"This is the true face of Islam" - Holland

[AdD 1]

You bring up a good point about the madrassahs. Let me point out that the US was the first to use them for a political reason when they were turned into military training schools to integrate guerilla training with the teachings of Islam. London Based Indian journalist Dilip Hiro commented on their curriculum, saying "Predominant themes were that Islam was a complete sociopolitical identity, that holy Islam was being violated by atheist Soviet troops, and that the Islamic people of Afghanistan should reassert their independence by overthrowing the leftist Afghan regime propped up by Moscow"
The following is an example of a fourth grade textbook designed by the University of Nebraska under a $50 million USAID grant. "The speed of a Kalashnikov [the ubiquitous Soviet-made semiautomatic machine gun] bullet is 800 meters per second. If a Russian is at a distance of 3200 meters from a mujahid, and that mujahid aims at the Russian's head, calculate how many seconds it will take for the bullet to strike the Russian in the forehead"
He adds, "US sponsored textbooks, which exhort Afghan children to pluck out the eyes of their enemies and cut off their legs, are still widely available in Afghanistan and Pakistan, some in their original form"

Life is ez
On the dz
Every jumper's dream
3 rigs and an airstream

[falxori 0]

Quote

it will take a leader such as Egypt's Sadat to advocate a change.

yes and no, although his actions were very brave, the peace with egypt is VERY cold. almost no egyptian tourists come to israel and their media and text books are still filled with hate and lies.

O

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[skydiverton 0]

Very strange,
almost all wars and violance in the world can be related to the islamic terrorists.

Even stranger,
some people still concider this as a coincidence.

According to me,
we have been (europe) to soft for this idiots. We should have addopted the swiss imigrant politics long time ago. But holland will strike back!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Using your droque to gain stability is a bad habit,
Especially when you are jumping a sport rig

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

According to me,
we have been (europe) to soft for this idiots. We should have addopted the swiss imigrant politics long time ago. But holland will strike back!

HU-AH, man!! Bust out those wooden clogs and start kickin' some ass!!

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Very strange,
almost all wars and violance in the world can be related to the islamic terrorists.

Religion maybe... Islam on its own? Nah. Sorry - your statement is ridiculously off target. There have been plenty of wars and vast amounts of violence nothing to do with Islam.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Very strange,
almost all wars and violance in the world can be related to the islamic terrorists.

Religion maybe... Islam on its own? Nah. Sorry - your statement is ridiculously off target. There have been plenty of wars and vast amounts of violence nothing to do with Islam.

Nice, subtle sleight-of-hand there. Nice attempt to twist the context of what the dude said. He did not mention PAST wars. I think it was pretty clear, in context, that he is talking about the strife in the world TODAY. And I am inclined to agree with him, in general. I get the same impression as he expressed.

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[mr2mk1g 10]

Ah - well the statement is neutral as to date. I don't believe the rest of the post gives a date context either so it can be taken either way.

If the post were intended to relate to wars and violence today then I wouldn't say it was not ridiculously off target... but it's not strictly true either; certainly not with regards to “violence”. Overall it wouldn't be far enough off target to have warranted me bothering to post about it, if I can put it like that.

I'm sorry to disappoint you PJ - there was no intention to create a subtle "sleight-of-hand" [sic]. I know how you love to imagine people are out there to twist the world out of shape from the way you see it.

[tkhayes 140]

And here, I expect, is the true face of Christianity:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/09/international/europe/09dutch.html?oref=login&th

At least I could argue that just as easily as you could argue your first post.

TK

[mr2mk1g 10]

On a side note... how big is a "medium-sized bomb" ?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

And here, I expect, is the true face of Christianity

I don’t have a subscription to the NY Times and, therefore, could not view your posted article. However, I’m sure that whatever was posted does not reflect the basic teachings of Christianity.

Both Christianity and Islam both have many elements in their histories which do not necessarily reflect beliefs in each. Regardless of people’s misuse of these religions, however, they are very different at their roots. One can study each and come up with his/her own conclusions concerning which one has basis in violence, fear, force, and intimidation and which one is based on peace. I know both also have peaceful tenets but I submit that much can be learned from the actions of the central figures rather than just the words. I think that offers proof of sincerity.

Christianity’s central figure, Jesus Christ, taught to love God completely and to love your neighbor as yourself. Above all, this was his most important teaching. He was expected to come as a warrior and to forcefully defeat the Romans and liberate the Nation of Israel. He instead proceeded quite unexpectedly through completely peaceful measures. He did not force anyone into conversion but rather left that up to God.

Islam’s central figure, Mohammed, frequently threatened and used force to unify tribes and to bring about conversion to his new religion. He was himself a warrior. In addition to the 5 Pillars of Faith , he also taught of greater and lesser jihad, the greater being the internal spiritual struggle of Muslims in submission to God and the lesser being holy war against non-Muslims on principle of belief. Jihad is included by many as a 6th Pillar of Faith within Islam.

I’m not surmising that all that follow Islam are bad. I’m also not saying even that all included within the religion of Islam is bad. I’m just making a distinction for comparison. I’m also saying that Islam does in fact have a non-peaceful basis.

[tkhayes 140]

Surely you jest;

Quote

Christianity’s central figure, Jesus Christ, taught to love God completely and to love your neighbor as yourself. Above all, this was his most important teaching. He was expected to come as a warrior and to forcefully defeat the Romans and liberate the Nation of Israel. He instead proceeded quite unexpectedly through completely peaceful measures. He did not force anyone into conversion but rather left that up to God.

This may be true, but the PEOPLE who ran Chrstianity from the dawn of time, the priests, monks, church leaders, armies, politians and kings and queens all were responsible for the Crusades, the Dark Ages, the Spanish Inquisitiion, the witch burning, rape, child molestation STILL going on in the church, money laundering, political swaying for their own benefits, praying for money and I could go on.

More wars have been fought in the name of "God" than anything else.

Everyone judges themselves by their intentions. Others will judge you by your actions. If the Churches (all religions) actually lived by the creeds that they preach, then I would have more faith in it. I was 14 years old when I awoke to the fact that it is a load of baloney (to me at least).

However, I do understand that people seem to need and want religion in their lives, I just wish they would face up to the reality when they talk about how good 'their version' of it really is.

And I wish they would stop trying to run the country in which I live by that same corrupt 'creed'

TK

[pajarito 0]

Quote

This may be true, but the PEOPLE who ran Chrstianity from the dawn of time, the priests, monks, church leaders, armies, politians and kings and queens all were responsible for the Crusades, the Dark Ages, the Spanish Inquisitiion, the witch burning, rape, child molestation STILL going on in the church, money laundering, political swaying for their own benefits, praying for money and I could go on.

More wars have been fought in the name of "God" than anything else.

Everyone judges themselves by their intentions. Others will judge you by your actions. If the Churches (all religions) actually lived by the creeds that they preach, then I would have more faith in it. I was 14 years old when I awoke to the fact that it is a load of baloney (to me at least).

The same negative things could be said about Pakistan’s anti blasphemy laws whereby anyone speaking what’s considered blasphemy against Mohammed and the Qur'an will be put to death. How about the slavery and genocide that’s occurring in the Sudan? Granted, the motives behind the Crusades weren’t all pure, however, they were in response to Islamic jihad sweeping through Europe. I agree that many wars have their roots in religious interpretation. As for being judged by actions and not intentions, that was kind of the point of my previous post. Christianity has nothing to do with the vile things that some have done with it over the years. It sounds like you’re rejecting it based on what people have done with it and not based on the thing itself. Christianity’s central figure, Jesus, did lead by example and not just words or intentions. That’s what he did throughout his entire life and even throughout his torture and death. He is the only person who could.

[mnealtx 0]

I'm not a particularly religious person, and I don't attend church regularly, but here's my opinion:

When people are rounded up at gunpoint and forced to attend church, or women are forcibly taken away from an abortion clinic and kidnapped by fundamentalists, or children are forced to publicly pray, THEN you've got a right to bitch about religion being shoved down your throat.

Until then, don't expect to be taken seriously by people that are having sex, drugs and general immorality being shoved down THEIR throats on a daily basis.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[tkhayes 140]

Quote

Christianity has nothing to do with the vile things that some have done with it over the years. It sounds like you’re rejecting it based on what people have done with it and not based on the thing itself.

Christianity has EVERYTHING to do with the vile things I said. It gave people the will and the power to do it.

And I ABSOLUTELY am rejecting it based on what people do with it. What they do with it further defines what it really is.
TK

[mr2mk1g 10]

And in the past it has given them a direct mandate. I see a lot of similarities between Islam today and Catholicism of centuries past.

In that I am referring to the activities of the establishment and followers alike. (I am not commenting on whether or not Islam or Christianity has peaceful or violent aspects to their core teachings – rather on the actions of the followers).

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Christianity has EVERYTHING to do with the vile things I said. It gave people the will and the power to do it.

A religion is just a roadmap and not the end result. Religion isn’t the source for man’s humanity or inhumanity. It may serve as a guide for inner desires but it isn’t what creates them. The law prohibits me from stealing a car; however, if I rely totally on my selfishness without regard to morality or the fear of getting caught, I’ll steal it. That in no way diminishes the purpose behind the law itself.

Quote

And I ABSOLUTELY am rejecting it based on what people do with it. What they do with it further defines what it really is.
TK

That's limited, shallow, and unfortunate.

[wmw999 2,147]

Quote

When people are rounded up at gunpoint and forced to attend church, or women are forcibly taken away from an abortion clinic and kidnapped by fundamentalists, or children are forced to publicly pray, THEN you've got a right to bitch about religion being shoved down your throat.

Until then, don't expect to be taken seriously by people that are having sex, drugs and general immorality being shoved down THEIR throats on a daily basis.

Excuse me, but no one is forcing Christians to have sex, do drugs, or be immoral. They're being exposed to it.

Which is what secularists are complaining about when they're exposed to Christian symbols as part of government institutions.

Except that, well, when the government sponsors religion, it kinda sorta goes against that "congress shouldn't respect a particular religion" thing.

No one "forced" me to watch "Touched by an Angel" on TV. No one "forced" me to watch "The Flying Nun." And no one is "forcing" anyone to watch "Will and Grace" (or whatever the latest affront to decency is).

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Excuse me, but no one is forcing Christians to have sex, do drugs, or be immoral. They're being exposed to it.

Which is what secularists are complaining about when they're exposed to Christian symbols as part of government institutions.

Except that, well, when the government sponsors religion, it kinda sorta goes against that "congress shouldn't respect a particular religion" thing.

No one "forced" me to watch "Touched by an Angel" on TV. No one "forced" me to watch "The Flying Nun." And no one is "forcing" anyone to watch "Will and Grace" (or whatever the latest affront to decency is).

Wendy W.

But that's not what the amendment says...

It says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It doesn't mean that everyone in .gov has to become atheists...it means that .gov cannot say "Catholicism will be the official religion of the United States, and all other religions will be against the law". Why is that so hard for everyone to understand?

There is nothing...let me repeat that, NOTHING, in the amendment that prohibits the display of religious symbols in any place. What HAS happened is that rampant political correctness has overbalanced things yet again....

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,427]

>There is nothing...let me repeat that, NOTHING, in the amendment that
>prohibits the display of religious symbols in any place.

Correct. However, it is abundantly clear that the government cannot pass any law to fund such a symbol. Here in San Diego, there is a big cross on Mt. Soledad. It's on public land, and there's no problem with that. There IS a problem with laws passed to fund maintenance of it; such laws are in direct violation of the first amendment. Our government may not pass laws that respect ANY religion, and that means they can't support any religion legally, financially or politically. Now, individuals can use their own money however they want, and if private citizens want to maintain that cross, then no problem. But people cannot be compelled to pay for it by the government.

Of course, this is a two way street. If you're OK with the cross, you have to be OK with a big gay-pride being flown outside a courthouse, if one of the judges buys it and puts it up.

[TomAiello 25]

I'm an atheist. However, I am interested in religion, and have done some study of both Christianity and Islam.

Quote

Christianity’s central figure, Jesus Christ, taught to love God completely and to love your neighbor as yourself. Above all, this was his most important teaching. He was expected to come as a warrior and to forcefully defeat the Romans and liberate the Nation of Israel. He instead proceeded quite unexpectedly through completely peaceful measures. He did not force anyone into conversion but rather left that up to God.

Islam’s central figure, Mohammed, frequently threatened and used force to unify tribes and to bring about conversion to his new religion. He was himself a warrior. In addition to the 5 Pillars of Faith, he also taught of greater and lesser jihad, the greater being the internal spiritual struggle of Muslims in submission to God and the lesser being holy war against non-Muslims on principle of belief.

I think this is a central point that many miss.

Christianity, in it's underlying teachings, is a religion of peace. Jesus preached against war, violence, etc.

Islam, in it's underlying teachings, is a religion of conquest. Mohammed was a conqueror and ruler. He taught his followers to subjugate other people by force to bring them into his empire. In many ways, Islam behaved, in it's development, more as an empire than a religion.

Both religions have gone through various phases in which they have been imperialistic/pacifist/everything else. But in the underlying philosophies, there is a clear dichotomy.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[jdhill 0]

Quote

Our government may not pass laws that respect ANY religion, and that means they can't support any religion legally, financially or politically

Given that premise, there should be no tax exempt status for religious groups, and no tax deductions for contributions to faith based groups...

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[billvon 2,427]

>Given that premise, there should be no tax exempt status for
> religious groups, and no tax deductions for contributions to faith
> based groups...

Tax exempt status - if you cannot make any laws respecting an establishment of a religion, then you cannot make any law to tax any establishment of a religion. "Giving someone tax exempt status" means not taxing them to begin with, which is what you do if you do not pass any laws concerning them.

Tax deductions for faith based groups - I agree there.

[jdhill 0]

By not taxing them, their income, their real estate, etc... you are de facto recognizing them... if the tax code were silent then they would have to pay taxes just like any other land owner, or income generator.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[Guest]

Quote

Surely you jest;

Quote

Christianity’s central figure, Jesus Christ, taught to love God completely and to love your neighbor as yourself. Above all, this was his most important teaching. He was expected to come as a warrior and to forcefully defeat the Romans and liberate the Nation of Israel. He instead proceeded quite unexpectedly through completely peaceful measures. He did not force anyone into conversion but rather left that up to God.

This may be true, but the PEOPLE who ran Chrstianity from the dawn of time, the priests, monks, church leaders, armies, politians and kings and queens all were responsible for the Crusades, the Dark Ages, the Spanish Inquisitiion, the witch burning, rape, child molestation STILL going on in the church, money laundering, political swaying for their own benefits, praying for money and I could go on.

More wars have been fought in the name of "God" than anything else.

Everyone judges themselves by their intentions. Others will judge you by your actions. If the Churches (all religions) actually lived by the creeds that they preach, then I would have more faith in it. I was 14 years old when I awoke to the fact that it is a load of baloney (to me at least).

However, I do understand that people seem to need and want religion in their lives, I just wish they would face up to the reality when they talk about how good 'their version' of it really is.

And I wish they would stop trying to run the country in which I live by that same corrupt 'creed'

TK

Once again, the messenger is confused with the message. people are flawed and do stupid things, and collectively. No one dismisses that.

And as for the Crusades...

That was then (1000 years ago).

This is NOW.

The biggest problem I see is the multiculture-vultures who are so values-neutral that they'll tolerate just about anything, up to and including murder for those who dare to question or criticize the protected classes.

Van Gogh died for political correctness.

Even those who would mourn were PC'd (anectdote: the words "Thou Shalt Not Kill" were painted on the wall adjacent to where the RIFWs murdered Van Gogh. Following the complaint of an Imam that it was 'intolerant', Dutch police covered the words).

The other big problem I see is a culture and society (the Islamofascists and their fellow travellers and apologists) living in 2004 but with a collective 1004 mentality, which appears to me to be mass psychosis, if Al-Jazeera is any measure.

And go right ahead and shit on Fox News as if it were the only media outlet on Earth.

Here's another issue, and it ties in to the election.

Libs are out of contact with the people on the other side of the fence.

I know it's a knee-jerk reaction, you're having, dear reader, so I'll simplify it for you.

Conservatives and their values are constantly assaulted by liberals and have been for decades.

It's too easy, really, when attacking those with values and standards and you don't have any of your own or they are conveniently subject to change depending on whim or current circumstance.

Schools: Dominated (and run) by liberals.
Colleges and Universities - ditto.
Print news media - ditto.
Broadcast news media (with the sole exception of that hideous spawn of satan, Fox News)- ditto.
Entertainment of all spectra - dominated by liberals.
Conservatives can't open a newspaper or magazine, or turn on a television or go to a movie theater without having their values attacked or at the very least, called into question.

Furthermore, it's not just because of the election that this story has been ignored - it's because of the spectacularly heinous, broad-daylight brutality of this crime (and the name of the victim) that it got any notice at all. The PC police would have covered it up if they could, as they have done many, many times when a news story doesn't fit the liberal PC worldview.

mh

.

[billvon 2,427]

> By not taxing them, their income, their real estate, etc... you are de
>facto recognizing them..

No, you are ignoring them. The government does not have anything to do with them, which is how it should be per the Bill of Rights. Taxes are not the natural way of things; they are what a government applies to certain entities/incomes (such as earned income, owned property etc) to support itself. It cannot do that if there is a constitutional prohibition that prevents them from doing so.

It's silly to say that "if we make an exception, we are recognizing them." Lots of things aren't taxed - sex, hair, kidneys, oxygen. Religion is just another thing we don't tax because our constitution prohibits it.