Why the Swiss Were Right to Prohibit Construction of Minarets
“Islam is an all-encompassing ideology”: this is Mauwdudi’s motto. In other words, a society has not been Islamized until all manifestations of life — all social and political institutions — are governed according to Islamic principles. The objective is not only to develop an Islamic state with Islamic law, but also an Islamic economy, Islamic science, and so on. Will anyone dare to liken such an ideology to the established church community in the West or to mainstream contemporary interpretations of Christianity?
One has to wonder: What is it about Islam that makes this religion — especially in its organized form — tip over so easily into politics and law? The problem began with its founder, Muhammed, his principal message, and his actions, which make Islam far more difficult to reform and secularize than Christianity. As the Danish philosopher Kai Sørlander has observed, Islam and Christianity are not at all similar phenomena, but are, on the contrary, radically different. In fact, Sørlander maintains that Christianity’s core message itself played a critical role in the revocation of the clergy’s temporal power, while the opposite has happened in large portions of the Islam-dominated parts of the world.
But why should we care about such things in these modern times? Can’t people just be allowed to believe that a church spire and a minaret symbolize pretty much the same values and ways of thinking — that the religions, in short, are twins? Sørlander’s answer to this is as follows: It’s important to understand that if democracy “has developed and put down its roots in certain societies, but not in others, it can be because of a difference between the religions that have prevailed in those different places. If one prefers that people who live in democracies be blind to this difference, then one is not helping to strengthen democracy. On the contrary, one is helping to weaken its ability to preserve itself.”
Before I go further, I want to make one thing clear: I realize that I am entering an area here that has already become a minefield in public debate. Many think that it’s better, in the interests of harmony and understanding, to avoid discussion of Islam’s basic premises and thus steer clear of needless conflict and keep from offending Muslims.
I believe, however, that if we don’t have this debate about the challenges Islam poses to our democratic societies, we will one day discover that key elements of Islam — elements that make it difficult for an Enlightenment to occur among the Muslim population — have taken root in our own backyard. What is the greater danger: That an open discussion will intensify tensions for an unforeseeable period, or that the problems will be allowed to grow until they are past any hope of resolution — all because we retreated from an uncomfortable situation? Besides, if it’s really true that our democracy can’t tolerate an open discussion of this topic, doesn’t that mean that our democracy is already critically weakened?
I wish to make yet another major point: To discuss Islam and Christianity from the perspective of secularism and democracy is not to view Islam as being of lesser value than Christianity. On the contrary, it is a question of examining historical events that may help us to understand and be aware of the ways in which these two religions have functioned under different sociopolitical systems. What is condescending is not to take Islam seriously as a belief system.
How to comprehend the key difference between Islam and Christianity in regard to the separation of politics from religion? Kai Sørlander’s answer is to look at the two religions’ core messages, as expressed at the time of their founding — in other words, to go back to the religions’ first messengers, Jesus and Muhammed. Christianity is based on Jesus’s life and preaching, as recounted in the New Testament, while Islam is based on Muhammed’s life and preaching, as recounted in the Koran and the various hadith collections (accounts of Muhammed’s acts and sayings). These two men’s lives and teachings are radically different. Jesus never sought political power, but must rather be characterized as socially engaged. He drew a clear line between this world and the next, which is perhaps most clearly illustrated by the passage in Matthew about “render[ing] unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and unto God that which is God’s.” Jesus was, moreover, a pacifist who allowed himself to be crucified without resistance. Nor did he introduce a new set of laws; on the contrary, he revoked brutal edicts that dated back to the time of Moses and that were set down in the Old Testament.
Perhaps the best illustration of this is found in John’s gospel, in which the scribes and Pharisees come to Jesus with a woman taken in adultery: “Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?” Jesus’ reply: “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” When the scribes and Pharisees left, Jesus told the woman: “Neither do I condemn thee.” Indeed, Jesus commanded his disciples to “turn the other cheek,” told them “judge ye not,” and said “love thine enemy.” These commandments cannot easily be translated into legislation. As Sørlander points out, in fact, such commandments would undermine the power of any state. For example, Sørlander asks: “What good is an army that turns the other cheek?”
Excellently well put.
The evidence that Islam is incompatible with Western norms of justice, law, and tolerance has become indisputable. Actually, it’s been indisputable since Black Tuesday. What remains is only for us to marshal the will and resolve to quarantine it to those lands already hagridden by it. The alternative is accelerating penetration of our lands by persons who intend our subjugation, and who, as their numbers rise, will make ever more strident, violence-backed demands, that we alter our ways to conform to their preferences.
It’s time to choose.
“Islam, unlike Christianity, has a political dimension”
It certainly seems to me that christianity in the US has a political dimension. It’s nearly impossible to be elected/appointed to any high office in the US without professing a faith in god. There are more muslims in the US congress than atheists. The closest non-cabinet confidantes of presidents seem to be priests.
From what little I know of this (which isn’t much, I admit), this whole minaret ban thing grew out of a stoush over a single minaret that was built over the wishes of local residents. Personally, I side with them – residents of a neighborhood should have some say in what gets built there. But chancers managed to seriously hijack what should have been a sensible change to legislation and made a right fool of their country.
At the moment there are four, yes FOUR, minarets in switzerland. The place isn’t exactly overrun with the things. Get a grip.
Hey, mate. I hope you understand that every cancer starts of with a mutant cell.
This is an zmazing article. I hope it is widely read, understood and appreciated.
Matthew said: ‘The place isn’t exactly overrun with the things’
So – wait till it is before realising it’s too late to do anything?
“Europe’s churches have no political agenda, and because they aren’t obsessed with the painstaking study of ancient “divine” laws that are consistently placed above secular law”..
Excuse me?!? try to tell this to the Roman Catholic church. in the last few years in Italy the Church openly staged political campaigns which:
- outlawed artifical fecundation
- denied any rights to unmarried couples
- are still blocking the RU 486 pill, utilized worldwide sice the ’80s
- imposed church-approved teachers in public schools!
- much more stuff, believe you me
should we also forget the political battles they openly fought in the ’70s against legalization of divorce and of abortion?
When Christian churches get involved in campaigning on a particular issue they accept as a matter of course the freedom of their fellow citizens to reject the arguments they put forth; they also couch their arguments in secular terms, in terms of natural law, that anyone could agree with or dispute: abortion kills a child (you don’t need to be religious to be against that), marriage is a key component of a healthy civil society, etc. It’s completely different than the totalitarian Islamic claim. People get annoyed when churches take positions they disagree with, but nobody fears the church, and everyone feels free to say whatever they want about it–even to caricature it in cartoons!
vaio: Has the Catholic Church authorized beheading in the name of its religion? How about honor killings? How about a world-wide caliphate? Does dhimmi mean anything to you?
Are you saying that Catholicism and its teachings are the same as sharia law?
Do you not understand that Islam is a politico/religious faith. That its adherents are authorized to be jihadists and kill infidels.
Have a referendum like this anywhere in Europe & I’d be much surprised if you didn’t get the same results – ban the minarets. Put more questions to the vote, including stopping all Muslim immigration or even banning Islam altogether, & you might get some surprises. The media & the politicians are out of touch, to put it mildly. More & more Europeans are fed up with Islam & Muslims. Since the EU, unlike Switzerland, is undemocratic, you won’t see any such referendums. But you will see the strength of anti-immigrant political parties grow until they can’t be ignored.
To people like Matthew and vaio and others who continue to deny that Islam as a whole is not just about religion, who don’t understand Arab imperialism via the political and legal ambitions of Sharia, and who fail to see the human rights violations that get cover under the banner of “religion”:
Please pick up an honest book about Islam such as Cruel and Usual Punishment by Nonie Darwish. Read all of it.
It would be wise to do so before speaking in defense of Islam or discussing the role of any religion and basic human rights in society.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I doubt a ban like this would pass constitutional muster in the US, regardless of how many people voted for it.
Hege Storhaug’s piece here is pretty good as a description of the Islamic problem the world faces. I will say again, as I have in other comments on PJM: Islam a political ideology masquerading as a religion.
The Swiss solution, though, is incomplete. They only banned minarets but left in place ideologically-driven mosques. Those are what need to be banned.
Adam @ #6 is spot on. In the West, whatever Church leaders may want to do, they are held in check by the fact that voters do not have to listen to them. Moreover, the representatives elected do not have to fear for their lives if they vote against Church interests.
Finally, it is clear that Mr. Storhaug knows little about 1st century Judaism. As a practicing Jew, I do not find the laws (or edicts) in the Torah of Moses to be brutal, and indeed, quite the opposite. As for the quote about “Render unto God …” Mr. Storhaug cites, it can be quite problematical. In Judaism and Christianity, God is the Creator, so that everything He created is His. Hence, rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s would mean, rendering unto Caesar nothing. That is quite revolutionary and draws no line between this world and the next.
Matthew@2: Get a grip on yourself! They’ve banned minarets, not mosques or Islam. Steeples for crying out loud! After hearing Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan state that “Mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers.”, I suppse you would be comfortable with one springing up on every corner. Considering they’ve banned churches and synagogues in Islamic countries, what’s your point? That we should be more accomodating than they are? We already are. Way more!
Since when did freedom of religion mean that people have to accept a belief system that calls half the world of less value than the other half. Since when did freedom of religion mean that we must respect Islam that calls for fighting the Jewish People until the end of time where their hiding places would call out for them to be killed?
Do we accept Nazism and allow them to have buildings with swastikas emblazoned on the walls? Would we allow our courts to half the value of one citizens testimony? Would we go back to sanctioning slavery because the almighty promises it in heaven?
Freedom of religion in this country only works when we acknowledge a certain Nature of God and it was decided that we are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights. Any religion like Islam or any political party like the Nazi’s cannot be tolerated here because they, by definition, are not free, but rely on the suppression and or worse of others for their power. Their value is in valuing other less, therefore they go against our documents such as the Declaration of Independence and Constitution because they cannot stand under them but must void them to gain power.
The minaret is a building that calls for people to prayer to a god that demands killing, suppression, and oppression from it’s faithful. Is this the freedom that we fought for, freedom for these grave inhumanities to flourish? No. I do not think it is the obligation of the people of the United States to support this cult.
The brutal attacks of 9/11 awakened us to the false religion that is Islam. The author is correct in asserting that it holds a much stronger political element than does Christianity. However, it’s an element that does not embrace individual freedom, but subjugation of those outside their “faith”. It is nothing short of institutionalized bigotry that encourages hatred of others, not love.
The Swiss are correct to ban minarets. They control their country and are well within their rights to identify and minimize threats to it, especially internal ones. America should also be more aware of internal threats. The massacre at Ft. Hood springs immediately to mind. At what point does religious freedom stop and sedition begin?
There could not be two more diametrically opposed beliefs than Christianity and Islam. They can no more be compared to each other than can an apple and a machine gun.
So now it is to be Jewish cemetaries as well.
http://jta.org/news/article/2009/12/03/1009507/swiss-leader-calls-for-jewish-cemetery-ban
Yep. Great article. Cant ignore the political dimension when it comes to Islam. Thank goodness for the Christian Democratic Peoples Party keeping religion out of politics.
Personally I could care less what the greedy gnomes do. At least there are places for Muslims and Jews to escape to this time.
Spindok
Spindok
Francis W. Porretto said:
“It’s time to choose.”
Really? – Now? – But where were WE when those “Muslim Jihadists” were being recruited and trained as “Freedom Fighters”? -
Devil’s game: how the United States helped unleash fundamentalist Islam
By Robert Dreyfuss
Book overview
The first complete account of America’s most dangerous foreign policy miscalculation: sixty years of support for Islamic fundamentalism
Devil’s Game is the gripping story of America’s misguided efforts, stretching across decades, to dominate the strategically vital Middle East by courting and cultivating Islamic fundamentalism. Among all the books about Islam, this is the first comprehensive inquiry into the touchiest issue: How and why did the United States encourage and finance the spread of radical political Islam?
Backed by extensive archival research and interviews with dozens of policy makers and CIA, Pentagon, and foreign service officials, Robert Dreyfuss argues that this largely hidden relationship is greatly to blame for the global explosion of terrorism. He follows the trail of American collusion from support for the Muslim Brotherhood in 1950s Egypt to links with Khomeini and Afghani jihadists to cooperation with Hamas and Saudi Wahhabism. Dreyfuss also uncovers long-standing ties between radical Islamists and the leading banks of the West. The result is as tragic as it is paradoxical: originally deployed as pawns to foil nationalism and communism, extremist mullahs and ayatollahs now dominate the region, thundering against freedom of thought, science, women’s rights, secularism—and their former patron.
Wide-ranging and deeply informed, Devil’s Game reveals a history of double-dealing, cynical exploitation, and humiliating embarrassment. What emerges is a pattern that, far from furthering democracy or security, ensures a future of blunders and blowback.
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZeIK4glp4yIC&dq=islamic+fundamentalism+dreyfuss&source=gbs_navlinks_s
Matthew and Vaio
It amazes me when I meet people who think like you posting on websites like Pajamas. What are you doing here anyway. Is someone paying you to inflame the readers and thus evoke a response. I wish that was the case but I fear not. I believe the way you view reality is at the core of who you are and thus you are persuaded by those ideas and that you would troll websites like Pajamas just waiting for an opportunity to throw up.
naif: According to you then there should never have been any court rulings against Christian Christmas symbols in public areas?
See you progressives want it not just both ways but all ways.
What is your point anyway???
Islam, unlike Christianity, has a political dimension that the West must reject.
LOL. Yeah, Christianity totally stays out of politics. The only thing more pathetic about this kind of blatant ego-massaging cultural chauvinism is how many slobbering bigoted fans it attracts.
Spindok. I wanted to repost your link. It will at least be entertaining to watch these delusional fools try to explain how one is bad and the other good.
http://jta.org/news/article/2009/12/03/1009507/swiss-leader-calls-for-jewish-cemetery-ban
Do we accept Nazism and allow them to have buildings with swastikas emblazoned on the walls?
In the US, the Nazi party, as well as the Communist party, the KKK, etc. have always been legal, as are their buildings.
It would be unconstitutional to forbid them from building buildings, no matter how many people voted for such a ban. Correct me if I’m wrong.
“The first complete account of America’s most dangerous foreign policy miscalculation: sixty years of support for Islamic fundamentalism”
How convenient that the United States has come along 12 centuries after the establishment of Islam so that we can blame the inhumanities against the world committed because of the Doctrines of Islam on another people other than on Islam itself.
Yes always blaming others, same story different century. Yes blaming fundamentalism in Islam on anything other than the fundamentals of Islam.
How much longer must we live under this cloud of deceit?
@18. blotto
I don’t have a problem with Christian Christmas symbols in public areas.
But in any case I can’t see that the swiss ban was passed on grounds of separating religion and state. It seems more like a majority of swiss just decided to restrict the rights of a minority of swiss because they dislike them. Their reasons for disliking them may be sound, but that’s still what it amounts to.
My point is that this would not be constitutional in the US. I’m glad I live in the US.
20. Naif Mabat.
“It would be unconstitutional to forbid them from building buildings, no matter how many people voted for such a ban. Correct me if I’m wrong.”
Try building without permits?
Naif
You’re absolutely correct. The constitution exists to protect the rights of the minority from the majority, and vice versa. If there was unfettered majority rule, we’d still have Jim Crow.
Im of mixed mind about the minaret ban. In a perfect world, any religion could build any structure they like because fundamentally we all just want to be left alone to worship the Divine as we see fit. But we don´t live in a perfect world. The principles of separation of church and state and freedom of religion assumes that religions would fundamentally accept not dominating others. While followers of one religion or another have dominated others, the sacred writings and core beliefs of religions like Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism etc do not state anything about forcing the religion or its laws on anyone else.
However, the Koran does state that the religion must dominate the world eventually and warfare is an acceptable way to do this. Since Muslims believe that every word in the Koran is directly from the mouth of God, nothing the Koran says can be rejected. This is why you will not see any Muslim group renounce this. Political domination too far embedded in the faith.
Since political aspiration and religious aspirations cannot be separated in Islam, we cannot reject Islamism without rejecting Islam… as much as we try. In the end, we have to either a) risk domination by Islam or b) give up at least part of our cherished tradition of freedom of religion. There is no “good” option….
“Mauwudi writes… And the same goes for her voice, which is the devil’s agent. And don’t forget the sound of her heels.”
Does this mean that Pee Wee moho will self ban from PJM?
Dearest Anon, As a “delusional” fool, I will easily explain how one is bad and the other good. Islam is a violent belief system that does not accommadate any other belief systems. It’s founder Muhammad spread this virulent “religion” by the sword killing all who did not submit and that has continued for the last 1300 years. Islam does not compromise or co-exist, it violently conquers and detroys. It subjugates women and infidels. It loves death. The jihadis have not hijacked a “peaceful” religion, they have literally interpreted it from the clear writings of the Koran. Where Islam is supreme, there are no churches, synagogues or any other buildings or temples of worship. Islam does not believe in religious freedom nor does it believe in free speech. Islam is in complete opposition to Western Society. The two can not co-exist.
Jews have peacefully lived in Switzerland for the past 2,000 years.
Even as a “delusional fool” I can see there is no comparison.
When there’s a temple, Catholic church and a synagogue in Mecca and Medina, then I’ll accept this evil force.
Sir Winston was correct when he stated that “Islam is the most retrograde force on Earth.
Once the pedophile and ignorant alleged prophet was forced to leave his hometown of Mecca, he travelled to Medina and promptly severed the heads of 700 Jewish men and took the children and women as slaves.
Oh, what a glorious and noble way to begin the “religion of peace.”
20. Naif Mabat:
Do we accept Nazism and allow them to have buildings with swastikas emblazoned on the walls?
In the US, the Nazi party, as well as the Communist party, the KKK, etc. have always been legal, as are their buildings.
It would be unconstitutional to forbid them from building buildings, no matter how many people voted for such a ban. Correct me if I’m wrong.
________________________________________________
But no one is forbidding the construction of buildings. They are restricting the construction of an architectural component. As an architect I can tell you that many municipalities prohibit certain designs. These are laid out in building codes. No one’s rights are being violated. Your argument fails at intellectual honesty.
If a minority of United States citizens expressed the desire to commit harm against the majority or a minority of United States citizens it would be desirable to restrict their rights.
Perhaps a more truthful statement would be that a majority of Swiss citizens voted to restrict the rights of a minority of Swiss citizens because that minority dislikes the majority of Swiss citizens.
“Since political aspiration and religious aspirations cannot be separated in Islam, we cannot reject Islamism without rejecting Islam… as much as we try. In the end, we have to either a) risk domination by Islam or b) give up at least part of our cherished tradition of freedom of religion. There is no “good” option….”
I disagree. I think the religious and political aspects of Islam can be, and for our survival’s sake must be, dissociated. The purely religious face of Islam falls under the Free Exercise clause, of course. But political Islam- Islamism- falls under the Free Speech and Assembly clauses, whose protections are rather more constricted.
People have brought up the Nazis and the KKK. Yes, in the US the First Amendment says they can exist, and even hold rallies. But their actions are *not* unconstrained- for example, the Supreme Court has ruled that the states may ban Klan cross-burnings. Such activities cross the lines of protected expression into acts of intimidation and incitement to violence. Neither do the Speech and Assembly clauses protect “advocating the violent overthrow of the Government of the United States,” nor organizations which so advocate.
There are aspects of Islamism which fall into those over-the-line areas, and which could and should be outlawed. Imams who preach violent jihad should be prosecuted. I would add that non-citizens who engage in what is quaintly termed “sedition” may be declared “undesirable aliens” and deported- and the First Amendment is no defense. This should be the automatic treatment for any noncitizen Islamist who preaches the Caliphate and the imposition of Sharia.
Moreover, the fact that the Constitution requires that certain groups be tolerated does not mean that they are entitled to more than bare sufferance. No government official would ever attend a Nazi or Klan rally (in modern times, at least), and the President certainly doesn’t invite leading Nazis to the White House for a Hitler’s Birthday feast. So also should we treat Islamist organizations like CAIR and ISNA, even where we can’t find sufficient evidence to prosecute them as the jihadist front-groups they are.
The principles of separation of church and state and freedom of religion assumes that religions would fundamentally accept not dominating others. While followers of one religion or another have dominated others, the sacred writings and core beliefs of religions like Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism etc do not state anything about forcing the religion or its laws on anyone else.
In the first case, you’re tragically misinformed about the principle of church and state. It stresses religious freedom; by definition it allows religions to supplant each other through peaceful means, including proselytizing. Freedom of religion isn’t freedom of Christianity to have supremacy, it is the freedom of people to exercise their religion without state-based constraint. Much like the free market argument, the state can take no stake in disparate outcomes.
As for your charming belief that the Christian bible does not command its adherents to subjugated non-believers, look at the old testament, where you will find litany after ode to the beauty of genocide.
“When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you may nations…then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy.” Deuteronomy 7:1-2, NIV. 1
“…do not leave alive anything that breaths. Completely destroy them…as the Lord your God has commanded you…” Deuteronomy 20:16, NIV. 1]
Your latter point is the silliest argument you could make about Islam. It requires others to ignore what’s obviously stated in the bible. Don’t expect non-Christians to do you that favor as you advocate legal strictures against them.
@29. Phranc
You might be able to ban minarets locally through building codes, if you worded them cleverly enough.
I doubt you’d be able to do it at the federal or even the state level, though. Idenpendent local government is also one of America’s strengths!
But even at the local level, any ban that was specific enough to specifically ban minarets and nothing else, no matter how carefully you worded it, might be interpreted as the functional equivalent of a ban on a particular religion. It’s possible a higher court might overturn such a building code, if anyone cared to challenge it.
I’d love to hear an assessment from someone who’s more of a constitutional scholar.
10. Naif Mabat: Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I doubt a ban like this would pass constitutional muster in the US, regardless of how many people voted for it.
You are wrong. The Swiss passed it as a Constitutional amendment. If we here in the USA pass it as such it would pass Constitutional muster as it would be ah, in the Constitution.
Personally I am all for banning islam in the USA by way of a Constitutional amendment.
“Islam, unlike Christianity, has a political dimension . . . ”
Nothing more need be read, because nothing more can be believed.
Couple of questions
1) How many Churches in Saudi?
2) Does or does not Islam have a KORANIC aim to put the WHOLE world under Islamic rule ?
If you can answer both those questions then you understand the problem. If you cant and keep arguing then you are a moonbat.
Moonbats Islam defenders might be as well to remember too the Koran claims ITSELF to be ‘the ACTUAL and UNALTERABLE word of God’ and to be ‘for ALL men for all time’. It also tells Mohammedans that they are PERMITTED to LIE to advance or defend Islam. So please bear that in mind when you see the Mohammedans desperately trying to spin what is written in the Koran. As for the Islamic apologists left wing moonbat Islamophiles nuff said.
In the first case, you’re tragically misinformed about the principle of church and state. It stresses religious freedom; by definition it allows religions to supplant each other through peaceful means, including proselytizing. Freedom of religion isn’t freedom of Christianity to have supremacy, it is the freedom of people to exercise their religion without state-based constraint. Much like the free market argument, the state can take no stake in disparate outcomes.
As for your charming belief that the Christian bible does not command its adherents to subjugated non-believers, look at the old testament, where you will find litany after ode to the beauty of genocide.
Proselytizing is not forcing. As much as I, a Wiccan, can get annoyed with someone coming to my door to tell me I should convert or go to hell (granted folks have been more tactful than that), no one is forcing me to do anything. I can say “not interested” and shut the door. For most Christians, the Old Testament is for reference and is overridden by the New Testament by a king who said specifically that “kingdom is not of this world.” For those of the Jewish faith, any commands from God in the Old Testament were for that time and place only. They are not commands still in force today as those in the Koran are. There is nothing in the core of either of these religions that specifically states that followers must IMPOSE or FORCE their beliefs on anyone else. Nor do they state that religion and state MUST be mixed.
You are wrong. The Swiss passed it as a Constitutional amendment.
I stand corrected.
All I can say is, I’m glad that in the US of A amending the constitution is a considerably more involved process than just getting 57% of the popular vote.
Simply put,islam is evil and should be repressed whenever possible.
Absolutely correct LeighT and further the Bible is DESCRIPTIVE whereas the Koran is PRESCRIPTIVE a point completely lost on moonbat Islamic apologists. Mohammedans of course know that but who are they to look a moonbat a gullible, naive, uneducated, unthinking ‘gift horse’ in the mouth
Good for the Swiss.
Virtually all of the media went on autopilot in their abuse of the Swiss. What is at issue is the supposedly “sacred” freedom of religion, which has become an icon especially among left-wing intellectuals and the European niceness industry as a whole.
~~~~
these people are not even traditionally religious. (they support AGW – which is a religion of sorts) they may cry freedom of religion, but ONLY for non-Christian religions. If Christianity is invovled – it’s oppressive and must be stopped.
People have brought up the Nazis and the KKK. Yes, in the US the First Amendment says they can exist, and even hold rallies. But their actions are *not* unconstrained
An excellent point. It really begs the question, though, of why Europeans are trying to constrain precisely the superficial aspects of Islam like minarets and headscarves, which by themselves don’t pose a threat to anyone.
What really scares people are not minarets and headscarves, but Islamic political philosophy and the violent/seditious actions of certain individuals.
But I guess sorting through political philosophy and building criminal cases against individuals is much harder, messier work than outlawing architecture.
We’re going to have to address these issues in the US too sooner than later. This whole swiss minaret debacle just underscores for me how banning buildings and clothing can’t be the smart way to go.
I believe we in the US have constitional safeguards to keep us from going that way, even if that is our first gut response. And I’m glad for that.
Thank you, James Madison!
Let’s build the same number of churches in Saudi Arabia, next to Mecca and all over their nihilistic minarets. They can come to the west for a free ride and we Christians, Jews and Atheists cannot go to their countries to practice our religion in freedom?
In the non-Islamic world, psychopathy is a personality disorder: In the Islamic world, it is a learned behaviour trait institutionalised in a religion.
Robert Hare the Canadian criminal psychologist described psychopaths as “intraspecies predators who use charm, manipulation, intimidation, sex and violence to control others and to satisfy their own selfish needs. Lacking in conscience and empathy, they take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without guilt or remorse. What is missing, in other words, are the very qualities that allow a human being to live in social harmony. Psychopaths are glib and superficially charming, and many psychopaths are excellent mimics of normal human emotion; some psychopaths can blend in, undetected, in a variety of surroundings, including corporate environments.”
I haven’t found a better description of Islamic behaviour.
#2 Anon:
If you think those Old Testament injunctions are binding commandments on Christians, you don’t know diddly about Christianity.
Troll.
It’s unfortunate that the author chose to raise the status of Jesus by contrasting his own compassion with that of the Jews with their “cruel laws”. The oft-derided Pharisees actively used their authority and right to interpret the Written Law to effectively annul the more troublesome laws (cf. the “rebellious son”) as well as the prohibition against earning interest. The “eye for an eye” statement, as another example, was interpreted to mean *financial compensation*.But the truly interesting contrasts are between Judaism and Islam lie elsewhere.
For some 2,500 years – since the first exile – Jews have followed the principle of “dina de’malkhuta dina” – the law of the land is the law. We thus acknowledge the legitimacy of man-made laws, can swear allegiance to and fight for our countries, etc. Most Jewish prayer books include a special prayer for the welfare of their country and its leaders. There’s nothing comparable under Islam, which sees only God’s law – sharia – as legitimate.
Moreover, Jews have lived for centuries as a minority population; we’ve got a lot of experience on that score. But for most of Islamic history, Muslims have lived under Muslim authority, with “infidels” – non-Muslims – as a more or less tolerated minority. That is the natural state of affairs for them. So it’s no surprise that wherever one finds Muslims as a *minority* population, there are efforts to correct that state of affairs, whether by pushing for “special rights”, or autonomy, or independence. Europe’s experience with its Muslim minority is consistent with this history.
Leight T:Are all people pretending to be Wiccans illiterate, or am I generalizing? I just posted two, of many, commands by the supreme being in the Christian religion to murder. There is nothing in the New Testament that says that God was mistaken in ordering such genocide. I’ve never met a Wiccan who had such a flattering opinion of Christianity. Though I find it to be a fetish based comfort belief, most Wiccans are running as fast as they can from that faith.
Aren’t there laws in Islamic countries forbidding the construction of churches, synagogues and temples? And even if they are built, don’t these same places of worship get constantly attacked with mobs, taxes, kidnappings and what not? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander……Let the Swiss do what they have to do. Why don’t they ban mosques? Baby steps people, baby steps.
When Saudi, Pakistan, Sudan, Iran and other Islamic countries allow other religions to be practiced freely, then we can criticize the Swiss. Until then, GO TEAM SWISS GO!!!
If you think those Old Testament injunctions are binding commandments on Christians, you don’t know diddly about Christianity.
Oh really? What is Christian antagonism towards homosexuality and abortion based on then? The supposedly bleeding-heart New Testament? Are you people liars or simply so illiterate that you’ve actually never read your book? Say what you want about Muslims, the first thing they learn is to read the Koran, and most can recite it by heart. Christians seem remarkably unaware of what’s in the bible.
How convenient that the United States has come along 12 centuries after the establishment of Islam so that we can blame the inhumanities against the world committed because of the Doctrines of Islam on another people other than on Islam itself.
The United States and our alliance with various terror-supporting states like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are not to blame for the crimes Islamist militias have committed in the name of Islam. But our support of these states has empowered these militias, and our continued alliance with their supporters allows terrorism to thrive.
If we accept that Muslims have always wanted to conquer the west, then we have to ask ourselves why they have only become a threat in the past few decades. Why haven’t we been fighting Islam constantly throughout the centuries? What has changed?
Islam is notable for it’s lack of innovation and change. It has remained fairly constant. However, we have changed – and so have our attitudes towards war. We don’t fight our enemies directly anymore because we’re afraid that a war between powerful nations will result in a nuclear conflagration. So we fight wars of proxy. Iran is empowered by their alliance with Russia and Saudi Arabia is empowered by their alliance with us.
Since our government is working with the supporters of terrorism, it also have the ability to destroy them. After 9/11, we were able to basically crush the Taliban in Afghanistan with out any real large-scale military operations because we knew where they lived and we knew their routines. When al Sadr’s supporters in Iran and Russia thought that he was becoming inconvenient to them, he disappeared for a while, (bad sushi) and his armies were crushed.
We don’t need nukes, we don’t even need to deal with the issue of Islam. Ordinary Muslims have absolutely no control over the terrorists. Terror is supported by petrodollars, not the people.
The Islamists will always hate us and they will always want to destroy us, but our alliances with their supporters is the source of their current strength. Our alliances with them are also their greatest weakness, since we do (and always have had) the ability to destroy them, simply by refusing to support them and by using intelligence gathered against them.
If the American people are happy with the terrorist wars of proxy, and if they’re content to live their lives as soft targets, then they should ignore our government’s alliances with terrorism and continue to complain about minarets and calls to prayer. But if they want to actually destroy the terrorist infrastructure, they should use the power of their votes to demand that our government do what it has always been able to do.
Islam is notable for it’s lack of innovation and change. It has remained fairly constant.
I would suggest that that’s a relatively recent state of affairs engendered by the primacy of the decadent and corrupt Ottoman Empire. Its been historically true in fact that Islam was open to innovation and change. Indeed, so was Christianity until the late 19th century, when peasant backlashes began occuring and were later given much more credibility than they deserve by opportunistic politicians. Science and Christianity co-existed quite comfortably and even nurtured one another for several hundred years following the enlightenment. I would suggest that the same process of corruption has overtaken both Christianity and Islam, as much of the disgusting commentary by self-professed Christians on PJM indicates.
This is for the one,s in the dark dark who are undecided if islam will threaten
thir children.
You know nothing of these people. We are at war with this faith.
In 2004 I started worked for a company (and have done so for the past 5 years ) who supplied the Home Office with housing for immigrants and asylum seekers..
From picking them up from so called short stay small winnable hotels who supplied them with a bedroom ,dining room and main lounge to taxiing them to the house or flat they had been given by my company who claimed the rent and all the attached charges to that house. Back from the HO.
Most of these people had a grasp of English and 95 % thought I was a british muslim and spoke reasonable english when speaking to me.
Not so when talking to English immigration officials.
Note I say English as I am English and I speak English.
They would ask for an enterptreter and would not answer any question put to them in English
90% of these houses were owned by muslims who rented them out to my company who rented them out to the HO.
The houses would be deep cleaned and i woulld sign them off as ready for the immigrant/asylum seekerr.family or goup of men or women..
In the 5 years up to the present day looking at my completion sheets i have signed off 1366 houses for ocupation by these people.
Are you still there LILY?
Looking at my completion sheets for the tick for each house kept clean up to 2 weeks after habitation I find 6 out of 1366.
Most were pig styes within 0ne week, denoted on my sheets by a pigs head ,,,with toilets backing up, washing machine broke,.c/h boilers broke ., back yards and gardens full of rubbish just thrown attracting rats and a large number had cockroaches brought in the belongings of these people and sometimes I found them in my people carrier.
I was fortunate to be called into the office for about a month as one of the assistants was on maternity leave with her seventh child .(, no prizes for guessing what faith.)
In that month I saw and photographed what my company is charging for each asylum seeker/immigrant each week to the English man in the street. ..£620 a week what do you think of that Lilly.
Still with me Lily.?????????
The only time I saw many these people clean was on a Friday when they went to the mosque..
Lilly,
Have you worked with these people.
Have you eaten 1000,s of meals with them.
Have you slept in the same room as them on and off for five years.
Have you discussed their faith many hundreds of time with different male and female muslins.
Have you ever followed them into a toilet and found footmarks on the toilet seat where they have stood to do what they have to do..
This faith is beneath what you and I know.
Still with me lily.
Have you seen young Muslim gangs baying around 12 an 13 year old white girls and after using them pass them around like cigarettes. Do you know hundreds of 30 – 40 year old Muslim men living with underage white girls indoctrinating them into the Islamic faith.
Have you driven hundreds of black/afghan/iranian/somalians /Iraqis to the unemployment exchanges to sign on and go for interviews regarding finding work then drive them back to their taxi firms where they carry on working in their taxis.
Have you been present wham a Muslim as claimed for 4-6 different wives at 4-6 different addresses.
They tell me in private their faith enforces the treatment of gentiles and Jews as filth.
How does that sit with you Lilly?
And they do the same in each country they intestate,, first they get the taxi driving jobs which allows them to deal in cash,they send cash back to their own country invest the cash into houses which this government can,t tax because they don,t know of it and then let the houses out to their own who are on benefits, whilst still being able to be at the mosques on a Friday.
Obviously you don’t get out much and do not know what this religion is capable of but—- it seems the Swiss do?. Out of 7 million Swiss already there is 5% muslims.
Christianity has a very distinct political dimension based on three key tenets.
The first tenet is the need for a Separation of Church and State. Old Testament Israel practiced the separation of church and state and Jesus and Paul both advocated it in the New Testament. The Biblical principle of separation of church and state should not be confused with the modern liberal interpretation which really aims to separate government from God and universal standards of morality.
The second tenet is that government is limited in its authority. Jesus’ command to render unto Caesar what is his and to God what it is His essentially limits the power of government over the individual. No government has the authority to sanction evil or to compel believers to commit evil acts. The authority of government comes from God and must obey His edicts in order to have legitimacy.
The third tenet is that individual faith and morality are required for a nation and its people to prosper and live in freedom.
It is not so much that Christianity has no political dimension but that the political dimension of Christianity is the foundation of western civilization. The tenets of Islam, espcially its political dimensions, runs counter to the tenets of western civilization. To accept Islam is to undermine western civilization and therefore it must be rejected if western civilization is to survive. Acceptance of Islam under the guise of religious freedom will eventual undermine the very civilization committed to religious freedom and thus destroy religious freedom.
anon: Nice of you to take the conversation in another direction because you cannot rationally debate. Look if you feel that Christianity is as bad as islam, fine. If you believe that islam poses no threat to you, fine. If you believe that you will find more freedoms under islam, again, fine. Go live in some islmaic ruled nation.
Just because you are a paid poster here replete with ready-made topical quotes to establish your defense, we are supposed to care what you write. No, you are a tool and fun to “debate” with.
The Swiss PEOPLE decided this action. It is their prerogitive. And who cares what the muslim minority thinks or feels. They are supposed to assimilate into a culture not force a culture to become muslim. They can go back to their muslim nations.
And just because the LEFT has made this Faustian deal with Islam we are also supposed to accede to their whims. No way!!! We have suffered enough at the hands of islam and muslims. Let there be another attack either by a single person or group and you will see how angry real Americans can be.
“52. Mary Madigan:
If we accept that Muslims have always wanted to conquer the west, then we have to ask ourselves why they have only become a threat in the past few decades. Why haven’t we been fighting Islam constantly throughout the centuries? What has changed?”
You make the wrong assumption ..”That islam has just been a treat the last few decades”. Just ask Constantanople, amongst others. The history is replete with the moslim threat.
And you draw the wrong conclusion about… “What has changed”. What has changed is that islam is a cancer. Up until the last decades it was confined in location. With the islamic diaspora however, it has metastasized and now threatens the entire body of civilized humanity. Petro dolors give it a bit more energy, but it is not the main problem.
Islam is.
Where I live, everything is Georgian architecture-the local gas stations, the groceries, drug stores, schools-everything.
It would be quite difficult to get any other architecture passed here and why would anyone want to spoil the character of a town or city anyway ?
I don’t believe a minerat is essential for prayer, is it ?
I have no intention of defending the Swiss. I think they have done enough in the past for me to be suspicious of their intentions, but otoh, I am also suspicious of anyone who insists on altering the character of a skyline/changing the nature of any community. It appears to be not only selfish and inconsiderate but might indicate an agenda to push the envelope and assert dominance as well.
Islam differs from all other religions in that it has within itself an element which insists that the religion of the Q’uran may be imposed by force. This element within Islam is intolerant of other beliefs. No better evidence exists than the situation in most of Arabia where the only permitted religious expression is that of Islam. If this element were not so, there would still be Christian communities in Asia Minor and north Africa. Christianity and Judaism disappeared in the Middle East within a century following the death of Mohammed not by voluntary conversion but by force of arms. It is naive to think that this element does not exist today in Europe and now increasingly so in the United States.
Christianity has a very distinct political dimension based on three key tenets.
In fact, its western tenets of democracy that profess these ideas. They are a product of throwing off the yoke of religious oppression. Christianity at its heart is a religion, which is used politically every day. You don’t understand the issues you’re discussing.
39. Naif Mabat:
All I can say is, I’m glad that in the US of A amending the constitution is a considerably more involved process than just getting 57% of the popular vote.
Sorta’ true Naif, however the mechanism is not much more complicated in the USA to amend the Constitution. Seeing as we are still a Republic.. at least for now, it could take far less than 57 % popular vote to ban islam. In fact it could be done without the aid of the twelve most populous states. Which means it could be done over the objections of about 58% of the US population.
Yes, thank our Founders for their wisdom indeed.
Response to Anon @32 The genocide of the Old Testament was not the subjugation of unbelievers but the annihilation of the people of Canaan for their evil. After the conquest of the Jewish promised land, the Jews were not told to go out and continue their conquests of the unbelievers. The Jews never marched against the unbelievers of Assyria, Egypt, or Babylon. Their conquest and genocide dealt mainly with those in the land promised to Abraham. The genocide of the Old Testament was never glorified as praised as you claim.
Response to Anon @51: The genocide committed in Canaan was not the norm for the Old Testament but a specific war of conquest. The injunction to wage such a war was for a specific time and place; therefore, it does not have the normative value that you would like to subscribe to it.
Opposition to homosexuality is found in both the Old and New Testament. Remove the Old Testament injunctions against it and the New Testament still condemns it.
Response to Anon @53: Toward the end of the 19th century, science actually left its Christian roots. Science became its own god and demanded that man worship at its feet. Christians are not opposed to science we just do not think morality can be sacrificed on the altar of scientific research or that science can answer the higher story questions of life.
Islam, if it is to be modernized and domesticated, must be approached from within and its own contradictions laid bare, theologically. Bu ti is a task both political and religious to accomplish. This is why Pope Benedict’s “off-hand” question (not a pejorative statement) in a German university speech, was so deep-cutting. Islam abjures the limits of reason as applying to God, in favor of his omnipotence, BECAUSE of the awesome of dignity in which deity is perceived in Islam (vice personal relation with a deity who is relatable to human reason). Essentially, the only sin in Islam that provides a possibly happy road into the collapsing these contradictions are Blasphemy and Idolatry.
Christians, in regard to the state, are to be as St. Thomas More instructed us on his scaffold, “the king’s good servant, but God’s first.” An Islamic state asserts the right to dictate temporal affairs in the name of God’s presumed revelation once and for all men at all times. Western religious understanding, asserts first that God’s revelations are 1) not yet completely revealed, and 2) individually and communally related. The Church and conscience are the inseparable poles of that continuing revelation, understood dogmatically.
Thus the Christian’s answer as St. Thomas suggests to unjust demands of the State are that “I am governed by two things alone, God first, and my consent second. First, I do not consent, and second — you are not God.”
It is in the second point that the ideology of Islam founders on the rocks of Idolatry and Blasphemy. For the Islamized society requires a maximal leader to speak in the presumed name of God — with all the moral peril of Blaphemy that presumption suggests– and to do so through the vehicle of the solitary and inerrant guide of text which is elevated to equality (“uncreated”)with God — with all the trappings of idolatry which it repeatedly demonstrates — and yet losing the genuine personhood of the Word of God.
So, two simultaneous strategies are evident in the moral struggle against these historically recurring fascistic elements within Islam — one political, one religious. The political strategy is secular, but with a pointedly religious yet non-religious reference: “You are not God, — you are not even a prophet of God.”
The second is religious and emphasizes that nothing is the equal of God’s perfection in His lack of error, not what other men say and not even what his wholly imperfect prophets hold out as his revelation. So the risk of moral error cannot be removed, and no text can save you — risk of moral error is always and everywhere — and requires eternal individual and communal vigilance to avoid and to identify and redeem past errors. This terror of error underlies the brittle veneer of peace in Islam based on its false idol of textual perfection, which is easily and constantly contradicted — hence the violent reaction that even tangential straying provokes.
Only one complaint:
Nationalism is not, by itself, bad. I both love and believe in my country. I don’t view it as bad, therefore, I am a nationalist.
Fascism, Islamo-Fascism, National Socialism, etc, are all different aspects of the same animal. Thy exist to deprive the common man of freedom and opportunity, and lock the wealthy elite into a corrupt relationship with government.
That said, it defeats my pessimism when europeans like Hege Storhaug identify Islam as a Fascism cloaked in the trappings of Religion.
The other thing that should never be left unmentioned:
Mohammed was a Pedophile, and is the justification for widespread, and legal pedophelia in the Islamic world.
Kipling, your appreciation of Christian genocide is the usual nonsense–when we did its ok for x, y, z, but bad for x, y, z in others. BS, not fit for discourse.
The only issue that can be honestly debated is whether there were admonitions against homosexuality and abortion in the New Testament. It actually reinforces my fundamental point about Christianity being no different than Islam, but go ahead and prove your claim.
Response to Anon @60: Sir or Madam, you make me laugh. The points I discussed are found in the Old and New Testament and thus pre-date your concept of western democracy. I am afraid it is you who do not fully understand the concepts you discuss, their origins, and their impact on western civilization. If you care to challenge my position with intelligent points rather than an ignorant dismissal, then I will be happy to discuss it with you.
The author has not understood the basics of secularity at all.
“Can anyone in my own country of Norway, for example, point to a single — I repeat, a single – Muslim congregation within our borders that is secular? ”
Secularity is an adjective for states and governments, not people and individuals. It stands for neutrality to all religions. How can an individual be neutral to all religions ??? I am a Muslim and of course I will be adherent to Islam. The same applies to any religion.
The Europeans have a lot to learn before they can get out of their set of minds. Their tolerance against other nations/religions is only when that religion or nation is miniscule so does not pose a threat. Otherwise, they start banning.
With the islamic diaspora however, it has metastasized and now threatens the entire body of civilized humanity. Petro dolors give it a bit more energy, but it is not the main problem.
Islam is.
Britain has always had a very cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Not coincidentally, Britain also gave sanctuary to many of the worst sunni-sponsored terrorists out there. The Egyptian and other Arab governments were enraged by Britain’s actions.
The Danish cartoon crisis was basically manufactured by the Saudis, and they also managed the Muslim boycott of Danish goods. The Saudis suffered no repercussions from their obvious attempts to destabilize the Danish government and enforce sharia laws within Danish borders.
The Iranian government declared their attempt to assassinate a British citizen for the ‘crime’ of criticizing Mohammed in a book. The British government did not take any action against the Iranian government for what was clearly an act of war, and an attempt to enforce sharia laws within Britain’s borders.
If you think that petrodollars and western alliances with terror supporting states have nothing to do with that, you are not living in the real world.
67. Mehmet: “The Europeans have a lot to learn before they can get out of their set of minds. Their tolerance against other nations/religions is only when that religion or nation is miniscule so does not pose a threat. Otherwise, they start banning.”
Oh yes… and Islamo Nazism (Sharia) is such a bastion of Freedom and Tollerance…
NOT!
Go clean your own disgusting house before you lecture the rest of the world.
“68. Mary Madigan: If you think that petrodollars and western alliances with terror supporting states have nothing to do with that, you are not living in the real world.”
Of course that is a weak straw man Mary. Ascribing an absolute arguemnt where none was made. Now my exact words on the mater were
“Petro dolors give it a bit more energy, but it is not the main problem.” Hardy saying that petro dollars have “nothing” to do with it now does it?
However your slur about not living in the real world may be a projection based on your claim that it is only the last few decades that islam has been a threat. islam has always been a threat, long before petro dollars and islam has always embraced the tactic of terrorism long before the British Empire came to be. Your focus are just a few factors which aid today islam’s historical requirement of conquest.
65. Anon: “It actually reinforces my fundamental point about Christianity being no different than Islam, but go ahead and prove your claim.”
Mohammed was a PEDOPHILE! And it’s perfectly legal to be a pedophile in countries where Sharia is the legal system of choice.
Yes, Christianity and Judaism don’t suck the way Islamopigism does…
Wow Piers Brown! I just returned from a day in Egypt can attest to the unimaginable filth, but your experience is a mind-blowing exposé.
The rest of the world could at least stand up and condemn polygamy in all respects without mentioning the one religion which promotes it. The inevitable result of polygamous society is extra, useless men, degradation of females and inbreeding. no matter what the religion. Thus it is such a neat demographic trick that Mohammed, aka Satan, endorsed; military expansion, killing infidels and enslavement (to find women for the extra men). Then, he sanctioned the sexual “relief valve” of bestiality and child rape to soothe those extra men who are unlikely to find wives. Now that military conquest is not feasible (until Iran gets their bomb), they kill each other indiscriminately to balance the population.
I assume some of the defenders of Islam on this forum are in reality unwitting male victims of polygamy, with no hope of having a family, so this is all they have to do.
68. Mary Madigan: The Danish cartoon crisis was basically manufactured by the Saudis
Uh… no. It flared up in Pakistan before it flared up anywhere.
Reply to Anon @65: You may need to read my post @ 62 again. My post did not express an appreciation for the genocide conducted in Canaan. Nor did I state that it was okay and seek to justify it. The post @62 simply corrected your erroneous interpretation of the genocide as normative to the Old Testament and later Christian experience. Such was not the case. To prove your original point, you would have to demonstrate the continuation of genocide outside of Canaan somewhere in the Old Testament. You would also have to show where Jesus encouraged Christians to pursue genocide as a means of subjugating unbelievers.
There is no debate regarding the condemnation of homosexuality in the New Testament. Please see 1 Timothy 1:10 and Romans 1:18-22.
Do you always misrepresent, dismiss, or refuse to discuss points that you cannot refute? It is a sign of intellectual dishonesty and frankly demonstrates the weakness of your position. I expect better.
As to your claim that Christianity is no different from Islam, I can point to several differences including the civilizations they produced. If you care to be specific rather than issuing gross generalizations, we can proceed.
Uh… no. It flared up in Pakistan before it flared up anywhere.
wancow – on what date did it flare up in pakistan?
islam has always been a threat, long before petro dollars and islam has always embraced the tactic of terrorism long before the British Empire came to be.
really. And how much time did you spend reading about Islam before Sept. 11, 2001? How much did you know about the conflicts and the alliances between the sunnis and the shi’ites? On Sept. 10, 2001, what were you more worried about – the Islamic caliphate or the shark attacks in Florida?
Even after the Saudi oil embargo, most Americans did not see Islam as any kind of threat at all. I was in Germany in 1987, when skinheads were beating up Turkish immigrants and when the only debate about Muslims was how to get Muslim guest workers to leave after they were no longer necessary.
People are currently frightened by Muslims because we see that our governments are not able to effectively fight Islamist terrorism. But there are reasons for that which have nothing to do with Islam.
It is not so much that Christianity has no political dimension but that the political dimension of Christianity is the foundation of western civilization. The tenets of Islam, espcially its political dimensions, runs counter to the tenets of western civilization.
And that is precisely why the left loathes Christianity and makes every excuse in the world for Islam. They are sick with hatred for their own civilization and furious with the rest of us, who do not share their white guilt and self-hatred.
Not that their self-hatred wins them any fans among the Islamists. I’ve noticed that not only are there no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia, there seems to be a curious lack of militant atheists and gay couples as well. Islam accepts the help of dopey leftist Westerners now; under Sharia law, their heads would not remain attached to their shoulders for long.
Kipling: “anon” is, I suspect, “moho” who has gotten the stuffing beaten out of him in threads having to do with Islam ever since he let slip he was raised Muslim.
The handful of dolts who regularly troll PJM occasionally use different nics, since they want to make it look like, well, like they’re a whole bunch of different dolts. You don’t expect honesty from liberal trolls, now do you? The similiarities in writing styles and their general cluelessness betrays them.
76. Mary Madigan
I was wrong, it flared up in Gaza first, January 2006 is when the first violence occurred.
On October 5, 2005 Oct. 12, 2005:
“The Palestinian representative in Denmark and ambassadors from 10 countries with Muslin populations send a letter to Fogh Rasmussen demanding a meeting with him and urging action against Jyllands-Posten. Fogh Rasmussen would later decline to meet with them.”
My point was, it wasn’t Saudi driven. Not that I’m a fan of the Saudis… but it wasn’t some kind of central planning, it was inhearent in the anti-freedom ideology that is islamo-crappism..
sorry, forgot the link
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/islam/muhammad_cartoons_timeline.html
Donna V.: I wondered if it was moho. I agree that most modern leftists abandoned honesty a long time ago. It was a hinderance to their greater cause. So, no, I don’t expect intellectual honesty on the left. I mainly write to counter their posts for the benefit of undecided readers who need to hear the Christian conservative position. Who knows, there might be hope for moho, anon, and others out there.
wancow – thanks for the link.
As far as I know, the jihad/boycott response to the cartoons started at about the same time as the rioting by ‘youth’ in France. On October 15th, a blogger, Vladmir at InfoVlad noted that he had seen signs in Denmark threatening violent jihad. He had seen those same posters in Sweden. Riots by oppressed and/or humiliated Muslims in Paris started at about the same time.
The media was portraying all of those riots as ‘spontaneous’, but the rioters in Denmark admitted that they had been planning their spontaneous outbursts for three weeks.
The issue sort of faded from view for a while. According to the CBC timeline, Danish Muslims travelled in the Middle East trying to get support for their jihad.
In January I noticed that a blog that had published the cartoons, L’Ombre d’Olivier, was suddenly getting a lot of hate mail from individual Saudis. Those hate mails seemed to have started around January 13th.
According to the CBC timeline, on Jan. 26, 2006:
“Saudi Arabia withdraws its ambassador to Denmark. Danish companies report boycotts and stores removing Danish products from their shelves”. On Jan. 30, 2006: Masked gunmen storm an EU office in Gaza City to protest the cartoons. Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, which originally printed the cartoons, posts an apology on its website, saying it regrets offending Muslims, but stands by its decision to carry the cartoons. Danish Muslims later demand a clearer apology, saying the one posted was “ambiguous.”
The cartoon jihad started with the Danish Muslims, but it didn’t get much traction until they enlisted the help of the Saudis. Since the Saudi hate mail started in mid January, I’d guess that the Saudi press was working to stir things up before going public.
And all the while, the mass media was pretending that the whole thing was a spontaneous outburst. Most were also refusing to publish the cartoons.
It wasn’t entirely Saudi driven, but a great deal of central planning was involved. The Danish muslims who initiated the cartoon jihad were members of Hizb ut-Tahrir, the European branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood are the ideological and financial managers of al Qaeda and many other Saudi supporter terrorist militias.
76. Mary Madigan:
Once again you resort to distraction and red herrings. When I became aware of the islamic threat is of little bearing on the fact that such a threat has been in existence since muhamhead first started this cult.
You have done nothing to refute such either.
It is interesting that you seem to think I need intimate knowledge of various islamic sects before making a sensical decision based on the actions of islam, actions past and present. True I did not study the koran much until islam showed itself to be a immediate threat. But then I would not need to read Mien Kampf either to understand Hitler and the nazi’s were an enemy.
There is no difference between islamic terrorism(a tactic) and islam. They are one and the same.
You are likely right that governments are somewhat ineffective on this. It will probably take action by the peoples of the world ourselves.
Leight T:Are all people pretending to be Wiccans illiterate, or am I generalizing? I just posted two, of many, commands by the supreme being in the Christian religion to murder. There is nothing in the New Testament that says that God was mistaken in ordering such genocide. I’ve never met a Wiccan who had such a flattering opinion of Christianity. Though I find it to be a fetish based comfort belief, most Wiccans are running as fast as they can from that faith.
Anon.. it is true that many Wiccans have very negative views of Christianity as many are converts who experienced intolerance in Christian churches. But dont stereotype Wiccans. I was raised Lutheran and did not experience intolerance, so while I converted, there are no hard feelings… so just as not all Christians are the same, neither are Wiccans.
Christians still abide by certain things in the Old Testament, like the 10 Commandments and yes, many cite the Old Testament prohibition on homosexuality. My guess is that because Jesus didnt address homosexuality, certain Christians can state that it is still in force. However, the Christian community is far from agreement on that score, and that because in Christianity, you CAN disagree on what is important in the Bible and what is not. Show me Muslims who disagree with the Koran on homosexuality. By the way, slavery was justified by the Bible for centuries, which Jesus telling slaves that to obey their masters and yet these “evil” people were behind getting it stamped out in most of the world. Guess who runs most of the slave trade now?
The European Union calling anyone Nazis is a laugh. The European Union is doing through agreements, what Hitler wanted to do through war.
On Islam, this Christian will turn the other cheek no more.
ROPMA!
Now this could get interesting, Turkey (as well as the Green Party in Germany), is calling for the removal of Islamic money from Switzerland ( AFP report via Yahoo news ).
Kipling: “anon” is, I suspect, “moho” who has gotten the stuffing beaten out of him in threads having to do with Islam ever since he let slip he was raised Muslim.
If I were Moho, I would feel pretty vindicated by your response. You’ve proved nothing except that your prejudices trump your reasoning skills.
What rational non-Muslim would rather live under Sharia than in a modern western country? So why do people sacrifice truth for Political Correctness? Is it the common believe, these days, that all cultures and religions are equally valid, and to change this belief would create enough Cognitive Dissonance that people not strongly committed to truth couldn’t face it? I’m guessing most Politicians know the truth but realize they will not remain in office if they speak the truth. Maybe they hope to resist Islam in more clever and quiet ways. Some may fear the Muslim violence that would result more than they fear a worldwide caliphate and Sharia in some distant future Maybe it will just go away by itself. In other words it is plain old human weakness, Christians call it “depravity”, that stops us from calling a spade a spade and starting the fight for our freedoms now, before it gets worse. Most of us will be gone by the time the worst happens, so let our kids deal with it down the road.
The evidence that Islam is incompatible with Western norms of justice, law, and tolerance has become indisputable.: Not even close
What remains is only for us to marshal the will and resolve to quarantine it to those lands already hagridden by it.:Yeah, that and actually having the money to do so. Too bad you idiots decided to blow our wad on Iraq, we’d be lucky to be able to pay the interest on our loans to China for the next one hundred years.
78. Donna V.
“The handful of dolts who regularly troll PJM occasionally use different nics, since they want to make it look like, well, like they’re a whole bunch of different dolts. You don’t expect honesty from liberal trolls, now do you? The similiarities in writing styles and their general cluelessness betrays them.”
Anon is Pee Wee moho’s funhouse mirror. So it’s Pee Wee Anon Wannabe Jihadist from here on as well.
And it appears that the Twilight Zone dummy has taken possession of its handler. This flips every so often.
Pee Wee Anon, how’s Van Jones doing? Did Mr. President get him a “job” yet? And those muggers…
“Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I doubt a ban like this would pass constitutional muster in the US, regardless of how many people voted for it.”
The US Constitution is a ‘living’ document. That means it evolves to match the society it defines. I know, that is a chicken and the egg thing, but it is what it is.
A Constitutional amendment is the legal way to change the Constitution. The Judical system can make extra-legal changes thru rulings, but those rulings are subordinate to a Constitutional Amendment.
There is a 3rd way, which is an Article 5 Constitutional Convention.
Remember America is a REPUBLIC. If 2/3′s of the states (33 as it stands now) want to make Islam illegal, they can.
Or, if the USSC reules that Islam is NOT a religion, but a criminal enterprise, then yes, the ATF can do to mosques what they did in Waco, Texas.
I can’t imagine that happening, which doesn’t mean it won’t. Any ‘rights’ Americans have are subject to both interpretation and curtailment thru the Amendment process.
That is why Americans MUST remain vigilant in regards to their rights. You have to use them as well as defend them, otherwise the government will take them away.
“Jews have peacefully lived in Switzerland for the past 2,000 years.”
(Dave 27 above)
Yes, and they are both very happy.
(No offense dave, just a little humor)
Spindok
Jews back Muslims on minaret ban
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1259831455845&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
However, Jewish organizations, realizing that a crackdown on Islam could have repercussions for Jews as well, have come to the defense of Muslim worshipers, arguing that the Swiss’s move was unjustifiable.
Rabbi Pinchas Dunner, executive director of the Conference of European Rabbis, an Orthodox organization, said “a war on religious freedom cannot defeat Islamic extremists. The best weapon against radical Islam is support for moderate elements in the Muslim community and promoting interfaith dialogue.”
In contrast, the Anti-Defamation League tied the move to religious discrimination against Jews.
“This is not the first time a Swiss popular vote has been used to promote religious intolerance,” said the ADL in a press release. “A century ago, a Swiss referendum banned Jewish ritual slaughter, in an attempt to drive out its Jewish population.”
gboisjo:
Do you actually have a point to make, or are you going to ignore the ball entirely?
Thomas_L……:
Get a grip on yourself! They’ve banned minarets, not mosques or Islam. Steeples for crying out loud!”
Agreed. But what would you say if switzerland banned steeples because they think there are too many christians around? It’s stupid, basically.
“I suppse you would be comfortable with one springing up on every corner”
Who suggested that they’re going to? Is that your attempt at a straw man, or is it just the most ridiculous argument you could think of?
“Considering they’ve banned churches and synagogues in Islamic countries, what’s your point?”
That it’s unecessary, unhelpful and wrong. Just because the world’s creepiest countries do it doesn’t mean the good guys should be following their lead.
‘Get a grip’ on a good book:
“who continue to deny that Islam as a whole is not just about religion”
When did I deny any such thing? I just pointed out that christianity has its own political aspirations. ALL religions do. There’s no such thing as “just about religion”. The moment you draw a line around a group of people, you’ve got a political angle. Chuck in a story about identity, and right vs wrong and it’s inherently political.
“who don’t understand Arab imperialism via the political and legal ambitions of Sharia”
Explain how that’s relevant please.
“who fail to see the human rights violations that get cover under the banner of “religion”:”
Woah – back up, there. I’m well aware of the problems in backward cultures, but you don’t solve them by banning steeples.
Stephen Fox:
“So – wait till it is before realising it’s too late to do anything?”
Did you even think before posting that? What does “too late” mean – 6 or 7 minarets? And too late for what? What the heck does banning minarets actually save anybody from? It’s a dumb gesture that does nothing but stoke up antipathy – it doesn’t moderate anybody, doean’t stop migration, doesn’t reform. Explain what you’re trying to say, please.
Response to LeighT @84: The New Testament is clear on its condemnation of homosexuality. People who call themselves Christian and yet deny the authority of Scripture on the issue of homosexuality – or on any other issue on which it speaks – are in direct rebellion against God and His Scripture. Some denominations have abandoned the authority of Scripture to follow after the moral relativism of the world. They have made it clear who is their god and their authority. They have trimmed their sails to the winds of the world and refused to stand with the Lord.
Scripture did not so much justify slavery as it recognized it and sought to regulate it. Neither the Old or New Testament acknowledge involuntary lifetime servitude based on race or any other factor. In fact the Old Testament code on the treatment of slaves and foreigners was actually more humane than any other in existence. The New Testament recognized slavery but also held that the gospel drew no distinction and that even the slave and the master were brothers.
Response to Anon @87: You will find no prejudices in my response to you. If you are moho and were raised a Muslim, that makes no difference to me.
Response to Anon @89: Nice try at misdirection but anyone paying attention to politics knows that Mr. Obama has ballooned the deficit beyond anything ever imagined with his stimulus slush fund.
I have been reading “A History of the Arab Peoples” by Hourani. According to him, the Qur’an doesn’t say word one about Mosques, Minarets or the 5 Pillars. Those were added to the religion between the 8th and 9th century. In the Hadith.
The original Islamic ‘surge’ had created an enormous empire that the Mualims didn’t have the warriors to hold down. So they used a more subtle approach. Shi’ra is not very liberal for the 21st century but it was the cat’s meow back in the 7th. Very advanced social concepts for it’s day. So the religion itself was a vast improvement over other religions of that period.
The minaret was a symbol of Islamic power, just as the Man-O-War was a symbol of European power a thousand years later. Secular power. The mosque was not only a place of worship, but a courthouse and city hall, as well as the village square. Sometimes in the smaller villages it was the only solid building, which made it the shopping mall as well as the local Fort/police station. This was intentional. It was a way to assert Islamic control and spread the faith.
As far as the separation of church and state, it varies from sect to sect. Some think that the secular ruler should rule according to the principals of Islam and secular rulers that don’t need to be removed. Removed means dagger politics or poison in the wine. Some Caliphs just killed the ulama (plural for Alim and Imam) that gave them problems. They mostly died shortly thereafter. Other sects see the Imam as a secular leader also. So it really varies both in time and place.
To me the most important difference in Islam is that religion is considered a science. The only real science is religion. That is why the Muslims missed the scientific revolution and are still stuck in the 7th century AD.
The New Testament is clear on its condemnation of homosexuality.
You keep saying this, while providing absolutely no evidence, leading one to believe that you are desperately trying to convince yourself.
Nice try at misdirection but anyone paying attention to politics knows that Mr. Obama has ballooned the deficit beyond anything ever imagined with his stimulus slush fund.
How US is deferring war costs
That’s actually not true. GW Bush added trillions of dollars to the deficit with the Iraq war, paid on credit. You never seem to know what you’re talking about. I mean, really, dude, how do you think we managed to pay for that without taxes. Do you think special war dollars grow on little money trees in the White House backyard?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0116/p01s01-usfp.html
NEW YORK – To pay for World War II, Americans bought savings bonds and put extra notches in their belts. President Harry Truman raised taxes and cut nonmilitary spending to pay for the Korean conflict. During Vietnam, the US raised taxes but still watched deficits soar.
But to pay for the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US has used its credit card, counting on the Chinese and other foreign buyers of its debt to pay the bills.
Now, as President Bush is promising to boost the number of troops in Iraq, there is increased scrutiny over how the US is going to pay for it all.
The US is spending about $10 billion a month on Iraq and Afghanistan. By the end of this year, the total funds appropriated will be nearly $600 billion – approaching the amount spent on the Vietnam or Korean wars, when adjusted for inflation.
However, the actual impact of the war on the economy is different than in the past, largely because the US economy is so much bigger now. During World War II, some analysts calculate that the US spent as much as 30 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on the war effort. The Korean War, at its spending peak in 1953, represented 14 percent of GDP; Vietnam was about 9 percent. The current war, however, is less than 1 percent of America’s annual $13 trillion GDP.
Payment due: in the future
The US can certainly afford the war, says budget analyst Stan Collender, a managing director of Qorvis Communications in Washington. But the spending is taking resources from other areas, he notes. Because the US is borrowing to finance the war, the cost will be borne by future generations. “And it’s still going to be one of the most expensive wars we have ever fought,” he says.
Unlike in previous major wars, the United States has cut taxes at the same time it has increased military spending. “It’s fair to say all of the money spent on the war has been borrowed,” says Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a think tank in Washington. “But eventually everything has to be paid for.”
Congressional questioning
Congress hopes to hold hearings on the financial implications of the war before the president releases his budget proposal for fiscal year 2008 on Feb. 5. Democrats, now in the majority, plan to ask a wide range of questions, from the future costs of the war to how those costs should be budgeted.
“We won’t balance the budget in one year. The best we can expect is five years,” says Rep. John Spratt (D) of South Carolina, the new chairman of the House Budget Committee, in a phone interview. “But we need to know: What is the bar we need to reach?”
Estimating the budget deficit has become more difficult in recent years because the White House has funded much of the war through emergency supplemental bills, which are not included in the federal budget. According to a Congressional Research Service report, it is a practice that other administrations have employed since the Korean War. This year, the White House is expected to ask for another $100 billion in supplemental war funds, but Representative Spratt says he would like to get the war back on the budget since it can be argued the war is no longer an emergency.
“Calling it an emergency means the spending does not get the scrutiny,” he adds, because then the spending is reviewed by only one committee – House Appropriations. In addition, he says, emergency spending is exempt from caps on discretionary spending. This has prompted the military to include in the bill items that are not directly related to the war. Making the spending a part of the budget would end the practice of some members placing pet projects on a bill that must be passed, he says.
A war-by-war cost comparison
Numbers are fuzzy on how much has been spent so far on the global war on terror. According to the House Appropriations Committee, some $471 billion has been committed so far. Spratt says it’s closer to $507 billion. By the end of this year, on a cash basis, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be closing in on the costs of the Vietnam War ($650 billion in today’s dollars) and the Korean War ($691 billion).
Some analysts believe the cost of the war is much higher than Congress estimates. In a study last January and updated in October, Harvard Prof. Linda Bilmes and Columbia Prof. Joseph Stiglitz estimated the budgetary and economic cost of the war at $2 trillion.
Ms. Bilmes, in a phone interview, says Congress looks only at its cash outlays, not at the war’s future costs. For example, she says, an estimated 42,000 light trucks are in use in Iraq. Although it costs something to run them, the major cost will be replacing them. “That’s not factored into the cost of the war,” she says.
The same is true of the cost of taking care of injured veterans in the future. “After our study came out, what surprised us is that the VFW, the Vietnam Vets, and others said, ‘Thanks for shining the spotlight on this issue, but your numbers are too low,’ ” Bilmes says. After working with the vets, she concluded that the future costs of caring for the wounded were much higher than she had estimated.
Just the cash costs alone have mushroomed over the past two years, says Steve Kosiak, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a think tank in Washington. He estimates that Congress has appropriated nearly $300 billion during that period. “Perhaps some of the additional cost is for repairing the equipment,” he says. “But it’s fair to say it’s partly a mystery why it’s up so much.”
Polls show people are concerned about the war, says Dennis Jacobe, chief economist at the Gallup Organization in Washington. But, he adds, “they are not concerned about the cost.”
This is partly because of the way the war is funded through the supplemental budget process, Mr. Jacobe says. But it’s also because the war has not disrupted the economy the same way past wars have. “It’s really had no significant impact except for the deficit spending,” he says.
Amazing and Excellent. Very Very interesting and engaging – the article as well as the debate.
Reply to Anon @98: Obviously you did not read my previous responses to one of your posts @74 where I provide you with chapter and verse. Here it is again. “There is no debate regarding the condemnation of homosexuality in the New Testament. Please see 1 Timothy 1:10 and Romans 1:18-22.” These are just two verses, I can provide others.
Reply to Anon @99: Yet another lame attempt at misdirection. Your post does nothing to disprove the point that Mr. Obama has raised the deficit more than any President or group of Presidents in history. I never argued that the United States paid for the Iraq War like it did WWII or that Bush did not contribute to the deficit. My point was that Mr. Obama makes Bush look like a miser in regards to governemnt spending.
Why is it that you cannot respond to the point raised? Instead of answering honestly, you always feel the need to contruct a false argument, attribute it to your opponent, and then attack the opponent for making an argument that he or she never made. As the kids say today, “That’s some weak sauce!”
Why is it that you cannot respond to the point raised?
I did. A) You haven’t provided the actual text of the verses, after taking the ten seconds to google I can see why. They didn’t prove your point at all:
for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine
And:
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
Its the reader who must supply the definition of “pervert” here. There is no mention of homosexuality specifically, but there is of adultery, something the Republican party knows a lot about. If this is what you’re basing God’s words on, then you’re going straight to hell.
You’re a liar and a bigot, wrapping yourself up in the bible to hide your own hatreds. If God is responsible for the bible, and if he meant for the New Testament to outshine the Old one, then its quite clear that he had no opinion about homosexuality. You have no basis for your prejudice, not even the one that other moral weaklings claim–that its in the book!
B) I’ve already shown you that Bush racked up a larger deficit over his term than Obama. You’ve not even give a figure for what you believe Obama’s deficit to be. I’m quite sure you don’t know. Not only are your political beliefs based on your imagination, you interpretation of your own holy book is.
This thread goes on its merry way just as I predicted with Mohammedans (hi MOHO oops sorry ‘anon’ LOL)lying, spinning, obfuscating and diverting just like the KORAN tells them to. While of course in blind unquestioning support the Left wing, Islamophile, PC, MC moonbats continue to spew their ‘Moral Equivalence’ while all the time being completely uneducated and ignorant either willfully or not as to the true nature of Islam.
BTW guys this thread is about ISLAM in Switzerland and any moral equivalence BS about the Bible , the New Testament, Christianity or any other religion at all is just TU QUOQUE, OT and illogical.
# 101 Kipling: I think the phrase you are searching for is. ‘Committing the logical mistake of creating a ‘STRAWMAN’ then attacking it.’ This is a TYPICAL Mohammedan diversion ploy.
The Left and Muslims in Switzerland are trying to nullify this result in the European Court of Justice in Straßburg.
Today the Court President, Jean-Paul Costa, has said that it will be HARD TO FIGHT AGAINST the decision of the Swiss. (HARD doesn’t mean IMPOSSIBLE.)
The President said it will be THE REAL CHALLENGE. (But again, not HOPELESS.)
And “yes, they can”, because the Straßburg Court is an organization of the European Council, not of the EU. Switzerland (not an EU member) is a member of the European Council, so the Euro-Left bureaucracy will try to f… it as they wish.
http://www.derwesten.de/nachrichten/politik/2009/12/1/news-142325959/detail.html
The support for the Swiss in the European population is enorm. Let’s hope any attempt to overturn the result of the referendum will backfire at the political “elite”.
Ok eye for the eye talks about finances…works for me tho I never heard if explained that way
how about turn the other cheek?
that’s only for micro/perconal issues of forgiveness not macro/war issues
I’m surprised no one has developed that part of this topic
we are in big doo-doo as far as the muslim are concerned our diversity/political correctness will the our downfall….WAKE-UP people
Nice work, Kipling, all your posts.
52. Mary Madigan: The threat of Islam, as you note, didn’t rise into our public consciousness until Sept. 11, 2001. One might say it lay dormant; and since during the 20th Century more immediate threats prevailed and demanded our attention, it merely festered. Yet, any student of world history from the 7th Century on would be well acquainted with “the Turkish Threat,” as it came to be known in Martin Luther’s time (ca.1520).
Spain. Vienna. Hungary. North Africa. Asia Minor — 1453, the fall of Constantinople. The history of the middle ages — and even to the 19th Century — reveals the very bloody face of Islam. But “they” don’t teach history in the schools these days like they should.
The Swiss vote is cheering; and it is just the beginning. Even now the shieks seek other havens for their petrodollars. Now, what message exactly does that send? How about: They’re serious about their worldwide caliphate?
The Left and Muslims in Switzerland are trying to nullify this result in the European Court of Justice in Straßburg.
Don’t forget about the Jews. Actually this could work out well for you people allowing you to consolidate all of your bigoted fantasies into one big hatred fest. Go for it.
Jews back Muslims on minaret ban
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1259831455845&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
However, Jewish organizations, realizing that a crackdown on Islam could have repercussions for Jews as well, have come to the defense of Muslim worshipers, arguing that the Swiss’s move was unjustifiable.
Rabbi Pinchas Dunner, executive director of the Conference of European Rabbis, an Orthodox organization, said “a war on religious freedom cannot defeat Islamic extremists. The best weapon against radical Islam is support for moderate elements in the Muslim community and promoting interfaith dialogue.”
In contrast, the Anti-Defamation League tied the move to religious discrimination against Jews.
“This is not the first time a Swiss popular vote has been used to promote religious intolerance,” said the ADL in a press release. “A century ago, a Swiss referendum banned Jewish ritual slaughter, in an attempt to drive out its Jewish population.”
Since saudi arabia, for example, has outlawed ANY RELGION other than islam, I see the Swiss vote as entirely warranted
islam is intolerant- as far as I know, it is the only religion that teaches ‘convert, or die’. I see no reason, then, why islam should be tolerated.
“27 I have seen thine adulteries, and thy neighings, the lewdness of thy whoredom, and thine abominations on the hills in the fields. Woe unto thee, O Jerusalem! wilt thou not be made clean? when shall it once be?”
Just what is meant by abomination is a matter for dispute. Especially since abomination is a translation of a word that doesn’t mean what abomination does today. I have over 40 bibles, which might be a lot for someone that isn’t a Christian, but I collect them. I don’t have a ‘living bible’, which would be an attempt to translate 17th century English into 20th century American.
If it isn’t a bother, would one of the ‘christers’ out there that has a “living bible” look up Jeremiah 13:27 and see how it reads in 20th century American?
Islam (whether ‘moderate’ or not) contends that non-Muslims, as well as Muslims themselves, must comply with Islamic religious codes! Doesn’t that strike you religious equivocators as something slightly ominous?
Christianity, like most other religions, puts believers are in charge of making their own choices. Islam, on the other hand, believes Muslims have the right to impose their codes, mores and beliefs on anyone – irrespective of what people themselves choose!
Those who compare Islam to Christianity, or any other free choice religion, are being deliberately disingenuous. The freedom to intimidate people into self censorship and the silence of fear is no freedom at all!
The Swiss have voted from their conscience and their experience of Islam. Yet left-wing politicians and Islam seem united in their contempt for the right of people to chose for themselves. What poisonous fruit!
I have a difficult time considering any way of life (religion?) that promotes the killing of anyone that does not believe as you do as viable.
Politically correct be damned. At least the Swiss are not cowards on this subject, like the rest of the world. Yes, the rest of the world includes the USA. We are so busy being politically correct that we are jeopardizing out future.
“The Europeans have a lot to learn before they can get out of their set of minds.”
I think this attitude is the very reason the minarets were banned. The Swiss may be satisfied with the nature of their system and don’t want to see it altered all the much.
” Their tolerance against other nations/religions is only when that religion or nation is miniscule so does not pose a threat. Otherwise, they start banning.”
Your aspirations are to “pose a threat” ? If someone came to my home with the intentions of someday posing a threat to me, I would ban them from my home too.
Since saudi arabia, for example, has outlawed ANY RELGION other than islam, I see the Swiss vote as entirely warranted
This is the laziest thinking I’ve ever seen. Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, not a representative democracy. Its population is less than 1% of the world Muslim population. The saddest thing is that being so obviously cognitively impaired doesn’t seem to bother you in the slightest.
102. Anon.
“B) I’ve already shown you that Bush racked up a larger deficit over his term than Obama.”
Doesn’t Mr. President have several years of spending left, Pee Wee Anon – moho?
“You’ve not even give a figure for what you believe Obama’s deficit to be. I’m quite sure you don’t know.”
Pray tell, who does know? Van Jones? Will the “figure be known before Mr. President’s term is up? Does your mirror foretell the future as well as being your friend?
Why did you change your name? Wouldn’t Nurse Nancy be a better fit?
The more I think about this minaret ban, the more twisted it seems to me.
The subtitle of this article reads:
Islam, unlike Christianity, has a political dimension that the West must reject.
I’d be all for rejecting Islam’s political dimension, if the Swiss or anyone else could figure out how to do that. But that’s not what they’ve done at all. What they’ve done is to reject Islam’s architectural dimension.
Just because your cause is just doesn’t mean every step you take is good or wise or effective or appropriate. And this is really pathetic. It’s almost like they’re admitting how powerless and confused they are in the face of political Islam.
This may not be the best analogy, but it’s sort of like thinking that you’re achieving some great victory for justice by peeing on the lawn of the alleged wrongdoer. It’s just stupid, and ugly, and completely ineffective too. It just points up how you are helpless to do anything else, and you may not be any better than your rival after all.
A lot of commenters here point out how Saudi Arabia et al restrict other religions. Excellent point. But all that the swiss are achieving here is to make their own country begin to resemble the mirror image of SA. And they have done nothing to target political Islam, which is the real problem. Nothing at all.
I’d hate to see political correctness in the US go as far as it has in Europe, but I’d also hate to see this kind of banning happen.
Reply to Anon @102: Please forgive me for not providing you with the text and with an accurate translation of the text. My oversight has allowed you to misrepresent the Scripture. I should not be surprised that you have done so, misrepresentation is your primary tactic in combating points that you cannot refute.
1 Timothy 1:9-10: “…knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if ther is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine….” The word used in the Greek refers to men having sex with other men, i.e. sodomy. The translation you found that used the word “pervert” fails to reflect the actual meaning in the original Greek. The Greek word defines perversion as men having sex with men. Once the original language is examined, the meaning and the condemnation of homosexuality becomes clear.
Romans 1:18-32: Your problem here is partially my fault. I should have said to read Romans 1:18-32 not 1:18-22. In Romans 1:18-32 Paul chronicles the decline of mankind into evil. In verses 26 and 27 he explicitly singles out homosexual behavior as a product and a symptom of that decline. “For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the women, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.”
Other Scriptures that condemn homosexuality in the Old and New Testament include: Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Galations 5:19-21, Ephesians 5:3-5, and Jude 7.
My commentary on the issue of homosexuality is based on Scripture not on personal opinion or, as you have accused, personal prejudice. As you should be able to see, Scripture is quite clear on the issue.
As to actual budgetary numbers, let us begin with the article you cite @99. The article you cite to prove your point says nothing about Bush’s total expenditure or his increase to the federal deficit. It discusses war funding and it mentions that such funding was less than 1% of GDP and is still less than was spent in Vietnam or the Korean War. Mr. Obama’s stimulus package was $800 billion, $300 billion more than spent on the war so far – according to the numbers you provided. The budget proposed by Mr. Obama would run annual deficits of about $600 billion – twice the $300 billion of Bush. Bush expanded the national budget by $700 billion by 2008. Mr. Obama’s budget would add another $1 trillion to that.
As a conservative, I disagreed with Bush when he went on a spending spree and I continue to do so with Mr. Obama. If you think Bush spent too much, then why are you supportive of Mr. Obama when he will double the amount of money spent?
Reply to John @111: For an accurate translation of “abominations,” you would have to check the original Hebrew word. Unfortunately, I do not have a commentary on Jeremiah and thus cannot find the answer. However, the Jeremiah text has a cross-reference to Isaiah 65:7 and thus seems to imply that abomination refers to idolatry and sacrifices to idols. Please see my post @118 for Scriptures on homosexuality.
“I’d hate to see political correctness in the US go as far as it has in Europe, but I’d also hate to see this kind of banning happen.”
Well then, Islam will have to tolerate the scrutiny that other belief systems have had to over time. I also wonder if figures were manipulated in Switzerland because the polls and the reality of the vote were so far apart. Or was their another factor involved where those questioned about their opinion were afraid to voice their concern about Islam and it’s doctrines being given free reign in their country. Have they been forced by their government to tolerate and accomodate fearful of questionging or critisizeing by being labeled phobic, or bigoted.
I find it so very strange that Islam, which teaches hatred of the Jews as pigs and apes to be coverted or killed, Christians as corrupted, and Infidels as lesser, to be taxed and live in dhimmitude as a system that WE should respect, when it truth it is Islam that should have to accomodatate our disagreement to their teachings. Why would it be abnormal to NOT want their ‘call to prayer’ towers to dot the skyline when often they are a ‘call to preach hatred and intolerance’ even agains their own people?
I find it so very strange that Islam, which teaches hatred of the Jews as pigs and apes to be coverted or killed, Christians as corrupted, and Infidels as lesser, to be taxed and live in dhimmitude as a system that WE should respect, when it truth it is Islam that should have to accomodatate our disagreement to their teachings.
You’re way off base. Several Jewish groups including the ADL have stepped in to condemn the vote. They think that YOU should respect it, because EVERY time you disrespect another religion, it brings goyish anglos one step closer to persecuting the Jews again.
Jews back Muslims on minaret ban
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1259831455845&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
However, Jewish organizations, realizing that a crackdown on Islam could have repercussions for Jews as well, have come to the defense of Muslim worshipers, arguing that the Swiss’s move was unjustifiable.
Rabbi Pinchas Dunner, executive director of the Conference of European Rabbis, an Orthodox organization, said “a war on religious freedom cannot defeat Islamic extremists. The best weapon against radical Islam is support for moderate elements in the Muslim community and promoting interfaith dialogue.”
In contrast, the Anti-Defamation League tied the move to religious discrimination against Jews.
“This is not the first time a Swiss popular vote has been used to promote religious intolerance,” said the ADL in a press release. “A century ago, a Swiss referendum banned Jewish ritual slaughter, in an attempt to drive out its Jewish population.”
Response to Commuter @121: “The best weapon against radical Islam is support for moderate elements in the Muslim community and promoting interfaith dialogue.” Yea, this works every time. (Please note sarcasim.) Who exactly are the moderate elements in the Muslim community?
The best weapon against radical Islam is to fully understand and appreciate our own western heritage. We face an ideological and cultural enemy. Moral and cultural relativism is not the answer. Dialogue only works if the two sides are interested in it.
The best weapon against radical Islam is to fully understand and appreciate our own western heritage.
Given what the sordid bigoted history of that heritage, I think Jews are rightly concerned that that is exactly what you’ll do.
Muslims say, but there are churches in the middle-east. Yes there are, but these churhes were build before islam invaded certain countries which include egypt,lebanon etc and or are very old and crumbling. In egypt they will not even allow to repair them. Islam wants those egyption churches to fall and crumble and there will not give any permission to build new ones.
Why do muslims say do not include saudia arabia for churches as the mention the vatican to do the same, Dont you muslims have hundreds of Mosque in Italy, isnt the vatican inside italy. The UN and western media dont see this, muslims dont see this. I wonder what would happen to a girl in a red mini-dress (muslims stop thinking of the girl as a ho) walking the street in saudi arabia, egypt, iran and the other glorious islamic countries. Dont you dare give me, but its muslim culture to cover up, where is the girl right to walk in a red mini-dress in all islamic countries, just as a human being.
You Muslims are such hypcocrates, that is why islam as a religion will fail. You can see the fault of others very clearly but fail to see your own filth. You want to spread your religion around the western countries but will severely restrict your own islamic countries from building churches.
But wait what has swiss muslims got to do with the islamic countries, they are peaceful so they should be allowed to build a mosque. But also wait what has the egyption christain copts got to do with the western christain countries, they are also peaceful and should be allowed to build their churches in egypt,saudia arabia, iran.
See the muslim hyprocrazy .
Response to Commuter @123: Yes, radical Islam has always offered a safe haven for the Jews. That is why Israel is surrounded by friendly and supportive nations that only want to live in peace and harmony with them. The world would be much better off if the western heritage that gave us economic freedom, political freedom, and religious freedom simply vanished from the face of the earth.
No civilization is perfect because they are all the constructs of flawed fallen men. And yes, the western world has had its incidents of anti-Semitism. However it is not a central tenet of the western heritage any more than feudalism.
Western civilization actually begins with the nation of Israel and its contribution to the ancient world. Rather than outsiders, Jews, Jewish philosophy and theology are a central component of western heritage.
What is the difference between a moderate muslim and a radical muslim ?
A moderate muslim is one who does not want to kill you today…..
However it is not a central tenet of the western heritage any more than feudalism.
You’re kidding right? Western civilization has had regular pogroms for over a thousand years. Indeed, it wasn’t Muslim anti-semitism that drove Jews to found Israel, it was the western kind. It was aided and abetted by Christians world wide. This is offensive. You’re a bigot, hiding behind Islam. I’m done with your bs.
The best weapon, given our history with Islam, is to keep the light shining on it and the doctrines it teaches, especially what it speaks about the treatment of people of other beliefs. If we are afraid to discuss it, or are intimidated by threats of violence or accusations of bigotry we will again be forced to live under oppression and write history with an erasure.
We are well aware of our history good and bad and we are well aware of our freedoms, prohibiting us from erasing our history so that we shine in the best light. This is also what we should expect from other civilizations including Islam. It would be a grave mistake to again bury the history of the world in a cloud of confusion because we are fearful or embarrassed.
The Old Testament or Torah is replete with examples of the good and evil that mankind is capable of. Often the Hebrew/Israelites were their own worst critics. Many people appreciate this honesty and find great comfort in knowing that their Creator loves and cherishes a close relationship with them despite their mistakes.
Others like to use their history against them and every time someone questions another’s beliefs are quick to point out how they wrestled with their Creator or went against His commands or that the Creator they believe in has ordered annihilation of others. Anyone can read their history and bleat to the world all that they have done that was not in their’s or others best interests. That is not surprising and often used as a tactic to silence legitimate criticism of Islam.
What they will not speak to, is that after living in slavery the Hebrews/Israelites escaped, but were constantly hounded by enemies who would not even allow them to pass by the roads and often would plague and attack the weakest of their members, young, old, and the infirm that lagged behind. There were even times when they escaped to caves only going out in the daylight to tend crops, where the enemy would burn their fields hoping to starve them to death.
Now in the Middle East everyone likes to pretend that Israel is fencing everyone out, when the truth is they are fencing themselves in to keep the enemy from driving them into the sea, something they are taught from birth to accomplish. After centuries of being scattered around the world always only one step ahead of those that want to eliminate them, they are finally back at their homeland yet still without a place to rest their head and raise their families in peace.
Quote what you want from the Bible but it is not the history of a warrior people or is it a history of a perfect people. To use their history against or to prevent others from talking about the teachings of Islam will not work and the example of the people voting to ban the building of the minaret is an example of what happens when open and honest talk is suppressed by empty accusations and fear.
We should continue to talk about Islam and the doctrines it teaches and make smart decisions about restricting it’s violent instructions against anyone who is not Muslim. We should also question it’s claim that it is permissible to practice deceit to others in order to further Allah’s domain of a World Caliphate.
I think I have a right to speak to it and discuss it without being accused of bigotry or that I have evil intention against them. That is absolutely not true and trying to silence the people will only make things worse such as the vote in Switzerland did. No one expected that vote because with the forced silence about Islam they reacted by pushing back which in my opinion is normal.
Ban Islam now.
It was once banned in Spain, now its time to do it again.
All values and ethics towards treating others in positive ways are inverted in Islam.
Its leadership wants political power pure and simple. Ever since its inception, it has been a force for violence and hatred with worldly aims.
As such, it resembles every tyrannous political party that has ever been.
I’m not a particular fan of the Swiss-people who couldn’t commit in WWII against something as evil as Nazism ?
However, I believe minarets really ruin the very European medieval ambience of the smallish cities in Switzerland. This is a big tourist destination too. Furthermore, domes and minarets are powerful symbols of Islamic dominance in the ME. I guess one could ask if that isn’t the intention of making such a big deal out of placing such symbolism in non-traditionally Islamic places. What does that say about how Muslims feel about the native population there-that they don’t give a rat’s @ss about their sensibilities ? Looks that way to me.
I also understand commuter’s point-Switzerland doesn’t have a great track record on several points. Still, isn’t it true no one can accuse the Jewish people of pushing conversion or dominance over anyone ? So, I think perhaps the ADL might be over-reacting ? After all, a minaret is an architectural frou-frou-not an intregal part of the Islamic faith. I understand many Muslims are called to prayer by their cell phones these days.I think that is the way to go because the believers don’t then infringe on anyone else’s rights.
You don’t have the right to mischaracterize other people’s statements in order to defend your holy book, while using sophistry to indict that of others. No one has claimed that that the Israelites were going against god’s wishes when they slaughtered the people’s of the ancient middle east. Rather, it was god that commanded them to do it in the first place. If you’re going to be sifting through the religions of others with a fine toothed comb, then start with your own first. And please, deal with the fact that it was Christian bigotry that killed Jews, and that drove them into Israel. God, certainly didn’t tell you to do that, I’m pretty sure.
Response to Commuter @127: I fail to see the logic in your accusation that I am a bigot hiding behind Islam. First, I openly acknowledge the role of the ancient Israel and the Jews in the creation and sustaining of western civilization. Judeo-Christian principles are at the heart of the western tradition and the foundation of our laws, literature, etc. How is that being a bigot? Second, I have not attacked Jews or demeaned them in any of my posts. I merely responded to your contention that western civilization was at its heart anti-Jewish. Third, I have not denied that pogroms existed in the western world. All I said is that they are not a central tenet of western heritage but rather the product of a fallen and depraved human nature. Fourth, I am at a loss to see how I have hidden behind Islam in anything that I have said and I challenge you to prove otherwise.
If you a so intellectually thinned skinned, then by all means take your ball and go home. Second-grade name calling is hardly becoming of anyone.
All I said is that they are not a central tenet of western heritage but rather the product of a fallen and depraved human nature.
English isn’t apparently your first language. They are such a central tenet that Jews HAD TO LEAVE EUROPE in order to escape it. Anyone who would disregard this salient fact–the fact that Jews beginning in the 19th century began a movement to found their own nation because of the violence and oppression of western culture–is simply not dealing with reality. Indeed, you’ve still failed to deal with the fact that dozens of Jewish groups are also condemning the vote, citing a similar law passed in the same country outlawing Jewish traditions.
It’s true that two wrongs don’t make a right, ergo, the banning of churches and other religious persecution which are commonplace in the Muslim world does NOT justify comparable behavior directed against Islam in Switzerland. However, it is important to acknowledge the profound differences between religious liberties found in Saudi Arabia and Switzerland. The two nations are NOT morally equivalent, quite the opposite: night and day. If Switzerland is ever so cautiously tiptoeing toward placing restrictions on Muslim worship, we must ask ourselves: why? What do they have to fear?
And of course, we know the answer. We see it in the de-Christianization of once religiously diverse places like Lebanon. Egypt and the Occupied Territories in Israel. We see it in formerly-secular Turkey, which grows increasingly inhospitable to non-Muslims. We see it in Somalia and Pakistan, where Christians live in fear. To ignore these threats is foolhardy. Is banning minarets a promising solution? Hardly. Is the fear of Islam’s ascendence in Europe a legitimate worry. Undoubtedly.
This ban is a clumsy attempt to grapple with a very real threat that faces the West. In Turkey, years ago, the secularists imposed a ban on the veil and the fez. It was an incredibly illiberal policy, but it was necessary to allow Turkey to leap into the 20th century, which it did spectacularly well. As the veils began to reemerge and Islamism gained momentum in the last couple of decades, democratic securalists agonized about the un-democratic crackdowns they were obliged to enforce. They did not enforce them with adequate vigor. And now, they no longer have a choice. Islam has all but taken over once-secular Turkey. There is a name for those who use democratic principles to strangle democracy: they’re called demopaths.
Dittos to the comments by RRWest #129.
It is time to expel Muslims from all of Europe and the Americas, the year 1492 revisited. Send them back to the Middle East and do not buy their one and only product, a product which required Western ingenuity and engineering to extract from the sands.
Piers Brown #54 — your post was illuminating. It needs to be spread around the Internet. Thank you…
Response to Commuter @133: So all Jews now live in Israel because any country that is a product of the western heritage is so incredibly anti-Jewish that they had to flee there. That is your argument? If the pogroms are such a part of the western heritage then how do you explain their existence in countries that are not in the western tradition?
You might also want to check out some history books and learn how the evil western world helped to establish Israel in the first place.
So what if dozens of Jewish groups have condemned the vote. Does their being Jewish make them right? You seem to argue that it does and that is a very racial argument to make. By the way, I have never argued for or against the law so what does that have to do with our discussion here.
One thing’s for sure. Although you feel perfectly comfortable laying all the blame for all of Islam’s problems on all Muslims, you certainly don’t feel compelled to take even the most minimal responsibility for the excesses of your own religion or heritage. Interesting, some would say that’s hypocrisy. I believe God would have told you to examine the log in your eye.
Response to Commuter @137: If a Muslim kills or subjugates a non-believer, he is simply following the instructions of the Koran and the example of Muhammad. If a “Christian” kills or subjugates a non-believer, then he is outside the bounds of Scripture and the example of Christ and is thus not a true Christian. Your point is a relatively pitiful attempt at moral equivalence,
Maybe islam is just stuck in the aggressive stage, but tis been an awfully long time. A minaret in your town is like a pelto in your meeting.
A number of elements in the New Testament that have led human beings,over the centuries, gradually toward a separation of religion and State:
1. “Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
2. Jesus told the disciples that he who would be great among them would not lord over them but would serve them and wash their feet. And Jesus washed their feet.
3. Jesus repeatedly said, “My kingdom is not of this world.”
4. According to the story Christians believe, Jesus was offered (by the devil) the whole world and all the kingdoms in it, and rejected all that.
5. Because love was the central teaching of Jesus (Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your mind and all your soul, and love your neighbor as yourself), he is teaching freedom, insofar as love cannot be compelled; it comes from the innermost core of a person. In the words of the popstar Bonnie Raitt: “I can’t make you love me if you won’t. I can’t make your heart do somethin it won’t…”
On the other hand, in one of Islam’s two most canonical hadith collections, Muhammad says that the earth belongs to him and to Allah. Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4363:
It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira who said: We were (sitting) in the mosque when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) came to us and said: (Let us) go to the Jews. We went out with him until we came to them. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) stood up and called out to them (saying): O ye assembly of Jews, accept Islam (and) you will be safe. They said: Abu’l-Qasim, you have communicated (God’s Message to us). The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: I want this (i. e. you should admit that God’s Message has been communicated to you), accept Islam and you would be safe. They said: Abu’l-Qisim, you have communicated (Allah’s Message). The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: I want this… – He said to them (the same words) the third time (and on getting the same reply) he [Muhammad] added: You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I wish that I should expel you from this land. Those of you who have any property with them should sell it, otherwise they should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle (and they may have to go away leaving everything behind).
Another reason to consider banning minarets, as well as stopping further Muslim immigration:
In Sahih Bukhari, the most canonical of hadith collections, Muhammad said, “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”
Why must we let in Muslims? If we need immigrants, let in Hindus, Chinese, East Europeans, Christian Africans, etc., i.e., any people who will accept a liberal society and assimilate, rather than trying to take over the world like Muhammad and his pious followers of Islamic Law.
@137. Commuter:
This is the same old hackneyed “Tu Quoque” response to criticism of Islam. Don’t answer the criticism, that’s too difficult.
Just for you Islamophile MOONBATS who still dont get it. The Koran is PRESCRIPTIVE and in my opinion was just an INVENTION by Mohammad using PLAIGURISED incorrect Biblical and Jewish stories and self glorification. It also declares ITSELF to be the ‘ACTUAL and UNALTERABLE word of GOD’ and to be for ‘ALL men for ALL time’ and to be ‘CLEAR and EASILY understood’ none of which of course it is. Islam is a cradle to grave CULT which covers ALL aspects of mans life INCLUDING Justice, Punishment and GOVERNMENT it is totally incompatible with the Wests separation of Church and State in Islam Church and State are one and the same. When they are weak they are told to use ‘soft’ Jihad to get what the want when they are strong violent Jihad is OK. Islam is unable to coexist with other forms of Government or with other Religions. Its all there in the book moonbats just read it.
One religion preaches “love God and love one another” while the other teaches “kill the infidel”. It doesn’t seem that difficult to differentiate one from another.
And yes I know Christians aren’t perfect, Muslims aren’t either. Still I’d rather live in a country of people who follow the love doctrine instead of the kill doctrine.
Oh yes Anon 32, Christ came to fulfill the law, to elevate man to a higher level, to raise him from the “natural man” hence the “love one another” commandment. Of course we still aren’t very good at it but having to defend ourselves from those who want to kill us makes some of us cranky.
Question: Wouldn’t a religion that proposed killing part of a society and taking freedom away from the half that are left be treasonous? Just asking.
Oh and 137, most of us have managed to grow up and evolve. Islam continues to keep it’s followers in the 8th century. You may want to live there but as someone with a degree in History I certainly do not.
Undhimmified: I love it when idiots like you use terms like “tu quoque”. It reminds me of monkeys in diapers who’ve been taught to do human things.
Response to Anon @145: Nice intellectual comeback. I really admire the way you humiliated Undhimmified with the sheer brilliance of your reasoned and measured response. How dare he ask that a fellow poster answer criticism without resorting to the usual third grade response? How dare he demand intellectual discourse? You sure showed him!
On a side note, I may be getting too sarcastic in my old age.
I really admire the way you humiliated Undhimmified with the sheer brilliance of your reasoned and measured response. How dare he ask that a fellow poster answer criticism without resorting to the usual third grade response?
If you’re going to accuse someone of tu quoque, you’re also going to have to prove it. That monkey, like you is unable to. If I were you, I’d worry more about your dementia, than the sarcasm. And let’s stop pretending that you haven’t been trying to insult me throughout–the difference between you and me is that I don’t jump on a stool and clutch my pearls whenever someone slags me. Passive aggressive bs.
Response to Anon @ 147:
From Wikipedia: “A tu quoque argument attempts to discredit the opponent’s position by asserting his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions.”
Post 137 by Commuter seems to fit the description rather well. Rather than respond to any of my criticisms, he constantly responded with personal attacks, slander, and then his tu quoque argument equating Islam and western civilization. Undhimmified’s makes a valid point.
Speaking of making a valid point. You seem to have abandoned the war of ideas to simply sling mud at people and engage in ad hominem attacks yourself. I don’t exactly know what to slag someone means but I’ve successfully countered every argument and point you have made in this discussion. If you care to raise one that is unclear, we can go into the breach once again.
Nice try Kipling, but at 137 I had basically given up having an honest discussion with you and I said so. The argument began because of your assertion that Christianity was superior to Islam. You said:
Christianity has a very distinct political dimension based on three key tenets.
The first tenet is the need for a Separation of Church and State. Old Testament Israel practiced the separation of church and state and Jesus and Paul both advocated it in the New Testament. The Biblical principle of separation of church and state should not be confused with the modern liberal interpretation which really aims to separate government from God and universal standards of morality.
The second tenet is that government is limited in its authority. Jesus’ command to render unto Caesar what is his and to God what it is His essentially limits the power of government over the individual. No government has the authority to sanction evil or to compel believers to commit evil acts. The authority of government comes from God and must obey His edicts in order to have legitimacy.
The third tenet is that individual faith and morality are required for a nation and its people to prosper and live in freedom.
Every argument that followed was based on an inherent superiority of Christianity. Rather than make a point about Islam, you decided to make your point about the flawless nature of Christianity. Thus all of my points were directed at your assertion; there is ample evidence that Christianity as an institution made up of its disparate factions does not consistently uphold any of those tenets. Then I took you to task for implying that while all Islam must take responsibility for any Muslim’s act, that you were free to cherry pick the historical moments that embodied Christianity. That’s simply asinine logic that can’t be taken seriously by any reasonable person. Its like saying “when I steal, its is redistribution. But that guy! That guy’s a thief”. After proving each of my points, I took a moment to sum up what the points indicated about you. That you are a bigot, and not a very bright one. You lose, good day sir.
Commuter:
Well said, and a nice summary. The sophistication of the arguments here can be a bit weak sometimes. Ad hominem responses seem to be all that some people can manage. I’m not sure why they bother.
149. No, he is judging the Koran by the standard of the Bible, and finds the Koran to be inherently evil. These things are objectively good: life, love, truth and liberty. The Bible demands that we hold life and liberty in high regard, that we love one another, and that truth is fundamental. Now look at the Koran- it holds no regard for human life, commands the enslavement and conquest of the world, commands its adherents to lie and break their word when it is convenient, and regards love as optional at best. Lying is never a good thing- if the truth must be concealed because revealing it would be dangerous, it is far better to keep your mouth shut than to lie.
149. One more thing- Kipling isn’t cherry picking, but rather stating that someone who claims to be a Christian, but lives his life contrary to the Bible is not a Christian, and therefore, you cannot judge Christianity based on his works. Your logic follows the sequence- Mao was an atheist. Mao was a mass murderer in accordance with his belief system. Therefore, Christianity is bad. Such reasoning is absurd on its face because Mao was not a Christian, so his works would not be expected to be representative of Christianity, and certainly cannot be used to judge Christianity.
Response to Commuter @149: Our discussion began in response to your post @121 and focused upon your condemnation of western civilization as essentially anti-Jewish. You never responded to my initial post @55, which you repeated without the last paragraph in your post @149. I invite you to review the discussion to refresh your memory.
Rather than address any of the points I raised about your condemnation of western civilization you resorted to the tu quoque tactic refered to @142. Your whole response centers on your contention that Islam and Christianity are morally equivalent. Yet, you offer no evidence of such moral equivalence.
As I stated @138: If a Muslim kills or subjugates a non-believer, he is simply following the instructions of the Koran and the example of Muhammad. If a “Christian” kills or subjugates a non-believer, then he is operating outside the bounds of Scripture and the example of Christ and is thus not a true Christian.
Nowhere did I say it was okay for Christians to do the same thing I condemned Islam for advocating. Your claim otherwise is a falsehood and I challenge you to prove it.
As for taking anyone to task, all you have done is demonstrated your own ignorance and hatred of Chritianity. To demonstrate the moral equivalency of Islam and Christianity, you would have to point to a passage of Scripture in which Christ told His followers to spread His message by the sword and to subjugate unbelievers. All you have demonostrated is that some people who call themselves Christian have acted in an un-Christian manner – a point I expounded at 138 and in previous posts about the fallen and depraved nature of mankind.
Instead of calling names and attempting to shout down your opponents (a sign of intellectual weakness and personal insecurity), how about we have a frank discussion. If you are so bright, you should have no problem addressing the many questions left unanswered from my previous posts. I realize this may be too much to ask since you cannot answer these questions without demonstrating the error of your own position.
Reply to myth buster @151 & 152: Thanks for the assist.
Commenters above are right that banning Islam falls foul of the First Amendment, but it is possible to legal ban Political Islam using varieties of the Sedition Act and Communist Control Acts:
Replace Communist as required…
“The Congress hereby finds and declares that the Communist Party of the United States, although purportedly a political party, is in fact an instrumentality of a conspiracy to overthrow the Government of the United States. It constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship within a republic, demanding for itself the rights and privileges accorded to political parties, but denying to all others the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. Unlike political parties, which evolve their policies and programs through public means, by the reconciliation of a wide variety of individual views, and submit those policies and programs to the electorate at large for approval or disapproval, the policies and programs of the Communist Party are secretly prescribed for it by the foreign leaders of the world Communist movement. Its members have no part in determining its goals, and are not permitted to voice dissent to party objectives”
For more detail read:
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2009/05/can-we-ban-islam-legal-guidelines-for.html
myth buster:
“The Bible demands that we hold life and liberty in high regard, that we love one another, and that truth is fundamental”
You’re apparently not talking about the hebrew bible.
James D:
“Commenters above are right that banning Islam falls foul of the First Amendment, but it is possible to legal ban Political Islam using varieties of the Sedition Act and Communist Control Acts”
The problem with your analogy is that the communist party was an actual, measurable entity. “Political islam” isn’t anything like that. Sure, there are groups and individuals who promote islamist ideas – but you’re going to have a very hard time separating them from their right to free speech unless they actually advocate illegal activities or agitate against the state (at which point it becomes sedition). That gives them a heck of a lot of freedom to act. Just banning groups is pointless – there’s no equivalent of “the communist party” in political islam. It doesn’t need one. Terrorist groups, sure – they’re a VERY convenient way to go after funding and networks, but it’s not necessary for a rabble-rouser to belong to an identifiable “group”. Even al queada is a convenient fantasy.
Taking your route will be just like nailing the proverbial jelly to a tree.
Islam doesn’t have an equivalent of The Church. Personally, I think that’s why it seems to gravitate toward controlling states – there’s no other authority structure to hang from. Unfortunately, that outcome demonstrates exactly why church/state separation is a good idea – they BOTH get corrupted.
Maybe what islam needs isn’t a reformation, but a counter-reformation. Promotion of some control structures to keep the flock on the straight and narrow, and to defend religion from political corruption.
I know one thing – it isn’t going to go away, no matter how much you keep hopin’, and a prayin’
Your logic follows the sequence- Mao was an atheist. Mao was a mass murderer in accordance with his belief system. Therefore, Christianity is bad. Such reasoning is absurd on its face
Whoa, that’s totally not what that guy said.
Look, if you’re going to argue your side, do it honestly. That’s the first way to prove you’re a proper Christian. The koran is subject to interpretation in the same way that the bible is, that’s why there’s so many versions of Islam around the world, and many of them incorporate pre-Islamic beliefs. Saying that you have to read the koran literally, but not the bible is a smokescreen–its beneath the intelligence of anyone who wants to discuss the problem of Jihadism. There are thousands of Christians in America who believe the bible should be interpreted literally, and there are many who don’t. I’ve known Islamic people, and they seem to feel the same way, as do Hindi and etcetera. There are certain things that you acn’t ever do, killing is only allowed in certain circumstances in the Koran, as it is in the bible. If anything, the bible has a lot more circumstances than the koran. And if anything, Christian peoples have a longer, bloodier history. If your argument really is that when Christians do it, they’re straying from their teachings, I think given the lengthy history of Christian peoples mass murdering others–including the Jews–its a distinction without a difference.
It really does seem like you’re trying to define the Christian religion as superior to others. That’s bigotry, and that’s dangerous, as we’ve seen through out history.
Ending this discussion with another attempt to divert attention away from discussing the doctrines of Islam and the instructions to it’s followers on how to treat those who do not believe that Mohammad is a prophet or Allah their Creator would be a disservice to an important topic that it is vital we discuss.
The fact that so many are opposed to the discussion is proof positive that the ban on minarets is a response to this attempt to force silence about Islam. Yes, we are beginning to see clearly why so much of Islam’s history was written with an eraser.
Lol you think that the Christian religion is any better than Islam? Islam is a horrible evil religion and we all know about it. And so is Christianity. The Christianity that we know today is an evolved form of the brain washing and freedom stifling church which was defeated by the Renaissance and the French Revolution. the Church knew it needed to change in order to survive and change it has.
The tolerance and freedom which the Church shows today is not by choice. Don`t be an idiot. The new Pope is a nazi and boy would he love to force the rest of the world to do his evil bidding. Your american evangelicals like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson..their very existance is a crime against humanity and the ideals of science, freedom and humanism which was born after hundreds of years of sacrifice since the renaissance.
So while we bash Islam, and don`t get me wrong, Islam is the most evil religion in the world today, but while we do this don`t lose sight of the defeated enemy of humanity : Christianity. Christianity held the world in darkness, ignorance and fear during the height of its powers, and only through the advancement of science and thinkers did we manage to push it off. The liberties and freedoms which you enjoy today are only there because the church was defeated, always remember that. If not for the Renaissance, French Revolution etc, Christians lives would be as bad as Muslims.
Truth hurts. Religions aren’t evil, the people who practice them are. But you’re a lot closer to having a productive conversation than these self-aggrandizing bigots are. Kudos for thinking for yourself. That would normally be the utmost in condescension, but judging from the others posting here, I thnk you’ll probably understand the spirit it comes in.
Mary Madigan: hope you are doing well…
as a born and raised muslim, I fully agree with you that aspects of islam are hurting us here in the states..
but the good thin here is that we can talk about because we are all adults..
the threat the Catholic church has bestowed to us which is encouraging priest to molest our young 8 or 9 year old boys is much greater. our young boys unlike us adults here are not able to articulate this and therefore will be suffering the rest of their lives.. I just wanted you to know this
Response to Bill Lawrence @ 158: Please point to the passage in Scripture where Christ commissioned His follwers to spread His message by the sword and to subjugate non-believers through violence. It is not a question of literal versus liberal intepretation. You are claiming something is there that is not there. Prove your point with the passage of Scripture and not by citing the actions of fallen men hiding behind religion.
Response to Truth Hurts @160: The French Revolution ended in the blood bath of the Reign of Terror and with the rise of a military dictatorship that was no different from the Catholic oppression it claimed to destroy. It led to an agressive French imperialism and a world war that devastated the European population for a decade. It did not bring liberty, equality, or brotherhood – it brought death and the attempted conquest of Europe.
The Renaissance was a response to the corruption of the Catholic church but the church coopted the response and incorporated its elements into the existing power structure of the time. A good example is the de Medici family and their role in both the Renaissance and in the church.
Mary Madigan: how are you doing? I was wondering if you could tell me what is the level of your education…
Nadia:
as a muslim i have to agree with the Islamic countries not to allow christians to build churches in their countries. specially the catholic church.. although our religion (islam)supports violence and in some cases violate the right of women.. but unlike catholic church us muslim do not approve of child molestation like the catholic church does!!!!
sorry!!!!
Response to Matthew @156:
“The Bible demands that we hold life and liberty in high regard, that we love one another, and that truth is fundamental.”
From the Old Testament we learn that God created mankind in His own image and that it is morally wrong to take life in most cases. This not only holds life in high regard but bestows upon man dignity and purpose.
If we define liberty as the Founding Fathers did – i.e. the freedom to do what is right – then the Old Testament contains no restrictions upon that ability. However, in the modern world most define liberty as the ability to do whatever one wants to do whether it is good or bad. The Founding Fathers and the ancients would have defined the use of freedom to do bad as licentiousness, not liberty. If you mean licentiousness, then the Old Testament does condemn that preversion of liberty.
The moral, social, and civil law of the Old Testament all called for the individual to love his neighbors and even prescribed the humane treatment of slaves and foreigners – a segment of the population often ignored in other ancient cultures.
“The moral, social, and civil law of the Old Testament all called for the individual to love his neighbors and even prescribed the humane treatment of slaves and foreigners”
Thanks for that. It’ll keep me in giggles for a day or two.
“love his neighbours”. Good one
160. Ye are of your father, the Devil, a liar, a thief and a murderer. The only difference between you and the mohos is that you don’t engage in subterfuge. The course you are on leads to worshiping the Antichrist, and from there you shall go into everlasting fire.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the provisions for widows, orphans, the poor, slaves, foreigners, etc. I suggest you read something before you condemn it. I thought you liberals were supposed to be open minded about those things.
From the Old Testament we learn that God created mankind in His own image and that it is morally wrong to take life in most cases.
LoL. I suggest you read the Old Testament some time:
(Leviticus 24:13-14 NKJ) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 14 “Take outside the camp him who has cursed; then let all who heard him lay their hands on his head, and let all the congregation stone him.
Deuteronomy
12.10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die, because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
17.2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman who hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God in transgressing His covenant,
17.3 and hath gone and served other gods and worshiped them, either the sun or moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded,
17.4 and it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it and inquired diligently, and behold, it be true and the thing certain that such abomination is wrought in Israel,
17.5 then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman who has committed that wicked thing unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones till they die.
17.6 At the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses shall he that is worthy of death be put to death, but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.
21.21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, so that he die. So shalt thou put evil away from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear.
22.20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel, (unmarried women)
22.21 then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die, because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house; so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
22.22 “If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman and the woman; so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
22.23 If a damsel who is a virgin be betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the city and lie with her,
22.24 then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones, that they die — the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city, and the man,because he hath humbled his neighbor’s wife; so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
As you can see there were as many reasons that God wanted you to put people death as there are days in a month. I can’t tell whether you actually don’t know what you’re talking about, or whether you’re just a sinning old mendacious Christian of the kind they used to stone for drawing people away from God’s word.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Muslim_population
Switzerland has no country-wide state religion, though most of the cantons (except for Geneva and Neuchâtel) recognize official churches (Landeskirchen), in all cases including the Catholic Church and the Swiss Reformed Church. These churches, and in some cantons also the Old Catholic Church and Jewish congregations, are financed by official taxation of adherents.[1]
Christianity is the predominant religion of Switzerland (82% of total resident population). 11% of the total population are irreligious. The largest minority religion is Islam (4%, figures as of 2000).
==
Is switzerland allow to have Adult movie XXXXX are still built
if answer is YES then they must allow to built mosque too
plus all mafia catholic are put heir monie in Switzerland
may not like Islam
plus second biggest minority are Muslim
this is not up to country decison
if they built the church so as mosque
unless they go by population and per capta and say
ok limit for built church or limt to built mosqu
muslim must have seperated board of educaiton in mosque because they do not like to teach theri children how to use condum ands other thing therefore as muslim grwo so as mosque grow for purpose of pray god for school for educaiton for gathring and find freind and find business partner and go for marriage and go for funeral
be fair with Muslim thanks
Response to Anon @170: If you will read the last eight words that you were so kind to quote – “morally wrong to take life in most cases.” The Old Testament law stipulated capital punishment for certain offenses. The ones you cited include treason, idolatry, and marital infidelity. Other offenses merited the death penalty as well. As you noted in Deuteronomy 17:6, conviction and capital punishment often depended on the testimony of two or more witnesses. No one has disputed the fact that capital punishment existed; however, that does not nullify the contention that the Old Testament honored life as a sacred gift from God. It was so sacred that certain offenses – those you cited plus murder, sorcery, and others – required capital punishment.
The Old Testament prohibited the survival of the fittest instinct and instituted government to restrain evil. The restraint of evil often required the state to levy capital punishment to protect society from the evil that would prey upon it.
Response to Kipling @ 164 : You fail to see the greater benefits which arose from enlightenment brought about by the French revolution. Yes it did result in years of chaos but after the chaos and from the ashes rose a secular society with clear separation of state and church.
The years after the French revolution were devastating for Europe, but it was a transitionary period and the European Union that we have today was built on the sacrifices made during this period. Among the main changes were the removal of the ancien regime, the end of feudalism and the end of the evil christian church as a political power. And to say that liberty, equality, brotherhood was not accomplished : look at the European Union today and what is your conclusion? These historical events from a previous epoch have helped shape Europe into what it is today.
Islam needs a revolution and renaissance to happen for it to change, for the mad mullahs and imans to be put into their place, just as the power crazy popes,cardinals and priests of the christian churches were dealt with by the ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity. Like surgery its drastic in the short term but effective long term.
Kipling @ 172 : Your wrong about that. The Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam all have one thing in common, the only life which is sacred is of their own believers. As Annon has rightly pointed out, there are so many examples of instructions and orders from God and his merry band of prophets to smash and slaughter people (unbelievers of course, or believers who have gone astray) in the old testament. Slavery and wholesale slaughter of populations of unbelievers are celebrated in the bible, yet you only look at the Koran for examples of this. The Koran and the Bible are copies of the original Jewish book, so why would it be unusual that the madness contained in one is also contained in another?
The difference between Islam and Christianity is that Chrisitianity is a hypocritical religion which has changed its tune over the last 200 years with the advancement of science and reason. Islam still remains true to its violent and hateful roots while christianity, previously also a religion of hate, has now changed with the times to remain acceptable in civilised societies by adopting a more tolerant outlook. Can the word of god change? Has god changed has mind on how we should behave?
In the old testament, God instructed his followers to destroy the statues of Baal as being idols, so the followers of Islam who destroyed the Baamiyan Buddha in Afghanistan are actually doing gods work, if the bible is to be believed. All who believe in God the father should therefore praise the Taliban for doing the Good Lord`s work! The Christians who do not destroy Hindhu and Buddhist statues wherever they find them are disobeying god`s instructions and are false christians. Which bring us back to the fact that Christians are hypocrites who believe in a religion which is as insane and hateful in its origins as Islam.
Islam also agrees that the Torah, Old Testament, and New Testament are corrupt and that the people who believe it them are corrupt, some deserving to be turned into apes and pigs, murdered, or forced to live in servitude to Muslims under their protection if they paid money and acknowledged the superiority of their protectors.
That could be one of the reasons people get upset when a commenter questions the doctrines of Islam because their commonality of believing that Jews and Christians are evil is threatened also, so they must defend Islam because of their agreement.
The expansion of islam must be stopped. Wake up! Europe is being raped.
Every pregnant muslima is carrying a demographical time bomb inside her womb. 50 years and it will be too late. Islam is a religion of largely ignorant people, whom are easily controlled by a small number of fanatics.
Most of these people, assuming they can read, never read anything but the koran. Islam is a “religion” of destruction and domination.
If western civilization is to survive islam must be banned from Europe, or childre, grand children will live in slavery.Wake up before too late.
mosque for muslim to send their children to teach them
science and the same subject like physice and religion
verses
existing school and high school who allow kid
doing rubbery and killing youth and teenagers kissing each other
in school yards and teach sex to each other
for every muslim born we need to have grow of mosque to link them to do not let their daughert in early age loose thier virginity and their male selling drugs and watch porn
sorry we do not allow nonmuslim interfer in muslim grow
if you hate muslim mosque it means you hate muslim grow
then you ask muslim to go to hell not near you body
muslim will stop nonmuslim interfer in relgion of islam
and house of god
unless building for all relgion was stop or building for all school was stopped
if you doing to hate muslim then better take trip and stay in
sweedan and naked near bitched bodies
accept the fact about isalm
and back off
Islam is NOT a religion of peace. Non Muslims are considered infidels and the koran commands that you either be converted or be destroyed. Obviously don’t take my or the word of anyone else at face value do your own research and read the koran its plain as day. Then after you have read the koran you will understand that suicide bombers and muslim terrorists aren’t Islamic extremist but they are in fact following exactly what the koran and specifically Muhammad has commanded them to do.
The truth will set us free…
Maybe the Swiss minaret issue could have been solved in a easy and pleasant way :
Typical swiss landscapes and architexture deserve to be protected. Therefore any mosque should be constructed like a traditional one-storey chalet. The first floor should have a little window that would open on every prayer time, allowing the muezzin to call out : “Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo !”
Wouldn’t that be nice ?
173. I dispute your premise that the EU is a good thing. It is the foundation of the New Tower of Babel. They are the ones pushing for the abomination that is One World Government. As to the lives of unbelievers, it is precisely BECAUSE human life is precious that blood is demanded for sins. Great wickedness demands severe punishment. Yet, the same God who established the Law that the wages of sin is death, died in your place and my place, that our sins may be stricken from the record; not merely forgiven, but erased as though they’ve never happened. Sure their consequences will linger for a time, just as a scar lingers after a laceration has healed, but they will fade.
The cultural imperialism displayed in this post is quite striking. It’s basically saying “We, the Supreme West, will not tolerate the inferior Muslims”.
Pathetic.
Oh and about the repression of women, may I remind you that countries like Turkey and Iran allowed women to vote BEFORE Switzerland? And Azerbaijan (a majority muslim country) granted women’s suffragein 1918, many years before a lot of Western countries did.
Dear Masud,
Unlike yourself, we of the West reject the notion that Muslim culture is equal to Western civilization in any dimension. Your culture is pervaded by violence, intolerance, totalitarian dogmatism, and the subjugation of dissenters. Ours is almost exactly the opposite.
Indeed, if Muslim culture has anything positive to offer the world, I have yet to discover it — and not for lack of research.
If I may collectivize for the sake of a pithy summation: We are your moral superiors — and by so great a degree that detailed comparisons would be pointless. Your own actions have cemented that recognition in place. Time was, we could have fooled ourselves into believing otherwise, but no longer. Deal with it.
If you can learn from us, you should do so. Until you have matured, why, yes: we will do our utmost to keep you out of our lands — and we’ll sleep much better for having done so.
Sincerely,
Francis W. Porretto