needs to WAKE UP, and show people the living God, the Great I Am, the Holy One of Israel![/quote]
You can always count on TBogg:
Also in Minnesota, Keith Ellison (MN-05) won and here's hoping that he calls John Hinderaker every morning at about 3AM and shouts "Allah Akbar" and then starts giggling like a madman.
"That's a bit of quote mining which at least slightly misrepresents one of the posters and shouldn' be done"
Not really; the clipped part just shows the poster suggesting that Ellison might turn out to be the sort of scumball fundies love, and not the sort of decent human being that fundies despise. Oh, and don't forget to be very scared of Islam.
"If PZ had his druthers, wouldn't every leader be a Democrat and/or atheist?"
Right, so preferring that every politician be smart, ethical, and respecting of the Constitution is equivalent to preferring that every politician be a moronic corrupt theocrat.
j a higginbotham:
How does PZ's quote significantly change the commenter's meaning? The complaint is that there aren't enough Bible Beaters in power. I think PZ's exerpt fully captures that.
Is it just me or do those people sound stark-raving insane?
Paranoia, obsessions, warping of reality, thinking people are out to get you? I mean these have got to be some of the loonier of the religious community.
Especially when they find out what happens in atheist prayer rooms...
While I've no singular problem with an individual Muslim being elected, serving in our military, etc, I've yet to be convinced "moderate Islam" too, doesn't have the same vision of a global caliph "radical Islam" has, and are just using different methods.
I hang out at a rather anti-western ISLAMIC-NATURE website and read quite a bit at a "moderate's" website, Unwilling Self-Negation, ran by Ali Eteraz, so I've tried to expose myself to as much Islam as possible, including reading the Qur'an and the Hadiths available at the website of the former.
While I have no fear of immediate dhimmitude, I do fear for future generations of Americans if the political aspect of Islam, as esposed by the former, can't be exorcised from the religion. Eteratz, at the later, gives me hope as he does deal with quite a few equality and apostasy issues and has several very good posts up right now, plus a killer Rummy headline: Really Relevant Reverberating Roar: Rumsfeld Recused.
Perhaps I've given in to the climate of fear more than I believe. But I can't help but see the Islamist movements in Europe and Canada and envision that in our future.
Ah, PZ! You missed a grand opportunity to test everyone's irony meters! "Watch our religious freedom disappear before our ver [sic] eyes," says one commenter... but how could anyone with a known non-Christian religious affiliation *not* successfully run for office without religious freedom? On second thought, perhaps something so outrageous as that simply blew your own irony meter out... mine is pretty heavy-duty, after many such incidents....
Love the blog, BTW. It's my first time posting, and I hope not the last!
I would love to see their reaction when an atheist gets elected to congress ...
I can't imagine that there aren't at least some atheists there already. Deeply closeted, of course.
But what if the political aspect of Hinduism or Wicca can't be divorced from its religious aspect? what if the political aspect of Christianity can't be separated from its feel-good wickity wickibob? Christianity is a bigger threat in America right now, sorry.
Ya' know, when Christians start flying airplanes into buildings, you'll have my attention. As it stands right now, the majority of Christians support a secular form of government - even the most evangelical. With Reconstructionists in the vast minority, Thus far my research on Islam indicates the exact opposite.
"Thus We have appointed you a middle nation, that you may be witnesses upon mankind." (Quran, surah 11:43)
As you know, PZ, I don't share your antipathy towards religion, but I found it very weird and disturbing to listen to Joe Liebermann's victory speech last night on CSPAN. Oh my God (pardon the expression). Every other word out of his mouth was God: God this, God that, praise God, thank God... Has he always talked like that, or did getting rejected by the party of godless heathens send him over the edge?
"A happy day for Terrorist however."
Who is this Terrorist guy? I think we've got some questions to ask him.....
How about when they drive their cars into health clinics and set them on fire?
How about when they bomb the Olympics and gay nightclubs?
Or how about when they mail anthrax powder to abortion clinics?
Will we have your attention then?
"Ya' know, when Christians start flying airplanes into buildings, you'll have my attention. "
As oposed to say, starting unwinnable wars which kill hundreds of thousands, detaining people for years without trial, blowing up abortion clinics and torturing people to death?
Cause I'm not really looking too favourable on American christians at this point either
"I have yet to see a Muslim who can seperate [sic] their religion from anything. This is not a good thing at all."
Heaven forbid I ask you to separate your Christianity from rational policymaking, though, right?
This was, after all, the original compromise way back when, in the late 1700s, that preserved secular and religious liberties all within the same borders, governed by the same constitution, with no religious test for office.
They seem to be saying...
Religious Freedoms for Everyone---as long as they're Christian, and maybe Jewish. Maybe.
Freedom of Speech---but not if you dare to use it to malign the current occupant of the White House, etc.
sorry, you folks, Freedom doesn't look like that or work that way.
Feh...I'm glad our local Dem won, I voted for him.
But if he wants my vote next time, this trying to out-GOP the GOP thing better stop.
the other quote PZ noted makes me laugh, too:
"If I had my druthers, every leader of our government would be a Bible- believing, Christ -loving, running -after -God believer."
So, theoretically speaking, you want to live in Jean Calvin's Switzerland?! Or is Vatican City more your flavor? Be my guest, man, but count me out!! And that's the trouble with Christianity, isn't it?...what if you're an Anabaptist or Quaker...and you don't fit in in Vatican City or Calvin's Switzerland or England under the Church of England as founded by Henry VIII? Fleeing Europe so you can set up your OWN theocracy on these shores was indeed what the original colonists did--at first. But each colony along the Atlantic coast had its own flavor of religion, and if the whole thing was ever going to be stitched together as a new nation, there had to be compromises, and...people started to remember why their immediate forebears had come to America to begin with, and...rather than reproduce the same divisive bullshit and the horrors that had unleashed across the face of Europe for centuries, they hit on the radical idea of a secular government with a wall of separation between religious authority and secular state authority, and...
This is the reason, of course, why the Left has such a hard time politically...it's just plain easier to grunt slogans like "God said it, I believe it, that settles it", crowd cheers, vote more morons into office. Trying to remind voters about the timeless lessons of history...!? Who's the insane one here after all... ;-)
Feel-good soundbites made of bullshit are a lot easier to mass-produce than carefully crafted truth-bites of pure golden truth, I'm afraid. Truth and scientific rationality are a hard sell in politics, and sometimes don't matter (though they ought to) in matters of the law, either.
We've won some breathing room, and I do hope James Webb (D) pulls off a victory in Virginia, he strikes me as a good, decent man (good as you can expect from a pol, anyway), even if he did once work for Ronald Reagan.
And even gridlock is preferable to the GOP steamroller approach to our rights, liberties, any sense of real fairness in the tax code....and above all the war.
I'd love to see congress truly exercise its power of the purse on that one, pull the plug on that particular meat-grinder.
Just have to wait & see what happens.
wildlifer:
Christian fundamentalists don't need to blow shit up to be a threat to America. Cancer kills you just as dead as a gunshot wound does.
The only difference between Muslim fundamentalists and Christian fundamentalists is the symbol of America they chose to attack. The 9/11 terrorists chose the WTC. The Christian fundies chose the Constitution. They made those respective choices because of practical, not ideological, considerations (those who are outside the system will attack it from the outside, those who are inside, from the inside).
Beyond that, though, both groups have the exact same goals, and use almost the exact same rhetoric in pursuit of those goals.
You know, even if Webb's election gets overturned on recount, I still think it's a great day for liberal schadenfreude.
No. You're just pointing out a few wingnuts and there's no "they."
But as I said, we have a majority of Christians as allies to temper the Reconstructionists, which isn't the case with Islam, the moderate (secular) Muslim's in the minority.
Oh, Irshad Manji has a "Liberal" Muslim website I peruse too.
wildlifer,
I don't know if what you're looking at really represents all of "moderate Islam". If you're looking to websites of Islam that are moderate, the emphasis of the search criteria is on Islam isn't it? That seems to be a systemic bias in your analysis. It shouldn't be a surprise then that they make all kinds of theological arguements for everything.
I can't say that I'm a scholar on all things Islamic, but the (Turkish) muslims I work with seem quite alright; they're not afraid of beer or undressed women, and they've never tried to convert me or anybody else I know to becoming a Muslim. The only affectation that they insist on is that they should not eat pork. They like the fact that their own government is secular, and they like it that way; they don't want to live in Saudi Arabia. As far as I can tell, the 'islamification' of Europe and Canada is a conservative boogey-man.
Nobody notice this quote?
[quote]On the other hand there are a good number of unsaved Republicans and Democrats in there too, people who do not have God's interests at heart. In some ways they are even more a danger to this nation than this guy.[/quote]
I would have thought that would have caught your eye as well, PZ, even if it's nothing new :)
Well...I was at a GOTV Rally for the Democratic Party in Cleveland on Saturday night - specifically to see Barack Obama - as much as I like him, his speech sounded alot like that as well. Lots and lots of "God talk". It really gives me the creeps, but the crowd (even the Democratic crowd) was eating it up.
wildlifer:
The problem isn't that one group has more moderates than some other group (that's all a pointless playground argument, anyway). The majority of any ideologically-bound group is made up of moderates. The real problem is that moderates rarely, if ever, control the public discourse.
All the moderates in the world won't make a damn bit of difference if the crazies are the ones setting the agenda. And you'd have to have your head buried in the sand not to notice that that's exactly what's been going on around here for at least the last six years. More like most of the last quarter-century, if you really get down to it.
Wildlifer:
Huh, that's funny: when Christians commit acts of terrorism, it's the result of "a few wingnuts". However, at the same time, you think flying airplanes into building is something that validly characterizes most Muslims? It's queer how that works...
Don't you find it ironic that right now, on the other side of the world, your Muslim Doppelgänger is probably making the same crude, sweeping generalizations about Christians and Westerners that you are now? Don't you think it's time that both of you knock it off?
"But I'm right and he's wrong!" There, I saved Wildlifer from haiving to respond. ;-) BTW, is that name a furry reference?
"Especially when they find out what happens in atheist prayer rooms..."
Pagan 'Great Rite' rooms, anybody?
Ya' know, when Christians start flying airplanes into buildings, you'll have my attention.
George Bush is a Christian, you moron.
Of course, not all are afraid of just Muslims in Congress:
.
There's even, surprisingly enough, one voice of semireason:
Just to be pedantic, Henry VIII split from the Catholic Church, but didn't set up a specific religion in its place. Each subsequent monarch (and they were all short-lived) bounced the country between Catholicism and Generic Protestantism, causing bloody pogroms and witch-hunts, until Elizabeth I set up the Church of England (the church that "looks Catholic and sounds Protestant", as it was famously described) as a compromise under which all Christians could live in peace.
Um, most Muslims don't believe in *any* sort of religious hierarchy. bin Laden's quixotic quest for a caliphate seems to be for a *regional* one, and even that is not followed by most Muslims. (I doubt the 200-million-plus in Indonesia think much of it, for starters. Everyone always seems to forget them... and the tens of millions in India... but, no, in most people's minds, Islam == Arab. Sheesh.)
I doubt the 200-million-plus in Indonesia think much of it, for starters. Everyone always seems to forget them... and the tens of millions in India...
I think it's always worth pointing out that there are more Muslims in Indonesia alone than there are in the entire Middle East. The large number of Muslims in Asia make Arabs a minority among Muslims.
Maybe I watch too much news, but India and Indonesis seems to have Muslim problems as well, no?
What's your point, numbnuts?
I see more than a semantic difference between organized terrorist groups and individuals acting on their own.
Sorry I'm not PC enough for you. Fuck that noise. Of all the religions Islam's currently the most insidious and I won't apologize for trusting its followers even less than I trust the Christian religion, or for seeing it as a greater danger. You've certainly offered no reasons to do so.
"Ya' know, when Christians start flying airplanes into buildings, you'll have my attention".
How about when Christians go on a crusade into Iraq and are ultimately responsible for the death of tens if not hundreds of thousands of civilians. That don't get your attention ?
Re llewelly
I believe former representative and current senator elect Bernie Sanders of Vermont is a professed atheist.
Umilik: Apparently not. It only counts if planes are involved. Christians could start another Crusade and burn Eurasia to the ground, but if they dont use planes it becomes okay!
Actually, the Qur'an teaches them Islam will bring peace to the world through the global caliphate. Some wage jihad as does bin Laden, others through conversion, and organisations like CAIR through Al-taqqiya.
Sharia's creeping into Indonesia, India, and everwhere else Islam exists. Sub-Saharan Africa has multiple problems related to Islam. France has "immigrant" (more ignorant PCness - it's Muslim areas) parts of cities police cars can't enter and you've probably seen news of the riots. The list is endless.
The investment community is even catering to the ignorance by creating Sharia-friendly mutual funds which are consistant with prohibitions against pork, gambling, alcohol and paying or earning interest (banks). See Overcoming The Cost of Being Muslim.
Crusade is ignorant rhetoric. Saddam started this war while Bush I was president, Clinton allowed it to fester, and Bush II (in his usual incompetant way) seeks to end it. From all indications sectarian violence (fostered by Iran and Syria) has killed more noncombatants than US forces have. I lay that blame on the head of Islamists, where it belongs.
What I find rather odd in this whole conversation is that alleged secularists would ally themselves with Islam in a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of mentality. To defend Islam by attacking Christianity seems to me to be a logical fallacy secularists would not make.
Ya' know, when Christians start flying airplanes into buildings, you'll have my attention.
George Bush is a Christian, you moron.
What's your point, numbnuts?
I'm guessing `truth machine' is a 9/11 conspiracy whacko (phear the squibs!).
Almost any person/organisation with the word `truth' in the title is almost inevitably dedicated to the opposite. I can't even think of a single exceptions to that rule offhand.
The only difference between "individuals acting alone" and organised terrorists groups is that the organised groups are obviously smarter. Honestly, organised terror a far more effective operating model, as we've clearly seen demonstrated in the past several decades. So I guess the difference between Christians and Muslims when it comes to terrorist acts is simply that the Muslims are better at it.
Oh, wait, but then you've got the IRA to muck it all up. And maybe you can pretend that they don't count as religiously-motivated terrorists, but they certainly did play up the Catholic angle. Just as arguably, Al Qaeda is a political group that uses Islam to motivate recruitment. Any distinction drawn between the two in that respect is a false one created to justify an ignorant "all Muslims are bad, all Christians are good" worldview.
Anyway, all this bullshit is obscuring the real point here. I thought Barack Obama was supposed to be the anti-christ! What the Hell does this new guy think he's pulling?
That's a nice tin foil hat you got there, wildlifer. Shame if anything were to happen to it..
But seriously. Abortion clinic bombers are terrorists with cells and networks and all the what have you. Plus they're in control of the executive branch.
"To defend Islam by attacking Christianity seems to me to be a logical fallacy secularists would not make."
You caught us. PZ and his readers are secretly Islamic terrorists! We're working from within the United States, pushing "science" and "reason" to undermine Christianity. And then, once it's legal for gay men to marry their dogs and rape babies in public (what is colloquially known as the "gay agenda") and we've completely disassembled the military and repealed the Second Amendment, BAM! We start crashing planes into things, and from there it's the Global Caliphate all the way.
Wildlifer said "Saddam started this war while Bush I was president, Clinton allowed it to fester, and Bush II (in his usual incompetant way) seeks to end it"
Fact 1: Saddam invaded Kuwait (not the US or any European country as far as I am aware of)
Fact 2: we (meaning many of the "western" countries) decided to retaliate because we were worried about the oil supply.
Fact III: Bush II invaded Iraq because, uh, well, hmm, don't seem to remember that one, let's see now... Oh yes, Uranium from Niger, hmm, no that wasn't it.... Al Quida in Iraq, hm, no that wasn't it either, they arrived there after us. Hmm...
You've caught me there. As an Scot-Irish American, no doubt you know where my loyalties lie. Bloody Brits and their colonialism. :-)Everytime I watch Braveheart I want to kick their asses again in Revolution II. But, I'll agree it's nationalism with religious undertones.
I've never said that. There are Liberal to Moderate Muslims (apostate), but there's not a "Liberal" or "Moderate" Islam. Islam is a political ideology masquerading as a religion. Read the Qur'an and the Hadiths. And I'll not defend any religion by pointing to the flaws in another. They all suck eggs.
Right, I'm wearing a tinfoil hat because I observe the truth? That everywhere there's violence across the globe, Islam is involved. That where ever a woman's being stoned for being raped, Islam's involved. It's been what? 500 years since Christians burned heretics, but as an atheist, I'm to fear them more?
Fact: We did not free Kuwait unilaterally.
Fact: Saddam was in violation of the cease-fire agreement. End of story, regardless of whatever excuses Bush thought he had to use in order to sell it to the public.
wildlifer wrote, "Actually, the Qur'an teaches them Islam will bring peace to the world through the global caliphate. Some wage jihad as does bin Laden, others through conversion, and organisations like CAIR through Al-taqqiya."
And the bible teaches that "Any city that doesn't "receive" the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah" Mark 6:11.
The year and a half I spent stationed in Turkey suggested to me that about the same number of Muslims read the Koran regularly as Christians read the bible.
Most religious instruction, in any culture, seems to be though the instruction of holy men. (You can interpet 'holy' in any fashion you like.)
Cheers,
-Flex
You'll find no defender of Christianity in me, but that doesn't make Islam a de facto religion of peace either.
But, Turkey too is having internal problems with anti-secular Islamists.
That everywhere there's violence across the globe, Islam is involved.
So would you mind telling me where the involvement of Islam is in the fight between the Tamil Tigers (who are Hindus) and the Sinhalese Buddhist majority on the island of Sri Lanka? (Aside from the fact that the Muslims were the targets of Tamil Tiger ethnic cleansing.)
Can you tell me where the Islamic component is in the civil war in Uganda between Joseph Kony's Lord's Resistance Army (a crazy mileniallist cult) and the Ugandan government?
There are dozens of ongoing civil wars and border conflicts which have absolutely no relationship to Islam whatsoever.
Wildlifer has a point.
Read it.
Ironically, it's a lot worse than RR even imagines!
Forgot the qualifier "almost." Sue me.
truthmachine, John Marley
PZ's point seemed to be that some people were upset because a Muslim was elected; the sole basis of their indignation was his religion. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
PZ's selection from the post I referenced made it sound as though that poster agreed with the sentiment above. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Other portions of the quote clearly show that the poster does not have this blanket condemnation of Muslims. "We need to allow his actions, his fruit, his votes, to speak for themselves." Do you agree or disagree with that this quote is consistent with condemning someone for his religious beliefs?
[There are secondary issues, but I hope you won't change the topic with those.]
Wildlifer, I hope you realize that the more you talk about how "they" are coming to get us, the crazier and more racist you sound. Read some of the Christian Dominionist works of R.J. Rushdoony before you start deciding that Islam is the only religion on the globe that we have to worry about.
Yes, they have "problems" with Muslims in India -- for some reason, Muslims get pissed when Hindus massacre them, and so they start massacring Hindus in return. People are funny that way.
No. You're just pointing out a few wingnuts and there's no "they."
As are you. Have you ever met a muslim or are you just getting all your information from web sites?
Funny, but all of my Muslim co-workers here in Minneapolis seem to be very nice and not at all interested in blowing me up. Maybe they're trying to kill me with kindness and I don't even know it!
Somehow though, as an atheist woman who's uppity enough to think I'm a real human being not just a womb with legs to make serving my male overlord (aka husband) easier, I'm enemy #1 of quite a few of the Christians I run across.
Wildlifer wrote, " Islam a de facto religion of peace either."
Neither is Christianity.
Since you missed my point, I'll spell it out a little more clearly.
You are using quotes from the Qur'an as a supporting argument in your assertion that Islam is a warlike religion. You could take similar quotes from the Bible to argue that Christianity is a warlike religion.
But the followers of a religion do not get their inspiration for their actions from what is actually written in their holy books, but from what their holy men tell them is true. The followers revere those books, they idolize those books, but they rarely read those books.
So showing that the books themselves are rife with warlike sentiment doesn't really show that the followers are warlike. Because the followers don't read the books.
All I was doing was pointing out that part of the evidence you presented for your claim that Islam is a barbarous religion, the evidence you get from the Qur'an, is not particularly stong evidence.
Cheers,
-Flex
Yeah, whay Kansas Anarchist and Mnemosnyne said. Also I'd like to add that there are more Muslims in China than there are in the Middle East and none of them want to kill us. And that modern suicide bombing was a technique first used by the Hindu Tamil Tigers.
Do you really think, wildlifer, that if you took the same history in the Middle East, with the colonialism and tribalism and exploitation for oil and made them WASPs instead of Muslim Arabs you'd get a different result?
And if you want to talk about East Africa, which is twice as fucked as the Middle East except no one cares, then do you think the colonialism and tribalism and exploitation for cash crops (followed by total abandonment after those cash crops became less valuable) would come up with a different result if they were WASPs instead of African Muslims?
Yes, most of the world conflicts that make the news these days involve Muslims. They also mostly involve people who are over five feet tall.
Most people who are over five feet tall don't want to kill you. Neither do most Muslims.
If you take a region that's filled with poor hopeless people and corrupt governments you have a powder keg. If you add religion it can be like throwing a match on a powder keg. It doesn't really matter the religion, it's just like having different brands of matches.
I think the answer to solving the problem is to prevent the powder keg from coming together in the first place, not to discriminate against a single brand of matches.
The investment community is even catering to the ignorance by creating Sharia-friendly mutual funds which are consistant with prohibitions against pork, gambling, alcohol and paying or earning interest (banks).
And God knows that there aren't mutual funds set up according to various sets of Christian guidelines, from Catholic funds refusing to invest in manufacturers of contraceptives to Baptist funds refusing to invest in alcohol or pornography to Quaker funds refusing to invest in defense companies. [/sarcasm]
Oh, and let me add that I'm perfectly happy with my zippo of athiesm, but if people prefer their matches that's fine with me. As long as they don't try to take away my zippo.
To over extend a metaphor.
That is true of all religions. It's not as profound a revelation as you seem to think it is.
...he said, while defeding one religion by pointing to the flaws in another.
This is possibly the stupidest thing ever said in the history of humankind. And that's saying a lot. And no, I don't buy your backpedal, because even if you put an "almost" in there, it's still either a shameless lie or blithering ignorance.
Pretty much every culture in the world, past and present, has at some point sanctioned honor killing. All the way back to the Code of Hammurabi, the Bible, and the Roman Empire (all of which existed before Islam did, just in case you slept through your world history class in tenth grade). Some modern Hindus sanction it as well. Female genital mutilation has fuck-all to do with Islam, as does the very Western Christian desire to punish women with unwanted pregnancy for the apparently unforgivable crime of actually using the vagina.
If you can't see that there is a rather significant population of Christians (35% of the total, by some estimates I've seen) who would be beside themselves with glee if they were allowed to go back to burning heretics, you're not paying close enough attention.
And just for your own personal reference, here is a short list of some very scary things that those Muslims you fear so much didn't do:
1) pass the Patriot Act
2) build Gitmo
3) invade Iraq and kill 600,000 of its people for no apparent reason
4) establish "free speech zones"
5) hurl a racist slur at an Indian kid from Northern Virginia
6) vote to ban gay marriage and/or abortion
7) tap your phone
8) appoint Scalia or Thomas to the SCOTUS
9) shoot an old man in the face with a shotgun
10) suspend habeas corpus
11) establish secret military tribunals
12) declare that the President can ignore the Constitution whenever he feels like it
13) imply that Nancy Pelosi can't be Speaker of the House because she has girl-cooties
14) rewrite the Congressional menu to feature "freedom fries"
15) collect data on individuals, including teenagers, in direct violation of federal privacy laws
16) invest in Enron
17) diddle the Congressional page-boys
18) do nothing, despite knowing for months about colleagues diddling the Congressional page-boys
19) take bribes from Jack Abramoff
20) elect Rick Santorum
3) invade Iraq and kill 600,000 of its people for no apparent reason
I'm with you on most of those points, Dan, but for the past couple of years, most of the violent death in Iraq has been the result of internecine violence. The conflict matrix in Iraq is complicated, yes, but that doesn't change the basic fact that arabs are killing arabs across sectarian lines.
If you mean "we started the fire" - well, yeah, but at some point, the people who are actually doing the killing have to be held at least partially responsible for it, wouldn't you say?
This recent headline sums up the problem over there:
"Shiites Celebrate, Sunnis Protest Saddam Verdict"
Iraq was and is an artificial nation created by Europeans who didn't understand what they were doing. Now, Iraq is a civil war waiting to happen, and we should have kept our boys out of there in the first place. IMO.
Maybe the new "Federalist" solution will work better - semi-autonomous regions, represented in Baghdad, etc...
Sigh. What a mess.
Canada has a problem with Islamist movements? Where? Not much fear and concern around here that I can see, especially on the west coast. True, the insecurity machinery has been expanding its influence ever since 11/9 and we regularly hear of increased inconvenience being provided for our benefit. With a total of 1.9% of Canadians professing Islam (CIA World Factbook) they aren't exactly taking over, although undoubtedly there are a few radicals hiding somewhere.
Our most damaging terrorists were Sikhs targetting India over religion. Young Sikh men are also visible in B.C. as members of violent drug dealing criminal gangs. Islamists on the other hand, are below the radar in our communities. No ghettos, no violence, just citizens in a multicultural society (and good food).
As long as people emphasize and encourage fear of the "other", we will have problems. Slowly, if/as the world becomes more secular we can look forward to less conflict.
The last execution ordered by the Inquisition was carried out in Spain in 1816. That's 190 years if your arithmetic is as bad as your history.
Oh bull shit. It was Islam which closed the door to ijtihad, not European colonialists. But that's why bin Laden and the "terrorists" hate us so much, because they're poor and we developed their oil fields and buy the oil from them rather than just take the fruits of Western labor? Work they weren't able to do, because rather than question the world and become enlightened, they chose to hide in the darkness of Allah?
Who cares? There's lots of folks who've highlighted the plight of Africa and care. But I'll admit not much is being done. But I get your point it's all a racist conspiracy. It's all the white man's fault people would rather kowtow to tyrants and rabid mullahs than grow some nads and throw off their shackles. But then again, they're taught that they are slaves to Allah, so what's one more master?
Protests over Canada sharia move
If any of those folks go see "Borat", they're going to have a heart attack on the spot.
I've seen it. The scene where Borat gets saved is great. The scene with the rodeo manager is absolutely priceless, though.
But I get your point it's all a racist conspiracy. It's all the white man's fault people would rather kowtow to tyrants and rabid mullahs than grow some nads and throw off their shackles.
Race has nothing more to do with it than religion does. If black people came from europe and white people came from africa, it wouldn't change anything. Africa would still be screwed.
What kind of PC-bullshit are you wallowing in?
If you want to decry the *specific actions* of a *specific Muslim* fine. PZ often decries the *specific actions* of *specific Christians* and I have seen him on several occasions decrying the *specific actions* of *specific Muslims*.
But if you generalize, then you have issues. Especially if your generalizations tend not to be true.
Also I'd like to add that there are more Muslims in China than there are in the Middle East and none of them want to kill us. And that modern suicide bombing was a technique first used by the Hindu Tamil Tigers.
As I understand it, the Tamil Tigers really perfected it and are responsible for something like a third of all suicide bombings, but modern suicide bombing was previously used in the Lebanese civil war. Mostly by Christians.
Check out The Secular Coalition for America "Find an Atheist, Humanist, Freethinker Elected Official" Contest
And I guessed you flunked English punctuation. The question mark (?) usually means a person doesn't know something for sure and is asking for verification.
"ANKARA, Turkey (AP) -- A 92-year-old retired archaeologist will stand trial in Turkey for claiming that Islamic-style head scarves date back more than 5,000 years -- several millennia before the birth of Islam -- and were worn by priestesses who initiated young men to sex.
Muazzez Ilmiye Cig, an expert on the ancient Sumerian civilization of Mesopotamia between the fourth and third millennia B.C., is the latest person to go on trial in Turkey for expressing opinions, despite intense European Union pressure on the country to expand such freedom as freedom of expression. Her trial is scheduled to start in Istanbul on Wednesday.
...
The trial against Cig was initiated by an Islamic-oriented lawyer who was offended by claims made in her recently published political book, "My Reactions as a Citizen," in which she says that the earliest examples of head scarves date back to Sumerian times, when priestesses who helped young men learn sex veiled themselves."
(from
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-10-31-turkey_x.htm?csp=34 )
From India, sorry, no URL
"Govt 'interference' on fatwas angers clerics
[ 3 Nov, 2006 0122hrs ISTTIMES NEWS NETWORK ]
LUCKNOW/HYDERABAD/MUMBAI: The Union government's affidavit in the Supreme Court officially denying any legal sanctity to the fatwa has stirred a hornet's nest among the ulema.
While some members of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) said the move would delay justice for a lot of Muslims and was tantamount to interference by the government in minority matters, other clerics said those who refused to accept the Shariat weren't true Muslims.
Maulana Khalid Saifullah Rahmani, a AIMPLB member and a noted Islamic jurist, said Darul Qaza centres ââ¬" or Shariat Panchayats ââ¬" help legal courts by taking some burden off their shoulders as they were "alternative dispute resolution mechanisms" for Muslims entangled in personal wrangles such as marital discord and inheritance issues.
"Parties involved in a dispute voluntarily approach the Darul Qaza, giving an undertaking that they would abide by the decisions. But, they have the option to approach the courts of law if they do not wish to accept Darul Qaza decisions," Rahmani said.
The Centre had on Wednesday filed an affidavit in the SC saying that fatwas weren't legally binding. Clerics were furious about what they saw as interference in community matters. (so what are you mullahs going to do about this interference? -- please do something soon..don't wait)
"No Muslim worth his salt can ever think of defying a decision made under Shariat," said Taqi Raza Khan, head of All India Ittehad Council, Bareilly.
Muslim clerics in Mumbai, however, welcomed the Centre's reply.
The ulema believed it would not discourage Muslims from approaching Islamic courts for justice. "Sharia court never had a legal sanction.
The Centre's reply has removed the doubts among those who alleged that we ran as a parallel legal system," said Mufti Abdul Ahad Falahi, qazi at Mumbai's Sharia Court.
UP Milli Council president, Gulzar Qazmi, disagreed saying: "Fatwa is an opinion based on the tenets of holy Koran and Shariat. Raising a question mark over its validity is unfortunate."
From India:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/299746.cms
"VADODARA: With the government pushing its polio campaign, pamphlets claiming that administering polio drops may lead to impotency and sterility distributed in some areas of Godhra recently have left both the people and the district administration in a tizzy. The Intensive Pulse Polio Immunisation programme is scheduled for November 12.
The four-page pamphlets clandestinely distributed in Muslim-dominated pockets of the town warn people not to let their children be administered polio drops. Sources said the printed pamphlets were in Arabic, a language that many in the town follow.
Sources also indicated that a large number of photocopies of a few original pamphlets were made for distribution. "The pamphlets mention that religious leaders were discussing the issue and would soon reach at a decision regarding the vaccine.
They also state that the vaccine was not manufactured in India and was imported from Israel. They claim that certain chemicals mixed in the vaccine ensured that those who consumed it would turn impotent or sterile.
"Sujat valli, a medical practitioner and an activist based in Godhra, said, "It has been distributed only in some select pockets. The arguments made in the pamphlet are false."
"It seems to be widespread and a series of meetings were held with community leaders to decide on strategies to counter the effect of the pamphlets," said a district administration official. "
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378314145&pagename=JPost…
Saudi court has sentenced a gang rape victim to 90 lashes of the whip because she was alone in a car with a man to whom she was not married.
The sentence was passed at the end of a trial in which the al- Qateef high criminal court convicted four Saudis convicted of the rape, sentencing them to prison terms and a total of 2,230 lashes.
The four, all married, were sentenced respectively to five years and 1,000 lashes, four years and 800 lashes, four years and 350 lashes, and one year and 80 lashes.
A fifth, married, man who was stated to have filmed the rape on his mobile phone still faces investigation. Two others alleged to have taken part in the rape evaded capture.
Saudi courts take marital status into account in sexual crimes. A male friend of the rape victim was also sentenced to 90 lashes for being alone with her in the car.
Canadian news, via Pakistan:
http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006/08/04/story_4-8-2006_pg7…
"WASHINGTON: Tarek Fatah, the outspoken liberal communications director of the Muslim Canadian Congress (MCC), has resigned, citing concerns for his personal safety and that of his family.
He said he would also resign from the MCC's board, severing all official ties with the organisation he helped found. "It's not just for me. It's for my wife and my daughters," he said in an interview to the Globe and Mail, Canada's leading liberal newspaper. "Part of it is also to get out of the limelight."
....
Fatah's unpopularity among conservative segments of the Muslim community flows from his being a strong advocate of gay rights for Muslims and the inclusion of secular voices in the Muslim community. He publicly and vehemently opposed the adoption of Sharia law in Canada. Recently, many Muslims were angered by his very vocal campaign against British imam Sheik Riyadh ul Haq, who was ultimately refused a visa to attend a conference in Toronto. Haq's address was transmitted live by satellite instead.
http://noburka.blogspot.com/2006/11/indias-leading-muslim-cleric-descri…
http://noburka.blogspot.com/2006/10/niqaab-as-feminist-tool-what-next.h…
and
http://noburka.blogspot.com/2006/10/using-language-of-tolerance-to-just…
"Meanwhile, using the language of tolerance to justify oppressive practices is a grotesque perversion of liberalism. The veiling debate is a case in point. No amount of rhetorical sleight of hand can disguise the fact that the full-face veil makes women, literally, faceless. Some Muslim women in the West may choose this garb (which is not mandated in the Koran), but their explanations often reveal an internalized misogynistic view of women as creatures whose very existence is a sexual provocation to men. What's more, their choice helps legitimize a custom that is imposed on millions of women around the world who have no choice.
Perhaps, as some say, women are the key to Islam's modernization. The West cannot impose its own solutions from the outside -- but, at the very least, it can honestly confront the problem."
My last:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6117912.stm
"Mr Nazir-Ali argued it would never be possible to satisfy all of the demands made by Muslims because "their complaint often boils down to the position that it is always right to intervene when Muslims are victims... and always wrong when Muslims are the oppressors or terrorists".
Gosh, Arun. You're building us a vertible library of Muslim atrocities.
Thanks, I think.
Re SLC
Hm, previously I had thought of him as a non-practicing (not necessarily atheist) Jew. Has he publicly called himself an atheist?
Forgot the qualifier "almost." Sue me.
Evem with the qualifier "almost" it would be at least a careless mistake, if not an outright lie.
But you don't care about the facts, and your belligerent response to being corrected shows it. You've not only been spoon-fed a bunch of Orientalist nonsense, you're proud of your ignorance and hate having it corrected.
The "moderates" are just as anti-reason and anti-evolution as the creationists, but for some reason you folks think I should defend them and just blast the Christians? WTF?? What kind of PC-bullshit are you wallowing in?
I might be knocking on a bit, at the ripe old age of 26, and my eyesight may be going, but I failed to see where the word "evolution" or any of its cognates was mentioned either positively or negatively in the post, save in the first sentence, as a description of The Selfish Gene.
Mozilla Firefox also failed to detect more than the one mention, as well. What an unreliable little browser. Or maybe it was coded by programmers who were so PC that they didn't want me seeing the clear anti-evolutionary strain of (apparently all, since you're inclined to draw broad stereotypes from one data point) moderate Muslims.
wildlifer:
You picked an interesting date to link to. The problem was resolved a few days later
as reported, again by the BBC.
The second article gives better background as well. As they mentioned, "Ontario has allowed Catholic and Jewish faith-based tribunals to resolve family disputes on a voluntary basis since 1991." Muslims had requested similar treatment.
Premier McGuinty promised to introduce a law banning religious arbitration. Assuming he did, this would be a positive result, from an atheist's point of view. The Catholic and Jewish patriarchies are going to be upset if the Muslim patriarchy ruined it for them.
Nothing here points to a threat to Canada or the US from our Muslim community.
Most of what you say is true about some Islamists. Very little is true about all of them. You are generalising against stereotypes, not human beings. Your first postings were hard to discern from those of a religious bigot.
The climate of fear allows a few to control the many. Just like religion, and it even works against the secular. Lots of jobs being created in the 'security' sector these days.
Wildlifer:
So, you're not "PC", eh? Wowza, what a rebel! You're really livin' on the edge and taking chances, aren't ya, tiger? That's some pretty hardcore, outrageous stuff. Yep, and any of us that don't tolerate your ideas are clearly all moral cowards, who would never dare say anything controversial... You must be soooo opressed, being such a freethinking outsider in early 21st century America. You sir, are an American hero...
[cough]
I guess I have a hard time correlating your world view with the empirical evidense I run into everyday: here in the Netherlands, I have Muslim coworkers, my barber is Muslim, I buy my groceries from Muslims, and I live in an apartment building with a substantial Muslim population. Thus far, without exception they have all been gracious, friendly, well-mannered people to me. Not a single Muslim I have met here has tried to force their beliefs on me; as a consequence, I extend the same courtesy in return... and life is good (we foreigners have to stick together.) Regrettably, I cannot say the same about many of the Dutch people here, or my fellow Americans back home...
Now, some Muslims are no doubt truly awful people, but I see no reason to think that the ratio is any higher than for the rest of us. So, I guess I'll stick to a policy of judging people on an individual basis, and try not make any sweeping statements about a billion people at a time --sorry to disappoint.
Incidentally, how many Muslims do you know, wildlifer?
JohnnieCanuck,
Do you think that's the end of it? That sharia won't rear it's ugly head again in Canada?
Yes, I think the current climate of PC has taken ignorance to new heights. As for the rest of your over-blown rhetoric ...
Where have I even said there are no "good" Muslims. You're smokin' crack. I've written there are liberal and moderate Muslims, but there's no "good" Islam. Just as there are good and bad Christians, but there's no "good" Christianity.
None, currently. I interviewed and hung out some with the president of the Palestinian student group and others during college. Real nice folks, charming and eloquent, even as they started talking about their support of suicide bombers.
Forgot the qualifier "almost." Sue me.
Evem with the qualifier "almost" it would be at least a careless mistake, if not an outright lie.
But you don't care about the facts, and your belligerent response to being corrected shows it. You've not only been spoon-fed a bunch of Orientalist nonsense, you're proud of your ignorance and hate having it corrected.
That was belligerent? Wow, color me embarrased.
Try reading it for context rather than doing word searches. You can read for comprehension, can't you?
That was belligerent? Wow, color me embarrased.
Try reading it for context rather than doing word searches. You can read for comprehension, can't you?
Sorry, double post ....
Try reading it for context rather than doing word searches. You can read for comprehension, can't you?
Why yes, I can. In context, it is a review of a book completely unrelated to the subject of evolutionary biology, in which the reviewer states that he feels that he's one of the many whose arguments and rationales for belief Dawkins failed to address.
He's right. How does that indicate an anti-evolutionary position on the part of moderate Muslims? Even if this one person was, you can't build a trend line out of a single datum, and you haven't even demonstrated an anti-evolutionary sentiment in this blog post at all.
And yes it was belligerently ignorant. Rather than take the correction well, you backpedalled with an "almost" (which isn't any more accurate than the first statement) and then said "so sue me".
That's the behavior of someone who not only is ignorant, but fervently, devoutly ignorant.
Right, the link was anti-reason and anti-evolution, but you want to just focus on the anti-evolution part. Like "moderate" muslims are not the mirror image of Christian creationists.
No, belligerent would have been if I would have said, "fuck you asshole." But I admitted error and said suggested he "sue me" for my negligence. Hardly belligerent.
Right, the link was anti-reason and anti-evolution, but you want to just focus on the anti-evolution part.
Yes, I do want to focus on the anti-evolution part: where the hell is it?!
Like "moderate" muslims are not the mirror image of Christian creationists.
If they are, you've yet to demonstrate that with evidence.
No, belligerent would have been if I would have said, "fuck you asshole." But I admitted error and said suggested he "sue me" for my negligence. Hardly belligerent.
I'd have to be as gullible as the average Faux Nooz viewer not to know that the "so sue me" comment was clearly an attempt to implicitly say "Yeah, I'm wrong and I don't care. What are you going to do about it?".
Sheesh have to lead the to the friggin' obvious.
And just how long have you been reading minds? If I hadn't of cared, I wouldn't of mentioned it in the first fucking place.
Sheesh have to lead the to the friggin' obvious.
Sheesh, can't even defend his own claims with a relevant piece of evidence. Instead of pointing out how the linked review of Dawkins' The God Delusion was in any way representative of anti-evolutionary thought, he instead points me to a set of links to people who cannot be described as moderate Muslims at all.
Indeed, the first three listed were all Turkish and members of Bilim AraÅtırma Vakfı, which means Scientific Research Foundation, but is instead a cult whose leader (Okhtar) has gone to prison for operating a blackmail ring targeting Turkish politicians so that their agenda wouldn't be opposed. Of course, since you're on record here as not knowing any Muslims personally, it's not surprising that you wouldn't be able to tell extremists like these cult leaders from moderate Muslims.
And just how long have you been reading minds? If I hadn't of cared, I wouldn't of mentioned it in the first fucking place.
Speaking of not reading for comprehension, I wasn't saying that you didn't care about your claim, you just don't care if your claim is wrong or right, just as long as you can use it as a stick with which to beat Islam.
I never said that link was about evolution in the first place, you're the one making a big deal about that part of it. By definition usually someone who's anti-reason is anti-evolution. I was unaware the inclusion of it in that link would cause you so many difficulties. My humblest apologies.
The only muslims I've ever read in any of my searches who supported evolution were Liberal (nominal) Muslims - just as only liberal Christians accept evolution. That's from what I've been able to glean from various Islamic websites, but I'm sure you'll just offer up more irrelevent ancedotal evidence that for which no one but yourself can verify the truth.
It seems our difference lies in the definition of extreme and moderate.
Speaking of not reading for comprehension, I wasn't saying that you didn't care about your claim, you just don't care if your claim is wrong or right, just as long as you can use it as a stick with which to beat Islam.
Okay, just what's so great about Islam? Aside from being just another ignorant superstition, for what reason should I give a crap about how great you think it is?
And again, If I did not care if my claim was right or wrong, I would not have corrected it.
I never said that link was about evolution in the first place, you're the one making a big deal about that part of it. By definition usually someone who's anti-reason is anti-evolution. I was unaware the inclusion of it in that link would cause you so many difficulties. My humblest apologies.
From you, previously:
The "moderates" are just as anti-reason and anti-evolution as the creationists, but for some reason you folks think I should defend them and just blast the Christians? WTF?? What kind of PC-bullshit are you wallowing in?
If you did not mean to imply that the linked post was an anti-evolutionary screed, then why did you say it was when you linked it?
The only muslims I've ever read in any of my searches who supported evolution were Liberal (nominal) Muslims - just as only liberal Christians accept evolution. That's from what I've been able to glean from various Islamic websites, but I'm sure you'll just offer up more irrelevent ancedotal evidence that for which no one but yourself can verify the truth.
Pray tell, when have I offered up "irrelevant anecdotal evidence"? The two times I've made claims about facts, they are to easily verifiable facts, like the religious makeup of the Ugandan and Sri Lankan civil wars, and the fact that Okhtar is running a cult and has gone to prison for activities related to making that cult powerful (namely the blackmail of politicians), both of which are easily verifiable by reading the news. Of course, you'd have to read Turkish newspapers for the latter news, and you seem to be deeply unwilling to check your prejudices against anything which might convey some knowledge of the people you're high-handedly demonizing.
It seems our difference lies in the definition of extreme and moderate.
I think being the Turkish equivalent of the 'Church' of $cientology, but with an even more purposeful and malevolent nature, makes one an extremist. If you're regarding Bilim AraÅtırma Vakfı as a moderate group, then you might as well welcome the Wahhabists into the moderate fold as well.
Okay, just what's so great about Islam? Aside from being just another ignorant superstition, for what reason should I give a crap about how great you think it is?
I see. I disagree with you about demonizing a whole 1.2 billion people's aspirations, and somehow I become a champion of their faith, despite the fact that I'm an atheist in the Bakunin mold.
Let's face it: you're a partisan kook. This sort of "If you're not for me, you're for the Muslamonazi hordes" is the same crap I can read at Free Republic.
And again, If I did not care if my claim was right or wrong, I would not have corrected it.
You didn't correct it. You simply made up more crap with the addition of an "almost" and then insouciantly said "so sue me". In other words, you're right, even when you're wrong, and if you get called on being an ignorant moron, you don't have to actually go through the trouble of educating yourself about the issues, you can just insincerely throw in a modifier which does nothing to improve the accuracy of your claim.
Yeah, that's some fucking correction. Forgive me for not being impressed.
I'm done with this conversation. You're proud of your ignorance, you're proud of your bigotry, and no possible amount of factual information is going to sway you. You're killfile fodder, and I regret the time I've wasted continuing this discussion when I could have used it at the outset.
Did you even read it? Does it appear they're pro-evolution, even though it wasn't mentioned? It doesn't to me ... but I could be wrong, I'll admit that. But, it's obviously anti-reason. But come to think of it, you sound a lot like that Buzz Kill dude. One wonders....
Uganda and Sri Lanka are irrelevant to the current discussion, but were (mostly) examples of non-Islam inspired violence. You tried to insinuate (irrelevant anecdotal evidence) all the Muslims in Turkey were just great, but anyone who can read a newspaper knows that's not the case.
And I wasn't fucking demonizing the ENTIRE group. (But of course you couldn't be trolling if you argued about what I was really saying.)
How selective of you, again. There were a bunch of links and you pick out one and try to insinuate they're all like that. Nice work.
See this is where you've stepped in it. I've repeatedly stated there're good Muslims and bad Muslims - but no good Islam. So you've spent all this time protecting Islam. For what?
I'm not the atheist defending Islam, you are, so who's the kook?
I'm not on this planet to impress idiots like you. Here, let me put it this way, almost every country with a Muslim population has trouble with the dogmatists of the bunch. From even your Turkey to China - of course the Chinese deal with it with deadly force. If it's not radical Islam getting revenge, it's someone getting revenge on them, or some Islamic group(s) causing trouble over ancient borders. But at no time have I said all Muslims are bad and have for some reason have had to repeatedly reinterate that fact.
The dominant radical-to-moderate theology is geo-political, although there are regional and sectarian exceptions to the teachings. And even within the mosques, but many will not/cannot speak out. And it is also Turkish Muslims who are fighting the radicalization of Islam in Europe (Netherlands) - radicalization led mostly by Pakistani and Moroccan Muslims, et al.
Bigotry? Dude, Islam is not a race.
All I can figure is you missed my < href="http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/">Irshad Manji link, who I read regularly and catch on Bill Maher everytime she's on. (She's not white) But yeah, that must make me a bigot.
But you go ahead and run home to mama and tell her some big ole meanie didn't want to share your rose-colored view that Islam is just wonderful. You're about a whiney Jawhawk bitch. No wonder I don't miss Kansas.
One more response, because this is too stupid to let stand:
Did you even read it? Does it appear they're pro-evolution, even though it wasn't mentioned?
No, it doesn't appear to me that he (not they--it is only one person writing that blog post) pro-evolution, but that is irrelevant to your charge that they are anti-evolution. You don't see it that way, because like all partisan morons, you are adept at false dichotomies. The reason that it doesn't appear to me that he is pro-evolution is the same reason it doesn't appear that he is anti-evolution: evolution simply is not discussed anywhere in that blog post! You cannot draw conclusions from no evidence, not if you want to be considered intellectually honest.
Uganda and Sri Lanka are irrelevant to the current discussion, but were (mostly) examples of non-Islam inspired violence.
They were not irrelevant to the current discussion. You made the claim that whenever there is warfare in the world, Islam is involved. That's an ignorant and bigoted claim, whose accuracy is not improved in the slightest with an insincere modifier like "almost".
You tried to insinuate (irrelevant anecdotal evidence) all the Muslims in Turkey were just great, but anyone who can read a newspaper knows that's not the case.
What a load of patently obvious bullshit. Adnan Okhtar, Mustafa Akyol, and the rest the BAV leadership are Turkish; does it look like I'm claiming they're "just great"?
And I wasn't fucking demonizing the ENTIRE group. (But of course you couldn't be trolling if you argued about what I was really saying.)
No, you're just demonizing what makes the entire group an entire group without any relevant knowledge of either the people or the many religious trends within said group. That's not any better.
How selective of you, again. There were a bunch of links and you pick out one and try to insinuate they're all like that. Nice work.
Considering that those three were the ones in large, bold font, and are the only ones representative of an organized resistance to teaching evolution in the Muslim world, of course I'm going to consider them to the exclusion of the others listed. For the rest, I'd just say that they're irrelevant to either widespread political opinion or the teaching of evolution. It's only BAV that has achieved so much as to be a significant pain in the fundament for people concerned with both of the above.
But then you'd have to know something about the region in order to know that, and that would cramp your lifestyle of abject ignorance and bigotry.
See this is where you've stepped in it. I've repeatedly stated there're good Muslims and bad Muslims - but no good Islam. So you've spent all this time protecting Islam. For what?
For the purpose of making the point that there is no good or bad Islam, as there is no good or bad Christianity, good or bad idealism, or good or bad Calculus. They're all abstract ideas, and it is only what the people do with it which is good or bad. Which is why your statements, moved down to a realm where they have any sort of meaningful content, equate to calling Muslims bad, over and above others with equally religious views. My contention is that Muslims are not generally worse or better than anyone else, but that comes from actually knowing many Muslims and from travelling the ME, and knowing something about the history and their religious thought (not just the out of context 'scary' quotes for idiots presented on various websites).
If Hippasus was murdered out of vengeance for revealing the existence of irrational numbers, does that make Pythagorean Idealism inherently bad, or does it make the person who did it bad? Your argument, if taken to its logical conclusion, would say that it's Pythagorean Idealism which is bad, and even, perhaps, that the person who is rumored to have murdered Hippasus was simply caught up in a "bad system". It's moral relativism for the dogmatists.
I'm not the atheist defending Islam, you are, so who's the kook?
You.
Here, let me put it this way, almost every country with a Muslim population has trouble with the dogmatists of the bunch.
One can say that about every religion. Ho hum.
And, in fact, many of those 'problems' are concocted in the imaginations of the dictators running the countries. Thus it becomes that Uzbekistan is our new bestest buddy in the War on Terra, because Karimov is dealing with the Muslamonazi hordes in Uzbekistan. Of course, these map 1:1 onto his political opponents, whom he has had boiled alive on occasion, and in a country that has lived through so much USSR-imposed secularization that practically nobody there is a fervent believer in any religion. If you held a vote on imposing Islamic canon law, and explained that it would result in a complete ban on vodka, you'd get it voted down with well over 99% disapproval.
From even your Turkey to China - of course the Chinese deal with it with deadly force.
Oh, yes, China! Would that be the one putting down the Uighurs for wanting an autonomous zone within China? Yeah, I'm sure the Chinese government would agree with you--those fucking Muslims are nothing but trouble. Why can't they let the government oppress them like good citizens of Mao's revolution?
The dominant radical-to-moderate theology is geo-political, although there are regional and sectarian exceptions to the teachings. And even within the mosques, but many will not/cannot speak out.
No, it isn't, contrary to what you've been told. The "global caliphate" that you're wetting yourself over is a conception which exists primarily in the minds of only some Arab Muslims, and Arab Muslims are a minority when compared to the rest of the Muslim world. Furthermore, in its dominant conception, it doesn't exist as a means of oppressing the rest of the non-Muslim world, but would simply be a uniform spiritual leader for Muslims to look to.
Bigotry? Dude, Islam is not a race.
Bwahahahahahahahah!!!
Clearly you need to check a standard dictionary before crafting your response, or just learn English.
"Obstinate and unenlightened" is a good precis of your opinions.
All I can figure is you missed my Irshad Manji link, who I read regularly and catch on Bill Maher everytime she's on. (She's not white) But yeah, that must make me a bigot.
Ah yes, the good Ms. Manji, whose contribution to the public understanding of Islam is to make wholesale condemnations of how 'awful' it is. Laila Lalami has a good response to her and Hirsan Ali's shoddy work here.
No wonder I don't miss Kansas.
Kansas doesn't miss you either.
Wildlifer,
The original topic of this post was Keith Ellison: a principled, hard-working Midwesterner who's made it to congress... who happens also to be Muslim. He's as patriotic and cornfed as any of us born-and-raised in the region, but his opponents tried to tar him with the same crude xenophobic brush that you're using, i.e. that even the moderate Muslims are after a global caliphate, and that poor 'ol America may suffer the same way as Europe and Canada(???) From there, you made even more sweeping polemic statements about Muslims and violence, and even throw in a gratuitous 9/11 reference. This is all in a thread about Keith Ellison and intolerance in American politics. Maybe in your mind, the things you write don't sound bigotted, but I really think you need to step back and think for a moment.
So, you've met one Muslim in your life, and he was the head of a political organisation? I dare say, you might need to meet a few more before you can make an informed opinion on just what "they" think. As for the Palestinian resistance, these folks are fighting desperately for what they see as their homeland, and without many other military options available, this includes suicide bombing. Perhaps, if the American government would sell them the same Apache helicopters and f-16 fighters that are sold to Israel, they'd switch to tactics that you'd find more aesthetically pleasing...
Some people just don't 'get' the threat posed by Submission (the religion of the followers of the prophet Muhammed, piss be upon him). Islam is much more a 'way of life' than mainstream Xianity; it has a strong political element. Turkey has resisted its anti-secularists, so far.
In case it's not clear that Submission is radically different to other religions when it comes to coercion by its followers, see this news item from liberal Canada:
... Fearing for his life, Muslim Canadian spokesman quits post
Last Updated: Thursday, August 3, 2006 | 5:09 PM ET
CBC News
A spokesman for moderate Muslims has resigned from the Muslim Canadian Congress, citing death threats and safety concerns.
Tarek Fatah said his wife and daughters encouraged him to step down as communications director for the organization following an alarming number of threats and harassing phone calls. "I'm just exhausted, it's too much," he told CBC. "I'm physically drained and fatigued and disappointed by how much leverage these extremists have," he said.
Fatah said he has been assaulted both verbally and physically, including an incident in which he was attacked at an Islamic conference in Toronto by dozens of young Muslim men. He also said that an associate informed him of a discussion she overheard in which young men were discussing how Fatah should be killed.
Fatah said he's reported the threats he's received since 2003 to Toronto police, who are investigating the allegations. Fatah said he'll stay on with the congress until they can find a replacement. He says he plans on writing a book about his experiences....
Submissionist fanatics are at about where Xian fanatics were in the 17th century. They've not benefitted, culturally, from the Enlightenment. From demographic considerations, they pose a serious threat to the West, in fact, to the whole world.
Some people just don't 'get' the threat posed by Submission (the religion of the followers of the prophet Muhammed, piss be upon him).
Oh well, that sounds like reserved and scholarly dispute with a major world religion.
Islam is much more a 'way of life' than mainstream Xianity; it has a strong political element. Turkey has resisted its anti-secularists, so far.
Which Islam? Sufism, Shi'a, Sunnism, Wahhabism...what? There are more differences in theology between a Wahhabist and a Sufi than there are between a Greek Orthodox follower and a Pentacostal. At least they'd agree on the personhood of Jesus and his divine nature, whereas some Sufis have come close to or affirmed pantheism as the logical consequence of the idea that all things emanate from God, a position which would be abhorrable to the adherents of the more fundamentalist Wahhabist sect.
[Snip yet another anecdote of the type which is beloved of dogmatists who confuse the plural of "anecdote" with data.]
Submissionist fanatics are at about where Xian fanatics were in the 17th century. They've not benefitted, culturally, from the Enlightenment.
Whereas the Christian fanatics have benefitted from the Enlightenment: they're now fanatics with potential access to nukes! Yay!
And considering that the post-Enlightenment period resulted in Western nations colonizing the Muslim nations, it's not surprising that they haven't benefitted culturally from the Enlightenment. Instead they had to fight off their 'enlightened' colonizers and generally found that Islamic identity was useful, in a nationalistic context, for rallying the people around their cause. Nevertheless, after being successful, they do not necessarily have to follow the course of a theocracy, as the case of Algeria shows. The FLN won the Algerian War for Independence under a Islamic nationalist philosophy, and yet created a secular government out of Algiers.
That's about the sole contribution to Islamic identity to geopolitics. Anything else is the raving of crackpots, bigots, politicians with an axe to grind (e.g. Rumsfeld scaring the idiots silly with talk about a "global caliphate"), and discredited orientalists.
From demographic considerations, they pose a serious threat to the West, in fact, to the whole world.
Demographic considerations, eh? The darkies will overrun us all! Aaaaaiiiiiieeeeee!!!
Forgive me for taking this scaremongering less than seriously.
The Jayhawk quipped:
You can't show me one moderate Islamic sect which is pro-evolution, because they don't exist. Acceptance of evolution makes them liberal, hence nominal Muslims.
If it wasn't sincere, I would not have made the fucking correction and would have just let it stand.
Which just shows you're talking out your ass and making up as you go. Your original assertion was that all the Muslims in Turkey were just great. Scroll up.
I know what the Qur'an and the Hadiths say, and Muslims follow that, do they not? I don't like Bush anymore than anyone else, but you seem to have carried your dislike for him to depths of irrationality, in that all that Bush opposes, is good. But you've yet to suggest one thing about Islam that makes it so great.
Right, because I don't believe as you do that Islam is just the "cat's pajamas" and evidently man's highest achievement, I'm a bigot and ignorant. HA!
I never declared anything close to that. Islam isn't merely bad because it inspires violence. Islam and other superstitions are bad because they inspire ignorance, of which the epitome was the slamming shut the door of itjihad by Islamists almost a 1,000 years ago.
Ah, you think you're a wee witty bastard don't ye? I think it stands, you're an alleged atheist defending superstition. Kook.
So in your mind that lets Islam off the hook? WTF? What part of reason includes defending one irrationality by pointing to another?
One wonders if not for the nature of religion as the "opiate of the masses," if such governments as China would have ever evolved and taken it to the other extreme.
Obviously, you've got some Quranic reading to do. Even moderates pray for such a caliph - the equivilent of an Islamic pope.
Oh, okay, I'm guilty. I'm a bigot against superstitious ignorance. Which makes you what? It's sycophant?
Lalami falls victim to the same flaws of multiculturalism and political correctness decried by both Ali and Manji. Until all those "offended" victims of such callous unpolitically correct speech stand up for themselves and claim they are "different" than the sweeping generalizations of Islam, who really cares? How are we to tell where the millions stand, when their silence is deafening?
Hi j.t
Do you have no understanding of what a caliph is, and what it means in Islam? As for Ellison, I have no idea if he's a Twelver Shi'a, or what, only that he was connected to the Nation of Islam. It also concerns me that he accepted donations from CAIR, a lapse in judgement at best.
CAIR's co-founder, Omar Ahmad, has been quoted as saying:
"Those who stay in America should be open to society without melting, keeping Mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam. If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam ... Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."
Is this the kind of riff-raff an American politician should be mixed up with? What about the oath to defend the Constitution? If Ellison supports Ahmad's view, it sure seems to violate that oath.
BTW, Ellison's first post-election speech will be next week at CAIR's annual banquet.
I don't recall saying it was just one. As I recall, I was usually at a table of 10-20 muslims. I could have sworn I also used the word "they."
I've often suggested in conversations such as this that America should give New York the the Israelis, but we know that's not going to happen and Israel isn't going anywhere - no more than the residents of America are going to leave and return America to its native inhabitants. The "Palestians" should work to make and keep the peace, because for every terrorist attack they make on civilians, it gives the hard-line Zionist factions just more excuses for even more land grabs. And perhaps after there is peace, Israel would pay reparations.
You can't show me one moderate Islamic sect which is pro-evolution, because they don't exist. Acceptance of evolution makes them liberal, hence nominal Muslims.
Of course. I can't show you one moderate Islamic sect which is pro-evolution, because you've defined moderate pro-evolution Muslims out of existence, despite their apparent proliferation in biology departments worldwide, even here.
And furthermore, you don't address the salient point, but bring up this red herring to evade it entirely: the blog post you linked to was a) by a single person, not a group and b) was entirely silent on the subject of evolution, and therefore no anti-evolutionary or pro-evolutionary bias can be inferred from it.
If it wasn't sincere, I would not have made the fucking correction and would have just let it stand.
You didn't make a correction. I hate to send you scrambling to a dictionary again, after your dismal performance in grasping the definition of "bigotry", but do look at the meaning of the word "correction". It means to revise a statement to make it correct.
You didn't do that.
You backpedalled. Your 'correction' was not any less false than your initial claim, only slightly less egregiously so.
Furthermore, if one is to take your words at face value, then one must infer that you do not say things which you do not at least think to be correct when they are stated. So your next statement...
Which just shows you're talking out your ass and making up as you go. Your original assertion was that all the Muslims in Turkey were just great. Scroll up.
...is clearly the work of a delusional mind. The only one to ever say anything remotely like that was you.
"You tried to insinuate (irrelevant anecdotal evidence) all the Muslims in Turkey were just great, but anyone who can read a newspaper knows that's not the case."
I was, in fact, the person who pointed out that Okhtar, Akyol, and the rest of the BAV leadership were Turkish in the first place, and what they were convicted of doing. You wouldn't know about that, since you don't know much of anything about this subject in the first place.
I know what the Qur'an and the Hadiths say, and Muslims follow that, do they not?
No, not really, and that point has already been explained to you. First of all, to get the easy point out of the way, the Ahadith (not "Hadiths") are simply illustration's from the life of Muhammad which are meant to touch upon things which al-Qur'an is silent. Now, given this, not all of them are equally reliable, and some are regarded as outright fabrications, so they do not follow them all. Furthermore, they have to be employed by people specifically educated in al-Ahadith, because those who don't know about them, won't use them, and consequently they are most often used in the resolution of issues which arise in Islamic canon law, and are not like the Lives of the Saints in Catholic belief.
Secondly, not everyone who is a Muslim can be said to follow al-Qur'an. A serious Muslim theologian would say that they should follow al-Qur'an, but it is often in a foreign language to them, and consequently many Muslims are left in a position similar to Catholics before the Vulgate and Latin Mass were translated, with the exception that learning Arabic is highly encouraged for everyone.
I don't like Bush anymore than anyone else, but you seem to have carried your dislike for him to depths of irrationality, in that all that Bush opposes, is good. But you've yet to suggest one thing about Islam that makes it so great.
Strawmen abounding and the amateur, armchair psychoanalysis. Are you going to say next that my views are based around wanting to kill my father and sleep with my mother?
It's especially ironic considered that you follow-up in a response to where I outline my views in full. Of course, it's typical of you in this conversation to not read the text before you, and the initial claim I took exception to (namely that the blogpost you cited represented some uniform moderate Islamic rejection of evolution) was based on no less an egregious misreading.
I never declared anything close to that. Islam isn't merely bad because it inspires violence. Islam and other superstitions are bad because they inspire ignorance, of which the epitome was the slamming shut the door of itjihad by Islamists almost a 1,000 years ago.
That's ijtihad not "itjihad". Frankly, I'd stop trying to use Arabic terms if I were you, since you reveal your ignorance of the language every time you attempt to use it. Therefore, I'm highly doubtful as to your claim to even know al-Qur'an, let alone al-Ahadith of which there are many thousands. You might know it through translation, but depending on which translation you get, you may get the result of an extremely biased process of translation. Indeed, the translation of al-Qur'an from Saudi Arabia is so bad that it often completely changes the meaning or the original Arabic. It is also the translation which is most often favored by those picking through for 'bad verses' to put on their websites. I wonder if there could possibly be a correlation?
Of course, you're the al-Qur'an expert, so you can tell us. Who am I, indeed, but the person who actually knows the relevant language?
And if the final precondition for a lapse into abject ignorance happened 1,000 years ago, then the Islamic world certainly made remarkable use of their ignorance: the science of optics, medicine, algebra, star charts and trigonometric tables which wouldn't be surpassed until Tycho Brahe two centuries later, etc.
So in your mind that lets Islam off the hook? WTF? What part of reason includes defending one irrationality by pointing to another?
What part of reason includes focusing on the (in this conversation, often imaginary) flaws of only one system to the exclusion of all other systems of thought?
I note that, speaking of other systems of thought, you had no response to my example of Pythagorean idealism. May I conclude from your silence that you accept every part of my analysis, as made through analogy, that you do in fact excuse the actors by blaming the "bad system" and are engaging in "moral relativism for dogmatists"?
One wonders if not for the nature of religion as the "opiate of the masses," if such governments as China would have ever evolved and taken it to the other extreme.
Of course it would, in this case, because the purpose in oppressing the Uighurs isn't because they are insufficiently rigorous Maoists, but instead is what happens when anyone lives on a rich parcel of land: they want the land to make money off it.
"Obviously, you've got some Quranic reading to do. Even moderates pray for such a caliph - the equivilent of an Islamic pope."
Are you crediting Muhammad with the gift of prophecy that he was somehow able to foresee and write down what moderate Muslims would be praying for at the present time?
And I note that I did say what the caliph was, in its mainstream conception, and it rather resembled what you said ("...but would simply be a uniform spiritual leader for Muslims to look to.").
I guess I shouldn't have been so sedate when Cardinal Ratzinger was raised up to the Pontificate either. I mean, really, adherents of a religion electing a supreme religious leader of a religion I'm not a participant in? How much more threatening can it possibly get?
Oh, okay, I'm guilty. I'm a bigot against superstitious ignorance. Which makes you what? It's sycophant?
Which makes me its non-bigoted disbeliever. Believe it or not, there are some of us who think that bigotry of all sorts is an irrational thing.
Lalami falls victim to the same flaws of multiculturalism and political correctness decried by both Ali and Manji. Until all those "offended" victims of such callous unpolitically correct speech stand up for themselves and claim they are "different" than the sweeping generalizations of Islam, who really cares? How are we to tell where the millions stand, when their silence is deafening?
How indeed? Now, when I took a logic class, we were taught about the fallacy, argumentum ad ignorantium. That it is a fallacy to claim a position of a group of people simply because they fail to aver the opposite, and where one doesn't have sufficient information, to refrain from making judgments. But then I suppose that's not really popular among those with a mindset not dissimilar to that which can be found among the pundits of Fox News.
I do see your point, though. It must be extremely unreasonable of those Muslims to think you'd refrain from snap judgments when they can't be bothered to say anything to you in plain English, eh. Let's have no excuses that English isn't often their native language, or they don't know it at all--that kind of 'reasoning' just emboldens the enemy! Furthermore, it would be unreasonable to expect people like you to go around carousing with the enemy, just to get your information. It's practically treasonous at a time like this!
No, the only way for a patriot to remain untarnished by the taint of Islam (or of knowing what he or she is talking about) is to simply get one's information from partisan hacks like Robert Spencer.
I'll get to the rest later.
I just wanted to impart the fact I do not watch Fox News, or even FOX or other commercial advertising networks unless the Chiefs/Oklahoma State/OU are playing and then I TIVO and cut the commercials.
And nope, never read any Spencer either.
The only difference between a moderate and a radical Muslim is the moderate's not about chopping off your head - the use of violent jihad. The moderate's like the co-founder of CAIR quoted above.
How are you defining them?
Just one person? Are you sure? Man, I coulda sworn there was an entire choir responding to what she was preaching. But I've been reading more and Ali may be more liberal than some his readership, or his sister Aisha who wrote the Dawkins article.
I corrected what I meant. I don't give a fuck if you think what I meant was correct. Now by "almost all," I mean the majority of global conflicts - to include terrorist threats and calls for sharia. If they're not in the majority, I'll stand corrected and admit my error.
And that was much later in the conversation. Long after you declared all the Muslims in Turkey were great - to your face anyway. We do not know what's in their hearts now do we?
So all these Muslims are spelling it wrong, and only you know the truth.
I've also seen arguments the Hadiths are wrong for positions not supported by the Qur'an, on which it is silent.
Well, you anarchists do strive for destruction. ;-)
My use of that was as an example of some "moderate" Islamic anti-reason, more so than anti-evolution, even though as I said, both go hand-in-hand.
I always transpose the t and j - hooked on phonics. So sue me. :-) And since we're correcting, periods go inside the quotation marks. That probably reveals your ignorance of the English language and American culture, eh? Press 2 for Turkish.
I'm still working through the Hadiths (translated at the above website) and go back and forth between it and the Qur'an. It's a harder read than the Christian bible and seems nonsensical at times - some passages appear out of place with the preceeding and following passages - probably as you say, due to translation.
Now, I know I said almost 1,000 years ago.
Because this is about a specific system, not every system known to man?
I responded to those two graphs in toto, (but I cut the second after preview as it would not stay in the quote box) . Was there something more you wanted me to address?
LOL says the one who willingly hooks his pony to the beliefs of the anti-semitic bigot Bakunin. You owe me a new irony meter.
That's not what I said. I asked why should we care about a silent minority, or even a majority if it's as you claim. Are we supposed to automatically know their hearts? I know bin Laden does not speak for all Muslims when he declared war on the West. I know CAIR's co-founder doesn't speak for all American Muslims when he says Islam should supercede the Constitution. I know that even though there are terrorist cells planning our demise, not all Muslims are part of those cells. But I also know it's stupidly suicidal to risk a nuke going off in a city, just because we want to be "politically correct."
Just a question. How did we know the "good" Nazis, from the "bad" Nazis during WWII - you know, the ones who were swept up in it, but did not really believe in it?
Snap judgements. Uh right. A determination that's taken ~30 years to arrive at is a snap judgement. Okay.
Yawn.
Quote me having ever said that all Turks were just great.
Oh, by the way, since it deserves a mention:
And since we're correcting, periods go inside the quotation marks. That probably reveals your ignorance of the English language and American culture, eh? Press 2 for Turkish.
On the contrary, the English language's rules of grammar have periods outside of the quotation marks when they're not part of the quoted matter. The rule is not to be found in English, it is to be found in American, a language somewhat similar to English except that its native speakers are usually more self-absorbed and inclined to think that their culturally-bound rules of usage apply everywhere.
In fact, the 'rule' about enclosing periods and commas within close quotes whether they're a part of the quoted matter or not arose simply out of convenience during the days of typesetting by hand. The small blocks which contained the commas and periods would often get knocked out of alignment, so they were enclosed within the quotation marks by American printers.
In case you hadn't noticed, nobody needs to typeset my posts by hand, so there is no bar to using a more logical form of period placement which makes distinction as to whether it's a part of the quotation or not, which has remained the standard in Britain.
Try the universal AP Style Manual.
I've read too many AP articles to want to emulate their lack-of-style. I'll stick with my Oxford Dictionary of Modern English Usage, 2nd rev. ed. by Sir Ernest Gowers.
However, I have a suggestion for you: try supporting your claim that I've claimed that all Turks are "just great" with evidence from my previous posts.
This is a test of your intellectual honesty. You've been lying egregiously every single time up until now, and the issue currently is if you're going to admit it and apologize.
I just found it, sorry. It was another's response who had worked in Turkey. I'll even skip the t-n-c "sue me" lest you doubt my sincerity.
I've too realized that perhaps in my time spent debating Coulter creationists at her website, some of their harsher views and comments on Islam may have "rubbed off" on me.
But that doesn't mean, that while I acknowledge the existence of "good" and "bad" Muslims, I believe we should be "politically correct" and avoid the sweeping generalizations, to which so many here have objected.
Members of Islam have declared war on the west. Some Muslims such as those associated with CAIR, advocate replacing the Constitution with the Qur'an. Which is in my mind, a declaration of war as well. And while it is also true many Muslims have stood up and asked not to be included in that number, they have only been afforded that opportunity to defend their stance, because of those "sweeping generalizations." If not challenged to define their stance, how do we tell the "good" from the "bad" Muslims?
Whether we want to be or not, we are at war.