Muslims and Tolerance

[JerrySeinfeld]

Link:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn261.html

Comments?

[Michael Hardner]

I'd say it's the usual hyopcrisy from Steyn.

He condemns religious factionalism in the same article wherein he slams Islam.

If you want to attach the actions of a few radicals to their religion, then you might as well condemn all religions. Of course, he doesn't do this. Why ? I guess because Islam is supposed to be "different" somehow.

The truth is that Islam is the same as every other religion. Going to the most backwards parts of the world and declaring that their religion is at the root of their problems certainly isn't helpful.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Rahman embodies the question at the heart of this struggle: If Islam is a religion one can only convert to not from, then in the long run it is a threat to every free person on the planet. What can we do? Should governments with troops in Afghanistan pass joint emergency legislation conferring their citizenship on this poor man and declaring him, as much as Karzai, under their protection?

What are we there for? To assist them in developing a society that meets their needs or to impose a society on them that is compatible with our concepts of "political correctness"?

[Biblio Bibuli]

I'd say it's the usual hyopcrisy from Steyn.

He condemns religious factionalism in the same article wherein he slams Islam.

If you want to attach the actions of a few radicals to their religion, then you might as well condemn all religions. Of course, he doesn't do this. Why ? I guess because Islam is supposed to be "different" somehow.

The truth is that Islam is the same as every other religion. Going to the most backwards parts of the world and declaring that their religion is at the root of their problems certainly isn't helpful.

Two comments.

1/ "going to the most backwards part of the world and declaring that their religion is the root of their problems".

Well it is. Why do you think it is the most backward part of the world? There's money there in the Arab part & a long history of culture & learning in the Pakistan/ Bangladesh area from their Indian roots, but still they remain mired in the 13th century. What OTHER explanation do you have for that? Basmati rice?

2/ You condemn Steyn for "supposing" that Islam is supposed to be different from other religions? Well yes ... about a billion Muslims think it is "different" from other religions ... so I guess he got that right.

Why are we supposed to assume that because it's a "religion" it's a good thing? Where is that written? If a guy guns down 17 people in a mall because he heard God tell him to ... is that ok? I mean it's obviously the guy's "religion".

Ok ... so I had three comments.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I'd say it's the usual hyopcrisy from Steyn.

He condemns religious factionalism in the same article wherein he slams Islam.

If you want to attach the actions of a few radicals to their religion, then you might as well condemn all religions. Of course, he doesn't do this. Why ? I guess because Islam is supposed to be "different" somehow.

The truth is that Islam is the same as every other religion. Going to the most backwards parts of the world and declaring that their religion is at the root of their problems certainly isn't helpful.

It's not hyporcrisy when you understand the point of the article (and the sub title of my topic), which is that Islam sees itself as different from and superior to other religions which deserve no respect, which is completely different from the other religions on earth.

[GostHacked]

I'd say it's the usual hyopcrisy from Steyn.

He condemns religious factionalism in the same article wherein he slams Islam.

If you want to attach the actions of a few radicals to their religion, then you might as well condemn all religions. Of course, he doesn't do this. Why ? I guess because Islam is supposed to be "different" somehow.

The truth is that Islam is the same as every other religion. Going to the most backwards parts of the world and declaring that their religion is at the root of their problems certainly isn't helpful.

It's not hyporcrisy when you understand the point of the article (and the sub title of my topic), which is that Islam sees itself as different from and superior to other religions which deserve no respect, which is completely different from the other religions on earth.

What about the Jews? Christians? You do remember the crusades right? And jews see themselves as God's chosen children.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I'd say it's the usual hyopcrisy from Steyn.

He condemns religious factionalism in the same article wherein he slams Islam.

If you want to attach the actions of a few radicals to their religion, then you might as well condemn all religions. Of course, he doesn't do this. Why ? I guess because Islam is supposed to be "different" somehow.

The truth is that Islam is the same as every other religion. Going to the most backwards parts of the world and declaring that their religion is at the root of their problems certainly isn't helpful.

It's not hyporcrisy when you understand the point of the article (and the sub title of my topic), which is that Islam sees itself as different from and superior to other religions which deserve no respect, which is completely different from the other religions on earth.

What about the Jews? Christians? You do remember the crusades right? And jews see themselves as God's chosen children.

No I don't remember the crusades. That is ANCIENT HISTORY.

In today's world we are dealing with ONE intolerant religion.

[sami]

No I don't remember the crusades. That is ANCIENT HISTORY.

In today's world we are dealing with ONE intolerant religion.

Gee. I wonder what your agenda is? Just a quick search on wikipedia brings up these non "ANCIENT HISTORY" tidbits for you consumption. Not that facts have any place in your ideaology anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_pe...ristians#Canada

" During 1995-1998 Newfoundland had only Christian schools (four of them, Pentecostal, Roman Catholic, Seventh Day Adventist, and inter-denominational (Anglican, Salvation Army and United Church)). The right to organize publicly supported religious schools was only given to certain Christian denominations, thus tax money used to support a selected group of Christian denominations. The denominational schools could also refuse admission of a student or the hiering of a qualified teacher on purely religious grounds."

"In some U.S. jurisdictions legal restrictions exist which require a religious test as a qualification for holding public office, for instance in Texas an official may be "excluded from holding office" if she/he does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being." (i.e. God) [7] thus atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, some Unitarian Universalists and New Age followers, who do not believe in a supreme being would be excluded from public office if the test were enforced.

The Bill of Rights of the Texas Constitution (Article I, Section 4) last amended on September 13, 2003 states that an official may be "excluded from holding office" if she/he does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being." [8]

North Carolina's Constitution, Article 6 Sec. 8 states "Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God...." [9]

South Carolina's Constitution, Article 4 Section 2: "Person denying existence of Supreme Being not to hold office. No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution." [10]

Tennessee's Bill of Rights: Article 9, Section 2: "No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state." [11]

Similarly, some state laws are framed with the intention of toleration of religious difference, but are criticized for coming short of withdrawing all mention of belief in God, or of Christianity.

Massachusetts' Declaration of Rights: Article III (approved and ratified November 6, 1990): "make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily."", "...every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law." [12]

"

[JerrySeinfeld]

No I don't remember the crusades. That is ANCIENT HISTORY.

In today's world we are dealing with ONE intolerant religion.

Gee. I wonder what your agenda is? Just a quick search on wikipedia brings up these non "ANCIENT HISTORY" tidbits for you consumption. Not that facts have any place in your ideaology anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_pe...ristians#Canada

" During 1995-1998 Newfoundland had only Christian schools (four of them, Pentecostal, Roman Catholic, Seventh Day Adventist, and inter-denominational (Anglican, Salvation Army and United Church)). The right to organize publicly supported religious schools was only given to certain Christian denominations, thus tax money used to support a selected group of Christian denominations. The denominational schools could also refuse admission of a student or the hiering of a qualified teacher on purely religious grounds."

"In some U.S. jurisdictions legal restrictions exist which require a religious test as a qualification for holding public office, for instance in Texas an official may be "excluded from holding office" if she/he does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being." (i.e. God) [7] thus atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, some Unitarian Universalists and New Age followers, who do not believe in a supreme being would be excluded from public office if the test were enforced.

The Bill of Rights of the Texas Constitution (Article I, Section 4) last amended on September 13, 2003 states that an official may be "excluded from holding office" if she/he does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being." [8]

North Carolina's Constitution, Article 6 Sec. 8 states "Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God...." [9]

South Carolina's Constitution, Article 4 Section 2: "Person denying existence of Supreme Being not to hold office. No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution." [10]

Tennessee's Bill of Rights: Article 9, Section 2: "No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state." [11]

Similarly, some state laws are framed with the intention of toleration of religious difference, but are criticized for coming short of withdrawing all mention of belief in God, or of Christianity.

Massachusetts' Declaration of Rights: Article III (approved and ratified November 6, 1990): "make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily."", "...every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law." [12]

"

Great start. Now find me an example of the punishment for any of your above-examples being DEATH and then we caqn talk about a fair comparison with the "rational" muslims.

[sami]

Great start. Now find me an example of the punishment for any of your above-examples being DEATH and then we caqn talk about a fair comparison with the "rational" muslims.

Okay so you admit that Islam is no longer the only intolerant religon in the world? Then I guess I made my point. Maybe you should make your statements less broad. Next time just ask which other religon punished a crime of converting to another religon with death and I will tell you that none come to mind. It is a barbaric outdated law that is never carried out and should be removed from any judicary.

[Michael Hardner]

Bibli

Two comments.

1/ "going to the most backwards part of the world and declaring that their religion is the root of their problems".

Well it is. Why do you think it is the most backward part of the world? There's money there in the Arab part & a long history of culture & learning in the Pakistan/ Bangladesh area from their Indian roots, but still they remain mired in the 13th century. What OTHER explanation do you have for that? Basmati rice?

There's got to be more to it than which Holy Book they support, don't you think ?

2/ You condemn Steyn for "supposing" that Islam is supposed to be different from other religions? Well yes ... about a billion Muslims think it is "different" from other religions ... so I guess he got that right.

That wasn't the comment I was referring to - he had some anti-Islam comments in there, which is par for the course for an intolerant like him.

Why are we supposed to assume that because it's a "religion" it's a good thing? Where is that written? If a guy guns down 17 people in a mall because he heard God tell him to ... is that ok? I mean it's obviously the guy's "religion".

No one's asking you to assume that. But if you're going to apply some kind of logic or principle, then apply it rationally and you'll find out that there's more to it than religion.

[Michael Hardner]

It's not hyporcrisy when you understand the point of the article (and the sub title of my topic), which is that Islam sees itself as different from and superior to other religions which deserve no respect, which is completely different from the other religions on earth.

It's pretty similar to a few religions I know.

This is the method people use to condemn Islam:

1) Decide that Islam is the culprit behind the problems coming from that part of the world.

2) Set out to determine what in Islam is the cause of the problems.

3) When confronted with similarities to other religions, go back to the fact that problems exist in the first place as proof that Islam is to blame.

[JerrySeinfeld]

That wasn't the comment I was referring to - he had some anti-Islam comments in there, which is par for the course for an intolerant like him.

Steyn states facts. Please point out the "anti Islam" comments...

[Michael Hardner]

Here's an example of one of Steyn's "facts":

President Bush holds a monthlong Ramadan-a-ding-dong at the White House every year;

His columns are laced with frat boy prejudice, and should just be dismissed or maybe read on the Howard Stern show.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Here's an example of one of Steyn's "facts":

President Bush holds a monthlong Ramadan-a-ding-dong at the White House every year;

His columns are laced with frat boy prejudice, and should just be dismissed or maybe read on the Howard Stern show.

Steyn is satyrical. That's not anti muslim.

Nice try.

[JerrySeinfeld]

It's not hyporcrisy when you understand the point of the article (and the sub title of my topic), which is that Islam sees itself as different from and superior to other religions which deserve no respect, which is completely different from the other religions on earth.

It's pretty similar to a few religions I know.

This is the method people use to condemn Islam:

1) Decide that Islam is the culprit behind the problems coming from that part of the world.

2) Set out to determine what in Islam is the cause of the problems.

3) When confronted with similarities to other religions, go back to the fact that problems exist in the first place as proof that Islam is to blame.

I only see young muslims men self-detonating around the world. Sawing off people's heads in the name of their god. Burning embassies and boycotting denmark over what? CARTOONS?

lol - yea - lots of similarities.

Watch the news buddy.

[Michael Hardner]

I only see young muslims men self-detonating around the world. Sawing off people's heads in the name of their god. Burning embassies and boycotting denmark over what? CARTOONS?

lol - yea - lots of similarities.

Watch the news buddy.

TV news is one way to get a certain kind of information. But they're more likely to show people demonstrating than sitting at home peacefully are they ?

[JerrySeinfeld]

I only see young muslims men self-detonating around the world. Sawing off people's heads in the name of their god. Burning embassies and boycotting denmark over what? CARTOONS?

lol - yea - lots of similarities.

Watch the news buddy.

TV news is one way to get a certain kind of information. But they're more likely to show people demonstrating than sitting at home peacefully are they ?

certainly - i am sure they'd televise christians blowing themselves up as much as possible - if they could find any.

[Guest Warwick Green]

In the last couple of days Jewish institutions in Montreal have been desecrated - swastikas, etc. Jewish organizations are of course worried. If it had been mosques treated like this, by now a few Canadian embassies in arab countries would have been firebombed.

[JerrySeinfeld]

In the last couple of days Jewish institutions in Montreal have been desecrated - swastikas, etc. Jewish organizations are of course worried. If it had been mosques treated like this, by now a few Canadian embassies in arab countries would have been firebombed.

Yep. When will people stop apologizing for Muslim violence and start condemning it.

[sharkman]

In the last couple of days Jewish institutions in Montreal have been desecrated - swastikas, etc. Jewish organizations are of course worried. If it had been mosques treated like this, by now a few Canadian embassies in arab countries would have been firebombed.

It hardly made a blip in our MSM, who are loathe to report a story that supports Jews or exposes anti-Semitism. Of course if it had been widely reported, this forum would have been full of doubting posts claiming a Jewish conspiracy to garner sympathy.

[Guest Warwick Green]

In the last couple of days Jewish institutions in Montreal have been desecrated - swastikas, etc. Jewish organizations are of course worried. If it had been mosques treated like this, by now a few Canadian embassies in arab countries would have been firebombed.

It hardly made a blip in our MSM, who are loathe to report a story that supports Jews or exposes anti-Semitism. Of course if it had been widely reported, this forum would have been full of doubting posts claiming a Jewish conspiracy to garner sympathy.

Oh. So Jews plaster swastikas over synagogues to get sympathy? In my childhood that kind of comment came from the right. Today you would hear it from the left.

[Michael Hardner]

i am sure they'd televise christians blowing themselves up as much as possible - if they could find any.

Like that abortion clinic bomber, or religious terrorists of every stripe that are TV news' ambassadors to the world of religion. It might make more sense if you condemned religion altogether as the source of strife and violence through the ages.

Many people take that stance as well. Many people think if there was no religion the Jews and Arabs would live in peace. Others use some rationale to demonize one side over the other.

[JerrySeinfeld]

i am sure they'd televise christians blowing themselves up as much as possible - if they could find any.

Like that abortion clinic bomber, or religious terrorists of every stripe that are TV news' ambassadors to the world of religion. It might make more sense if you condemned religion altogether as the source of strife and violence through the ages.

Many people take that stance as well. Many people think if there was no religion the Jews and Arabs would live in peace. Others use some rationale to demonize one side over the other.

From a book WRITTEN by a muslim woman:

I appreciate that every faith has its share of literalists. Christians have their Evangelicals. Jews have the ultra-Orthodox. For God's sake, even Buddhists have fundamentalists.

But what this book hammers home is that only in Islam is literalism mainstream.Which means that when abuse happens under the banner of Islam, most Muslims have no clue how to dissent, debate, revise or reform.

[Michael Hardner]

I appreciate that point of view, but she's not going as far as to blame Muslims themselves for the situation.

An interesting, if flawed, book on the dominance of certain cultures on the world stage is Guns, Germs, and Steel. It examines how different cultures thrived, or fell based on certain factors. It even acknowledges the relative superiority of the Christian view in fostering an economically beneficial environment.

But ridiculing or blaming any group, as Steyn does, is smug, divisive and destructive.