The True Facts Of Islam

[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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Argus, there is a ton of evidence to back up the hatefulness of the fundamentalist Christian movement.

No, there really isn't. Yes, there really are some wackos among the fundies, particularly the television preachers. I don't deny it. But virtually all Christian churches and sects have a hierarchy, an organization, which does not permit the kind of wild, hateful speech which is normality in the Muslim world. You see, Islam has no hierarchy. Most clerics are entirely independant, governed and supervised by no one, with whatever credentials they can scrape up (often none), and so the Muslim world is full of ignorant clerics screaming their hateful, violent messages to a far more credulous and ignorant populace than what we have in the West.

Giving me a quote from the demented Pat Robertson does not change that. There is only one Pat Robertson, and only a few other wacked out fundie preachers in the US. There are thousands upon thousands of radical Muslim Clerics who are worse.

[Argus]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The church has historically been a teacher of morality and behaviour. Those who belong to a church are supposed to abide by its teachings in moral matters. In most cases that's fine with everyone. Churches generally teach and practice charity and love of ones fellow man. But there are other aspects of their moral codes that seem more problematic to people in modern society, such as telling its people that sex outside marriage is wrong, that looking at pornography is wrong, that the pursuit of ever greater amounts of money and consumer goods over all else is wrong. There is nothing essentially wrong with this. They are speaking out on subjects they believe in. Since they have no power to affectively change anything except people's opinions I see no reason to suggest their opinions be excluded from public discourse as though somehow their religious origin taints them and makes them unacceptable. I mean, who else, however biased, however wild their opinion, are we suggesting should not enjoy the right to make they or their organizations opinion known on economic and moral issues? No one.

And, oddly, none of those who are outraged when churches call for retention of same sex marriage are upset when churches criticise the government for not spending more money on the poor. Nope. This is more a matter of "I don't like what you say so you shouldn't say it". And while I'm no great religious believer I do strongly support everyone's freedom to speak their mind.

[Riverwind]

They are speaking out on subjects they believe in. Since they have no power to effectively change anything except people's opinions I see no reason to suggest their opinions be excluded from public discourse as though somehow their religious origin taints them and makes them unacceptable.

There is a difference between speaking out on moral issues and demanding that specific laws be passed. Most people would agree that pornography is bad but would not support a law banning it because they fell the right to free expression is more important. All laws are complex compromises that balance competing interests which is why belief system of religion should not be used as a the primary basis for passing any laws.

This distinction is extremely clear when it comes to abortion and stem cell research: the idea that a small collection of cells is equivalent to a human being is personal religious choice not an absolute truth. Passing laws that prohibit first trimester abortions or stem cell research is the same as passing a law that required people to become Christians. In other words, by demanding that gov't pass laws regarding abortion, Christians are asking that the power of the state be used to impose their religious views on others. On the other hand, I don't have any problem if religious groups want to sponsor a charities that provide support to pregnant teens and encourage them to choose adoption instead of abortion.

The same issue exists when it comes to SSM. Most people have no problem if a church does not recognize SSM but get extremely annoyed when the church tries to tell the gov't what it should do with he concept of civil marriage.

[sharkman]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dear Hasan,

You have introduced a very interesting topic and most of us here have strong feelings on it as you can see. I have to acknowledge that the great majority of Muslims are no doubt peace loving and wanting to help their people. It is unfortunate there are extremists who use any religion to manipulate the simple and attack their enemies.

[Argus]

They are speaking out on subjects they believe in. Since they have no power to effectively change anything except people's opinions I see no reason to suggest their opinions be excluded from public discourse as though somehow their religious origin taints them and makes them unacceptable.

There is a difference between speaking out on moral issues and demanding that specific laws be passed.

No, there isn't. It's sad you don't understand that.

[Riverwind]

There is a difference between speaking out on moral issues and demanding that specific laws be passed..

No, there isn't. It's sad you don't understand that.

So you are saying it is perfectly ok for Christians to demand that gov't pass a law to outlaw other religions and to require that everybody attend church on Sunday?

[Hasan Ali Tokuqin]

when we tune to the revelations of God, old tesnament, bible and quran, god speaks only.Not the osama bin laden, cromwell, pope or saddam hussein, not political or millitary leaders all around the world.The revelations are the non-stop channel of the god.The creator of the sacred and intelligent design we call life.we must listen him, not others.

[Argus]

There is a difference between speaking out on moral issues and demanding that specific laws be passed..

No, there isn't. It's sad you don't understand that.

So you are saying it is perfectly ok for Christians to demand that gov't pass a law to outlaw other religions and to require that everybody attend church on Sunday?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course. Why would it not be? You have this odd belief that it's acceptable for people to demand same sex marriage, when it was illegal, but somehow unacceptable to demand the removal of same sex marriage after it has been made legal. There is no logic to such a position. The churches can call on the government to do any old thing that strikes their fancy, just like everyone else. If I want a law that requires everyone to wear purple shoes on the second Tuesday of every month I can damned well start up a campaign to do so.

Why on earth would you think otherwise? Why on earth would you want otherwise?

[BubberMiley]

If I want a law that requires everyone to wear purple shoes on the second Tuesday of every month I can damned well start up a campaign to do so.

Why on earth would you think otherwise?  Why on earth would you want otherwise?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can start up your campaign, Argus. But the passage of the law should be illegal, because laws are meant to protect people, not oppress them.

[Riverwind]

The churches can call on the government to do any old thing that strikes their fancy, just like everyone else. If I want a law that requires everyone to wear purple shoes on the second Tuesday of every month I can damned well start up a campaign to do so.

We live in a diverse society where we would like people from extermely different backgrounds to get along. This means that certain political positions simply have no place in public discourse - even if the majority happen to share that view. Laws that seek to impose a particular religious view on other people are high on the list of unacceptable political positions. I oppose the use of Sharia law in family courts for the same reason.

The arguement that "telling Christians (and other religious people) to STFU" imposes other people's values on them is a red herring because the need to ensure our public discourse if free of religious dogma is more important than their freedom of speech. Would you want to work in an office where you boss required all employees to attend prayer meetings for a religion you do not follow? Our public space needs to be free from religion for the same reason workplaces must be free from religion.

You will probably also argue that some of the tripe coming from some securalists is just as bad a religious dogma. I would agree that there are similarilies in the tone of rhetoric but there is a huge difference: religions have a long and ignoble history of causing bloodshed and hatred.

[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.

No, there really isn't. Yes, there really are some wackos among the fundies, particularly the television preachers. I don't deny it. But virtually all Christian churches and sects have a hierarchy, an organization, which does not permit the kind of wild, hateful speech which is normality in the Muslim world. You see, Islam has no hierarchy. Most clerics are entirely independant, governed and supervised by no one, with whatever credentials they can scrape up (often none), and so the Muslim world is full of ignorant clerics screaming their hateful, violent messages to a far more credulous and ignorant populace than what we have in the West.

Giving me a quote from the demented Pat Robertson does not change that. There is only one Pat Robertson, and only a few other wacked out fundie preachers in the US. There are thousands upon thousands of radical Muslim Clerics who are worse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you look at the original quote, it was in reference to some of the followers of Christianity. And some of them are extreme fundamentalists who spout hatred and have even killed others who disagree with their beliefs. I said it was in a small scale, but even that addresses the quote from Sparhawk.

[sharkman]

Look newbie and others. Why don't you just be honest with everybody and admit you hate Christians. Cause your comments are repeatedly refuted time and time again and still you keep on harping. Just admit it.

[Riverwind]

Look newbie and others.  Why don't you just be honest with everybody and admit you hate Christians.  Cause your comments are repeatedly refuted time and time again and still you keep on harping.  Just admit it.

I get this image of you clapping your hands over your ears and shutting your eyes and telling yourself over and over that it can't be true Christians are not killers like Muslims - Muslims are bad, Christians are good.

If you want to dismiss the people who encourage the murder of doctors as wackos perverting the Christian faith then you should accept that the Muslims who preach violence are perverting Islam and do not represent true Muslims. It is hypocritical claim that Christianity is this pure religion free of violence and that Islam is inherently violent.

From my perspective, I see both religions as a source of good in the world if their followers could learn to stop focusing on the irrelevant religious dogmas and focus on the underlying spirtual messages preached by Christ and Mohammed.

[newbie]

Look newbie and others.  Why don't you just be honest with everybody and admit you hate Christians.  Cause your comments are repeatedly refuted time and time again and still you keep on harping.  Just admit it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For the record I don't hate anyone. As far as being honest, I'm not making this stuff up. Re-read posts 44 and 47. There is an element of extreme and hateful Christian fundamentalism out there and saying is doesn't exist is deep denial.

[sharkman]

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  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.

Look, once again, CALLING for the death of anyone is not the same as killing them. You can't refute that. A nutbar who kills a doctor is not the same as Osamas who mastermind the attacks that kill 100s or thousands. Said nutbar is also not the equivalent of a muslim who straps bombs on his back to get on a bus and take out everybody. Either cite examples or show your argument to be full of hate.

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is ALL kinds of hate in the world, but if one kind is regularly killing people and terrorizing whole countries, then that kind is worse, whether your anti-Christian bias allows you to see it or not.

[Argus]

If you want to dismiss the people who encourage the murder of doctors as wackos perverting the Christian faith then you should accept that the Muslims who preach violence are perverting Islam and do not represent true Muslims.

Occasionally, very, very occasionally, some wacko shoots at a doctor or bombs and abortion clinic. And everyone condemns it. There is little appetite for that kind of violence even among the anti-abortion set (who, btw, I mostly despise). But whenever some Palestinian sets off a bomb in a market in Israel there are parades in the West Bank, with young men cheering and women doing that wierdass thing with their tongues and merchants handing out candy. Polls among Palestinians have often shown that the majority supported terrorist attacks, including suicide bombings of civilians. Massive number of Muslims, in the tens of millions, support the most extreme violence against "infidels", many tens of millions more are sympathetic, wanting extreme policies like Sharia.

There is no question there are extremist Christians, but they have little influence, and their numbers are tiny. There is simply no sane way to compare their violence and hate against what is happening in the Muslim world.

Then again, Christ was a peacemaker, Muhammed was a warrior.

[Leafless]

Sparhawk

You wrote- " Would you want to go to work where your boss required all employees to attend prayer meetings for a religion you do not follow."

This is a free society and no one is twisting your arm to work for such an employer in private buisness if you don't agree to company policy.

This is also very sad noting the fact our Candian schools not long ago practised aspects of the Christian religion with a public prayer that caters to the majority Christian religion which in reality harms no one of other faiths.

You also wrote- " Our public spaces need to be free from religion for the same resason workplaces need to be free from religion."

Followers of Islam walk the streets of our cities unrecognizable cover in robes, turbans, even driving buses and taxis, swords and trying to impose Sharia Law overiding Canadian law.

Why should Canadians have to be reminded of Muslims and the extremes of that religion Islam when Muslims demand all aspects of the Christian religion be removed from the public place in Canada.

The extremism of Islam followers resulting in death dwarfs comparable acts of followers of Christianity.

The problem with Islam is that it combines the ingredients of a government rather than a religion making it a much more potent force in a free democratic society.

Canada is a muti-cultural country but the word 'diverse' cannot be implied to grant powers exceeding the democratic will of Canadians at large or that would mean an end to law and order, an end to majority convictions, religious and otherwise.

[Riverwind]

This is a free society and no one is twisting your arm to work for such an employer in private business if you don't agree to company policy.

Not an excuse - Employers have an obligation to create a workplace that is free from discrimination and coercion - it is one of the rules we need to ensure that everyone in our diverse society can get a long. The rule goes both ways: a Christian also has a right to expect that their Muslim employer would not impose Islam in the workplace.

This is also very sad noting the fact our Canadian schools not long ago practised aspects of the Christian religion with a public prayer that caters to the majority Christian religion which in reality harms no one of other faiths.

It does harm others by making the schools a hostile place for non-Christians. School prayers are a transparent attempt to promote one religion and denigrate others. Can you honestly say that forcing 3 or 4 children to stand out in the hall while the rest of the class recites a prayer does not harm those children?

Followers of Islam walk the streets of our cities unrecognizable cover in robes, turbans, even driving buses and taxis,  swords

How is that different from street rats who cover their faces with tattoos and bizarre piercings? What others choose to wear is not a concern - passing laws that prevent others from making those choices is a problem. Similarily, if a christians are free to walk around with a big crucifix or even wearing a nun's habit.

trying to impose Sharia Law overiding Canadian law.

I said I oppose the application of Sharia law into our society for exactly the same reasons.

Why should Canadians have to be reminded of Muslims and the extremes of that religion Islam when Muslims demand all aspects of the Christian religion be removed from the public place in Canada.

Personal statements made by individuals with their choice of clothing is different from a gov't that passes laws imposing a Christian ideology on others.

The problem with Islam is that it combines the ingredients of a government rather than a religion making it a much more potent force in a free democratic society.

Exactly! So you agree that keeping Christianity or any other religion out our government and government institutions is critical to preserving the freedoms we enjoy.

Canada is a muti-cultural country but the word 'diverse' cannot be implied to grant powers exceeding the democratic will of Canadians at large or that would mean an end to law and order, an end to majority convictions, religious and otherwise.

Democracy must balance the needs of the majority vs. needs of the minorities. This balancing act does not mean that we have to tolerate every bizarre behavoir from every concievable religion. But it does mean that majority has to give up some rights in the name of peaceful co-existance.

When these issues come up I try to apply this rule:

What you do to yourself is your business. What you do to others is society's business.

I find that draws a good balance between the rights of the majority vs. the rights of the minorities.

[Leafless]

Sparhawk

If Christianity is all that bad, why has countries with Christian societies advanced and flurished and countries associated with Islam economically failed, undeveloped and vacant of pretty well all aspects of modern society.

And why would Islamic believers flock to Christian countries where believes are so very different with beliefs they say they don't want interfering in Arab countries especially associated with Western ideologies.

My previous post was to illustrate extreme oppressive religious beliefs in which you basically suggested Christians can do the same or a simple 'Lord's prayer' in schools is so OFFENSIVE that Muslim students leave the classroom and stand in the hall.

You have provided adequate proof concerning my previous post that the Islam religion is offensive and oppressive to Western style freedoms and traditions by refusing to acknowledge Western feedoms associated with FREE SPEECH.

Maybe this is why other Arab countries hate Israel is that they have progressed utilizing capitalism and Western style freedoms and Arab countries adhering to Islam are left back in the middle ages with no ecomomic game plan or system other than religion.

This type of lifestyle perpetuated by dominating, extreme religion will only be seen as extremely harmful to Canada's Western ideologies and will only end up with a demand to curb immigration from Muslim countries. How one can expect a religion that has crippled Arab nations and their economic advancement to leap frog into a democratic society and implement their standards and society is repulsive and totally undemocratic.

[Hasan Ali Tokuqin]

dear repliers,

forget Islam, let's turn liberal politics.What we all need personally?

* Good Health.

* A Family bond.

* A good job and good payment.

* An nice suburban home and a car.

* Good envoriment.

*A welfare society at large.OK?

[Clopin]

lol

[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  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.

Look, once again, CALLING for the death of anyone is not the same as killing them. You can't refute that. A nutbar who kills a doctor is not the same as Osamas who mastermind the attacks that kill 100s or thousands. Said nutbar is also not the equivalent of a muslim who straps bombs on his back to get on a bus and take out everybody. Either cite examples or show your argument to be full of hate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I see you did not read or understand post #47. There are examples. Again, you are blowing this out of proportion. I am just responding to the original poster who said there are SOME followers of Christianity who are just as bad as Muslim fundamentalists. I gave examples. Give it a rest.

[Martial Shadow]

And how many people have read all 114 chapters of the Qu'ran?

[Argus]

And how many people have read all 114 chapters of the Qu'ran?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There should be more bikini pictures in it. Then people would be more interested.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

QUOTE(Martial Shadow @ Dec 12 2005, 07:48 PM)

And how many people have read all 114 chapters of the Qu'ran?

There should be more bikini pictures in it. Then people would be more interested.

I read most of it. A difficult read, very repetitive, similar to 'The Holy Bible'. Coudn't get through that one either, but again, I have read most of it. Bikini pictures would help both their sales numbers.