The True Facts Of Islam

[Leafless]

Sparhawk

You wrote- " This rehetoric is very similar to the "axis of evil speech" Bush gave a few years ago. both are transparent attempts to boost political support at home by creating conflict with outsiders."

The "axis of evil" speech concentrated on the war against terrorism and cannot be compared to demands Isreal be wiped off the map.

You wrote- " stop pretending the creation of Isarel was anything other than UN sanctioned theft."

There was a war over this and Isarel won--did they not. Isarel has just has much right to a country as the Palestinians and the Palestinians never got over that fact.

I find your post anti-American, and shows a disrespect for democracy and capitalism and really don't understand what your doing living in a country like Canada.

[Riverwind]

The "axis of evil" speech concentrated on the war against terrorism and cannot be compared to demands Israel be wiped off the map.

The 'War against Terrorism' = a fiction created by the Bush whitehouse in order to ensure it would be re-elected by instilling fear in the American public. The 'Jihad against the West' = a fiction created by Muslim leaders in order to ensure their regimes enjoy continued political support by installing fear in the Muslim public.

Bush and Bin Laden are really moral twins - both justify the use of violance and various other human rights abuses (i.e. torture) in order to achieve the greater good as they define it. Bush's one virtue is he is democratically elected and there is a chance that he and his fellow war mongers will be tossed out on their a**es.

There was a war over this and Israel won--did they not.  Israel has just has much right to a country as the Palestinians and the Palestinians never got over that fact.

So might makes right? In other words, you are saying is was perfectly reasonable for Saddam to invade Kuwait or for Iran to nuke Israel since the only moral justification required for war is whether you can win. The creation of Israel was a mistake - it has made the world a more dangerous place today. If the Jews needed a place to go there was plently of space in the US and Canada after WW2 but the latent anti-sematism prompted our political leaders to dump the problem on the Palistinians instead.

I find your post anti-American, and shows a disrespect for democracy and capitalism and really don't understand what your doing living in a country like Canada.

Pathetic. Attack me as un-American/un-democratic because I have the gall to point out the hypocrisy that exists in our attitudes towards Muslims and Israel. I certainly no fan of repressive theocracies but I am equally no fan hypocrisy coming from Western leaders.

[Hasan Ali Tokuqin]

dear repliers,

Islam doesn't belong middle east and middle esasterns.It belongs humanity.

what is bad and poor belongs islam and east, what is good and reach belongs christians and west.Stop this.Make comments about future of humanity, not global wishy-washy politics.If US and west offers something good to humanity, personally I will follow them, not the political pscyhobable and paranoia.

[PocketRocket]

HASAN: It's truly difficult to talk about Islam without addressing the current political climate and recent events.

There seem to be some extremists who are trying to set all of Islam at war with the rest of the world.

They are meeting with mixed success.

They have managed to convince many that Islam itself is responsible for many of the evils we see occurring on a regular basis.

But we'll leave that for now.

You say that.....

what is bad and poor belongs islam and east, what is good and reach belongs christians and west

This state of affairs has not come about intentionally.

It's simply a case of how history unfolded.

The Middle East, where Islam is predominantly based, has been later in acquiring technology than some of the western nations.

But the same can be said for many parts of the far-east, Afrika, South America, Eastern Europe, etcetera.

And yet none of these have fostered terror groups like Al-Qaeda which have spread out to have bases world-wide.

My tendency is to place partial blame for the current political climate on both the technological imbalance, and the uneven distribution of riches.

After all, if someone is wealthy and content, it's makes it hard (not impossible) to foster radical thoughts.

Equally, it seems the richer someone is, the less likely he/she is to turn to God or Allah for help, as the person already has everything he/she needs.

A poor society is always more likely to rebel against whatever it is that society sees as an oppressive power.

With the huge Hollywood-generated cultural influx many of these poorer countries are experiencing, a lot of it at odds with their own religious beliefs, it's far more easy for radical elements to point and say "There is the poison that is threatening our way of life".

I am not saying any of this is right or justifiable, simply trying to look at it from every possible angle.

[kimmy]

dear repliers,

Islam doesn't belong middle east and middle esasterns.It belongs humanity.

what is bad and poor belongs islam and east, what is good and reach belongs christians and west.Stop this.Make comments about future of humanity, not global wishy-washy politics.If US and west offers something good to humanity, personally I will follow them, not the political pscyhobable and paranoia.

Is Islam the future of humanity? I sincerely hope not. As much as you argue otherwise, I can't help but look at the state of women in just about every country under Islamic rule and feel great relief that I live in a nation under secular rule.

Islam might have offered a great boost for the status of women when it arrived, 1400 years ago, but it seems that attitudes in much of the Islamic world are still stuck in the 6th century.

-kim

[August1991]

The are many similarities between Oliver Cromwell and Khomeini in Iran. Both used religion as a pretext to over throw a despot that needed to be over thrown. The difference is Cromwell did not last long.

All of the cultural advances that have happened in western society have occurred despite of Christianity - not because of. Christian religious leaders have sought to stifle progress and social change because it violated the holy books in one way or another. From Galileo to stem cells it is all about repression and control.

Yet, today we see leaders like Bush and the Christian Fundamentalists trying hand control back to the church. Frankly, I see little difference between Pat Robertson and Bin Laden - both are religious fundamentalists that seek to use the power of the state to repress others. For me Robertson is more frightening because there are way too many people in North America who think this guy makes sense (including many in the Conservative Party of Canada). Laws passed by religious extremists in the CPC are likely to affect me - much more so than the grossly exaggerated terrorist threat from Bin Laden and his Muslim followers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sparhawk, it is very simple for you to sit in a modern, essentially secular society such as Canada and make comparisons between Cromwell and Khomeini or worse, Bin Laden and Robertson.

I once made the comparison on this forum between Savonarola and Bin Laden, and even then, I think I was stretching things.

A bicycle and a 747 are both means of transportation but they differ greatly in degree. Nobody who has had any experience with, for example, the Muslim Brotherhood or fervent Muslim believers could possibly compare Christian fundamentalism in North America with Islamic fundamentalism.

There is an American pretense that everyone in the world is the same -"they're just like you and me". I have always considered this to be the ultimate American arrogance and I find this arrogance common among English Canadians too.

Sorry, Bin Laden is not at all like Pat Robertson - and it is arrogant to assume foreigners are like North Americans.

[Argus]

I don't understand why any government would allow anyone practicing this faith into a modern democratic capitilist country.

Muslim countries used to be the most economic and scientific advanced societies on earth. They only started to fall behind when the Europeans discovered the Americas and started plundering the continents of their riches. In fact, modern algebra was developed in order to solve mathematical problems created by the rules on inheritance in Koran.

It wasn't the discovery of America which moved Europe forward. It was discovering science. Now you might say the Muslims discovered it before we did, but unfortunately, they forgot it. They still don't remember anything about it. Most of the students in Muslim universities are studying the Koran rather than anything of use in this life.

All of the cultural advances that have happened in western society have occurred despite of Christianity - not because of. Christian religious leaders have sought to stifle progress and social change because it violated the holy books in one way or another. From Galileo to stem cells it is all about repression and control.

Religion both influences and is influenced by culture. Whatever it was about our culture, that is, the developing culture of Europe, and Christianity, it changed Christianity into a more inclusive, more accepting, less dogmatic faith, in general, than Islam. Priests and pastors might speak out against something, but not with the strength and emotion and zealousness as the mad mullahs of the Muslim world. The Islamic world equivilent of Paul Martin, for example, would already have had many calls for his death by Muslim clerics for daring to go against the Holy Koran on an issue like same sex marriage. But so far as I know the most outspoken any cleric has gotten here was a bishop who said he ought to be excommunicated.

It's been a very, very long time since any of our nations believed we should throw people into prison or kill them because some religious figure thought they were offending God. And it's been a very long time since any serious religious leader tried to get people to kill someone becuase they violated religious texts.

For me Robertson is more frightening because there are way too many people in North America who think this guy makes sense (including many in the Conservative Party of Canada).

Evidence? Citation? Anything? No, just another drive-by smeer from a Liberal zealot eager to throw more mud on Harper. I could as easily say there were many in the Liberal Party of Canada who support Bin Laden, and many in the New Demoratic Party who danced for glee when the WTC collapsed in rubble. There is certainly as much truth in those statements as there is in yours.

[Argus]

Do you have any proof that many people in the CPC think he is right? And I would prefer you not use the term Religious Extremist while describing members of the CPC and the passing of bills.

Some conservative candidates are extremist evangelical christians with views similar to Pat Robertson

Name them. Views similar to Robertson? About God, or about nuking the US State department.

In other words, Christians have no business criticizing Islam because some of the followers of Christianity are almost as bad.

I'm sorry, but you say that from the bottom of a vast, deep pit of ignorance.

[Argus]

You see Biblio, the church needs to STFU.  That's the whole problem.  If this one segment of society could just have its rights to free speech removed, the west would be so much better off.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why? What makes you think your moral beliefs are more important than theirs?

Clearly, you don't believe in freedom of speech, so I'm mightily suspicious of what your sense of morality might be.

[Argus]

You must remember that the creation of Israel in 1948 was an injustice equivalent to the invasion of Tibet by the Chinese. Millions of Palistinians had their land confiscated and were forced into exile.

Why do you insist on speaking about things you clearly know nothing about without at least doing a cursory internet read? There is NOTHING similar between the creation if Israel and the Chinese absorbtion of Tibet, and the total number of Palestinians who fled - of their own choice, urged on by Arab governments - was well under 1 million. There were some attacks during the creation, back and forth, but almost no one had their land directily confiscated, and the fact many Arabs stayed where they were should indicated, even to you, that Arabs were not forced out of the new Israeli state except by combat with the Arab states around it.

It is quite understandable that many in the Muslim world feel that the only way to correct this gross violation of rights

There is no Arab state which is not ruled entirely by gross violations of human rights. In fact, there is probably no Muslim state which is not ruled entirely by gross violations of human rights.

Ayatolahs and Bin Laden do not want to conquer the west - they simply want their society to develop without what they see as bullying by outsiders - the US in particular.

And you can say this from the lofty perch of all your academic and personal studies of Islam and Muslims and your long and earnest discussions on religion and geopolitics with Muslim religious figures, right? One of the oft-repeated aspects of Islam is that Islam must rule the world. I have never heard any western Christian figure talk about Christianity conquering all the other world religions so that it is the world's only religion and there is one worldwide Chrstian government. I have heard this sort of zealous cry from many Muslim clerics and political figures.

Bin Laden attacked the US because he was hoping to spark a revolution in Saudia Arabia.

Really? And how was that supposed to come about, hmm? Wouldn't he have been better off putting his airplanes into the palaces of the Saudi king and princes? Bin Laden attacked the US because he hates the whole idea of the powerful infidel kingdom, as he calls it, which influences the world, including the Islamic world through its economic, military and cultural power.

That said, if they get nukes they would likely try to use them as a way to force the Israelis to come to a settlement with the palistians. In terms of ethics, using miliary might to achieve diplomatic goals is something the US does all the time. They can hardly complain if Iran starts using the same tactics.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can only shake my head. You have not the slightest hint of a clue about what kind of people are over there and how they think.

[sharkman]

The 'War against Terrorism' = a fiction created by the Bush whitehouse in order to ensure it would be re-elected by instilling fear in the American public. The 'Jihad against the West' = a fiction created by Muslim leaders in order to ensure their regimes enjoy continued political support by installing fear in the Muslim public.

Okay, so what about 9/11, the USS Coal, the multiple U.S. Embassy attacks, I could go on and on. It seems you hate the U.S. The war on terrorism is a fiction like Christmas is in December. The attacks in Spain, Great Britian and the Philipines killed more innocent civilians and you think the war is fiction? The terrorists strike out whenever and where ever they can. We stayed out of Iraq yet they still take Canadian hostages. I am glad Bush is in charge and not some head in the sand delusional.

quote=Sparhawk,Dec 9 2005, 07:58 AM]Bush and Bin Laden are really moral twins - both justify the use of violance and various other human rights abuses (i.e. torture) in order to achieve the greater good as they define it. Bush's one virtue is he is democratically elected and there is a chance that he and his fellow war mongers will be tossed out on their a**es.

Bush does not condone torture and he cannot hold the hand of every soldier and CIA operative to make sure they don't. By comparsion, look how Muslim countries treat enemies. In Saudi Arabia, where Osama is from, they repeatedly tortured a Canadian to get him to admit he committed a crime. ( I forget his name) It's the norm there, but the exception in the U.S., and you can't blame Bush if soldiers decide to break the law.

quote=Sparhawk,Dec 9 2005, 07:58 AM]... The creation of Israel was a mistake - it has made the world a more dangerous place today. If the Jews needed a place to go there was plently of space in the US and Canada after WW2 but the latent anti-sematism prompted our political leaders to dump the problem on the Palistinians instead.

Who are you to decide if it was a mistake to create Israel? Have you a doctorate in Middle Eastern History? Or are you just talking on points that you've heard others do. Jews were flocking to the area that now is Israel for years before the UN decided to create a state for them. They wouldn't have wanted to go anywhere else since that is their homeland. That's where their civilization started, but no, just plop them down somewhere.

Also earlier you compared Osama to Pat Robertson. Robertson said Chavez should be taken out. Osama masterminded an attack that took out over 4,000 civilians. I hope you can see the difference.

[Riverwind]

In other words, Christians have no business criticizing Islam because some of the followers of Christianity are almost as bad.

I'm sorry, but you say that from the bottom of a vast, deep pit of ignorance.

You are blind if you cannot see that Christian fundementalists are capable of the same kind of violance even today. How many doctors have been murdered because they provide abortions? There is no equivalent of a fatwa in Christianity but I have heard many so called 'Christians' provide moral and theological support to the doctor's murderers.

My point is not to say that all Christians are like this: the vast majority are not. However, it is hypocritical for any Christian to say that there is something inherently wrong with Islam because some of it followers resort to violance.

You also must remember that the largest number of suicide bombers are Tamils - not Muslims. The suicide bomber is a tactic used by a extremely weak opponent who cannot launch a successful military strike in any other way. If there was a need I am sure somebody would dig up few passages in the Christian Bible that condone suicide bombings - there is a lot of crap in that book that is conveniently ignored by enlightened Christians of today. So you cannot reasonably say that suicide bombings are something that is uniquely Islamic.

Personally, I believe that the Iranians would through off the shackles of the mullahs is a generation or so if Bush and company would stop playing the big bad bully. Iran needs nukes for the same reason the Europe needed nukes during the cold war - it is the only way they can protect themselves from a enemy with superior forces. And yes, there is a risk that a nuclear Iran would threaten Israel, however, I believe that would be no different than a China that periodically threatens to invade Taiwan. Both situations are extremely delicate and would require negotiation and compromise to ensure the worst never happens. For what it is worth a Chinese general recently threatened to nuke the US over Taiwan - I don't see why that is any different than a threat from a Iranian leader.

In terms of terrorists getting nukes: the horse is already out of the barn since Paskistan already has the bomb. Frankly, Bin Laden could have flew those planes anywhere including right into a nuclear plant. The fact that he choose not to is a sign that even the most rabid extremist has some measure of restraint.

[Riverwind]

---

[sharkman]

One wacko killing one doctor is not the same as osama masterminding 9/11...stop this...there is no substitute for the breeze of love...I give you a cup of water...the sand blows on the just and unjust...babys crying and lovers dying...the truth is always in grasp...is there a speck in your eye..adam was a garden master...if hate needs trying...seven is the perfect number, death is conquered though you slumber...(I had a sudden urge to do a Jonah post)

Show me where nutbar christians are blowing themselves up to kill as many Jews or whomever as possible and I will believe you. Unless you can, you are being intellectually bankrupt.

[Riverwind]

Show me where nutbar christians are blowing themselves up to kill as many Jews or whomever as possible and I will believe you.  Unless you can, you are being intellectually bankrupt.

Christians fanatics don't have to do that today. They live in wealthy democratic countries that are not really under threat so they can focus on really important issues like forcing woman to have children they don't want or encouraging people to hate homosexuals. I am talking about the mindset - not the actual actions. In different circumstances Christians would be blowing people up too. Just look at all of the Christians who support the war in Iraq even though it had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack. I heard one minister basically say that he is not sure about Iraq but since Bush opposes abortion then Bush must be doing God's work in Iraq.

I disagreed with many of the positions of late Pope Jean-Paul, however, I have to admire the man for his moral consistency: he opposed killing no matter what the form: abortion, capital punishment or preemptive war. There was none of the hypocrisy that exists among some fundamentalist Christians.

[Argus]

Just like we want to see the Ayatolahs to crumble and fall and see their repressive regimes be replaced with 'holy' democratic ones. We are guilty of the same 'thought' crimes that you accuse the Ayatolahs of. We may be convinced that our free wheeling society is the best for all people but their are many who disagree (and it isn't just the Ayatolahs).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Anyone want to take up a collection to send Sparhawk to Iran to live, where he'll be happier?

[Argus]

In other words, Christians have no business criticizing Islam because some of the followers of Christianity are almost as bad.

I'm sorry, but you say that from the bottom of a vast, deep pit of ignorance.

You are blind if you cannot see that Christian fundementalists are capable of the same kind of violance even today.

Capable of violence? Lots of people are capable of violence. I have seen no sign that Christian fundamentalists have any desire to commit religious war against non-believers. I have not heard that fundamentalist preachers harranguing their followers to protect the Christian faith by killing people. I have heard no equivelent to the hate speech practiced by so many Muslim clerics every single day. The closest I can think is that wacko Robertson suggesting the US assasinate Chavez, but he was saying that more as a right wing politician than any kind of preacher anyway.

How many doctors have been murdered because they provide abortions?

Five or six, I think. How many teenage girls have the Christian fundamentalists executed for engaging in immoral conduct, like, oh, getting raped, for example? How many have even suggested, even hinted, that girls who engage in premarital sex should be murdered?

My point is not to say that all Christians are like this: the vast majority are not. However, it is hypocritical for any Christian to say that there is something inherently wrong with Islam because some of it followers resort to violance.

BS. You know nothing about Islam and nothing about the middle east. You know nothing about the culture over there, and nothing about how poverty and ignorance combined to produce the kind of religious fanaticism even the fundamentalists would never tolerate.

There is no equivilant of the "madrassas" the thousands and thousands of Muslim schools scattered in the Muslim world where young children are raised and taught nothing but the Koran, and only the worst and most intolerant interpretations of the Koran. They come to manhood knowing nothing else, fierce devotees of the most brutal and heartless version of Islam around, and then scatter through the Muslim world, many to become clerics and teach their brand of Islam. I can't imagine any fundamentalist Christian willing to send their child to a Christian version of such schools.

You also must remember that the largest number of suicide bombers are Tamils - not Muslims.

Evidence? Cite?

The suicide bomber is a tactic used by a extremely weak opponent who cannot launch a successful military strike in any other way.

What military strike? Most suicide bombers attack buses, cafes, restaurants, markets, mosques and churches. The latest killed 30 people on a bus.

So you cannot reasonably say that suicide bombings are something that is uniquely Islamic.

But I can say that almost all terrorists are Muslims.

Personally, I believe that the Iranians would through off the shackles of the mullahs is a generation or so  if Bush and company would stop playing the big bad bully. Iran needs nukes for the same reason the Europe needed nukes during the cold war - it is the only way they can protect themselves from a enemy with superior forces.

Yes, well, it might be that Satan feels the need to develop superior weapons in his eternal struggle with God, but I don't think it's in our interests to hel him out.

It was bad that China got nukes. It would be disastrous if a rogue state run by religious wackos like Iran got nukes. Your blithe assumption - lacking any knowledge whatever - that the Iranian mullahs are no different than you, and that they base all their decisions on the same basis of logic as you do, is entirely unconvincing.

[Argus]

Show me where nutbar christians are blowing themselves up to kill as many Jews or whomever as possible and I will believe you.  Unless you can, you are being intellectually bankrupt.

Christians fanatics don't have to do that today. They live in wealthy democratic countries that are not really under threat so they can focus on really important issues like forcing woman to have children they don't want or encouraging people to hate homosexuals.

Saudi Arabia is a wealthy country not threatened by anyone. It beats and tortures women if they're caught wearing makeup, or if an ankle or some hair shows from under their burkhas. Religious police forced girls back into a burning school because they weren't wearing their burkhas, killing some. They tolerate no other religion. You can be executed for wanting to convert to another religion. And still, the Muslim religious fanatics call Saudi Arabian law too tame, too mild, too modern. The great pressure in Saudi Arabia is not for democracy, not for more cultural enlightenment, for for harsher, more conservative laws and rules of behaviour. As for homosexuals. They are imprisoned, tortured and killed. As for abortions. Anyone involved is immediately executed.

[newbie]

In other words, Christians have no business criticizing Islam because some of the followers of Christianity are almost as bad.

I'm sorry, but you say that from the bottom of a vast, deep pit of ignorance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Argus, there is a ton of evidence to back up the hatefulness of the fundamentalist Christian movement. Here's a few quotes. Let me know if you need more.

"God, we proclaim death to anything or anyone that will lift a hand against this network and this ministry that belongs to You, God," Paul Crouch (head of Trinity Broadcast Network) November 7, 1997.

"To hell with you! Get out of my life! Get out of the way!…I say get out of God's way! Quit blocking God's bridges or God's going to shoot you if I don't…I don't even want to even talk to you or hear you! I don't want to see your ugly face!"

(Paul Crouch, Audio-Clip, "Christianity In Crisis," Hank Hanegraaff)

"It is interesting, that termites don't build things, and the great builders of our nation almost to a man have been Christians, because Christians have the desire to build something. He is motivated by love of man and God, so he builds. The people who have come into (our) institutions (today) are primarily termites. They are into destroying institutions that have been built by Christians, whether it is universities, governments, our own traditions, that we have.... The termites are in charge now, and that is not the way it ought to be, and the time has arrived for a godly fumigation."--Pat Robertson, New York Magazine, August 18, 1986

"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history."--Pat Robertson, 1993 interview with Molly Iv

[Riverwind]

It was bad that China got nukes. It would be disastrous if a rogue state run by religious wackos like Iran got nukes. Your blithe assumption - lacking any knowledge whatever - that the Iranian mullahs are no different than you, and that they base all their decisions on the same basis of logic as you do, is entirely unconvincing.

I think that Iran with nukes would be no worse than China or Pakistan with nukes. China is run by dictators that are at least as nutty as the Ayatollas and Pakistan could be taken over by Islamists at any time.

The primary point I wanted to make in this thread is that I feel the attack in Islam which is in vogue in west now is unreasonable and counter productive. Indonesia, Malaysia and Turkey are Muslim countries that do not suffer from the same social problems that infect Arab Muslim countries. The difference, I feel, is these countries have learned that religion and gov't do not mix. A lessson that I am afraid many people in the US in Canada have forgotten as they push for legislation that is indended to impose their religious values on others.

[sharkman]

Saudi Arabia is a wealthy country not threatened by anyone. It beats and tortures women if they're caught wearing makeup, or if an ankle or some hair shows from under their burkhas. Religious police forced girls back into a burning school because they weren't wearing their burkhas, killing some. They tolerate no other religion. You can be executed for wanting to convert to another religion. And still, the Muslim religious fanatics call Saudi Arabian law too tame, too mild, too modern. The great pressure in Saudi Arabia is not for democracy, not for more cultural enlightenment, for for harsher, more conservative laws and rules of behaviour. As for homosexuals. They are imprisoned, tortured and killed. As for abortions. Anyone involved is immediately executed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you Argus for refuting this idea of comparing muslim extremism to christian extremism. They are simply not the same.

Newbie, no doubt those are the best quotes you can find, and they do not contain the calling for the torture of immoral women, or the extermination of other religions, or the murder of homosexuals. And I wouldn't spend too much time listening to Hank H., he's kind of extreme in the other direction and has totally twisted the organization he works for since the founder died.

[newbie]

I don't know. Calling for the death of anyone who dare lay a hand on Trinity Broadcast System is rather severe. And who bombed abortion clinics and killed doctors who do abortions? Some of the neo-nazi groups who have a Christian identity have been linked to the death of homosexuals http://www.adl.org/PresRele/NeoSk_82/2477_82.asp. Also,

Pete Peters, a leading ideologue of the racist Christian Identity religion. The title of his 1993 book, Death to all Homosexuals, leaves little to the imagination. Or consider Fred Phelps, the radical Topeka Baptist. He runs the godhatesfags.com web site. Tom Metzger, who leads the White Aryan Resistance, offers up for his part cartoons that depict gay men being beaten to death.

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport...cle.jsp?aid=228

To say that extreme Christian fundamentalism isn't the same as muslim fundamentalism is not true. It may not be on the same scale but it's there nonetheless.

[kimmy]

You see Biblio, the church needs to STFU.  That's the whole problem.  If this one segment of society could just have its rights to free speech removed, the west would be so much better off.

Why? What makes you think your moral beliefs are more important than theirs?

Clearly, you don't believe in freedom of speech, so I'm mightily suspicious of what your sense of morality might be.

I suspect that he was being sarcastic and responding to this post by me:

All of the cultural advances that have happened in western society have occurred despite of Christianity - not because of. Christian religious leaders have sought to stifle progress and social change because it violated the holy books in one way or another. From Galileo to stem cells it is all about repression and control.

I liked this part.

Progress, in the west, has come only when the church has been made to STFU and MYOB in spheres of science and politics and commerce. This seems to be a process that many parts of the Muslim world are struggling with.

And while "STFU and MYOB" may not have been a very nice way of phrasing it, that's essentially how I feel. The Bible might be full of good advice on how to save your soul, but it REALLY SUCKS as a science book, and the church needn't be involved in deciding what subjects are permissible for research or what can be taught in schools. Pat Robertson might have studied a lot about Jeeeeezus, but I really question his expertise as a foreign affairs advisor. Likewise, the church need not act as an authority on literature, film, academics, and so on. I enthusiastically support the right of Christians to create and to enjoy whatever art and literature they like. But when it comes to art and literature they don't like, I support their right to "STFU and MYOB". The public's right to participate in exchange of ideas is important, and trumps this or that cultural group's "right" to not have its sensibilities challenged from time to time.

And one of the reasons why western society has excelled and the muslim world has obviously ... well, less so... is that most Christians in the west *understand* this and *agree* with it.

-k

[Clopin]

When religion is 'militarized', or treated as public policy, people lose the spiritual element, because... well, they have no choice but to abide.

There is little room for discussion when it comes to matters of religion in countries with strict muslim regimes. But I think things are changing.

There really IS some contrast in Saudi Arabia... I'm sure the majority of the country is immoderately religious, or at least governed by laws that are so, but where I stayed in Jeddah - a 20 squared km resort-like compound - they had mixed swimming pools and women were free to walk out in shorts if they pleased. A more conservative attire is in order for outside the compound, but no head covering is mandatory for foreign women.

I've been out with female friends to restaurants hassle free.

It's not total freedom over there (or here for that matter) but was more than what I expected.

Women still can't drive there for some strange reason... Saudis themselves are hard pressed justifying that one.

I think it's the only nation worldwide with such a law.

As far as gay men, I didn't find it to be as drastic as proclaimed by many in the west. I've met a few gay men there who don't bother hiding their sexuality.

They're not ostentatious or boastful about it either, but they were comfortable enough to stay and work in the country when they had the choice to leave.

And gay characters on TV were not uncommon (no explicit sexual connotations but there was no mistaking it).

Though I would agree that it's still a very strict society, relative to ours, my sense is that they aren't actually heading towards harsher ways.

The turmoil caused by terrorism there and the crackdown by the government on it is bringing forth the incongruity of religious opinion to the masses, and gives courage for the moderates to speak out. Along with the far far more evenly tempered sermons (government keeps track of those guys) at mosques. Ire on Israel and the Jews used to be expressed on a weekly basis in Mecca during supplications before Friday prayers... but no longer.

Iran is a different animal altogether.

[Hasan Ali Tokuqin]

Dear repliers,

Islam and muslims can be secular, democratic, liberal, modern, tolerant, capitalist

and rich and cause less trouble, if they have the chance.Islam is not the future of humanity.It is a faith like others.People must belive something.I said from the begining, people could be different if they hold the same faith.Turks different from arabs, some arabs different from other arabs, iranians, bosnians , caucisasians, hindus ethnically and lingusticly .Turks treat women fairly.There is no state coercion on practice of religion.You can swim nude in the beaches.Turkish cinema has long erotic tradition from 70's as Germany.There is no scientific gap between west.We have scholars on a vide range of topics.We have ivy league kind universities etc etc.