Racial profiling

[rubaiyat]

"The primary reason cited by the IAEA for its continued skepticism is "Iran's past pattern of concealment."

As such Iran has been heavily criticised by worried neighbors and the regulators because it has repeatedly hidden what it is really doing, despite signing the non-proliferation treaty.

Odd behavior for a country engaged in peaceful nuclear development and signing the treaty. Given the concealment I am curious that you know the extent of what they are doing. From all reports their enrichment program is widely distributed throughout the country, another sign that it is not for peaceful purposes.

Concealment like with Israel's nuclear program has only one objective.

Signing the non-proliferation treaty gave Iran access to technology that otherwise would have been denied it. That is why it is now facing sanctions.

Combined with its belligerence, stated enmities and lack of democratic restraint this is a recipe for starting an entire new cycle of escallating violence in the region.

New Testament quotes

The quotes from Matthew are referring to the judgement day and the consequences to the apostles for preaching Jesus's word, not what they should do, or should be done to others. In full the section says (from Young's literal translation):

14`And whoever may not receive you nor hear your words, coming forth from that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet,

15verily I say to you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city.

16`Lo, I do send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves, be ye therefore wise as the serpents, and simple as the doves.

17And, take ye heed of men, for they will give you up to sanhedrims, and in their synagogues they will scourge you,

18and before governors and kings ye shall be brought for my sake, for a testimony to them and to the nations.

19`And whenever they may deliver you up, be not anxious how or what ye may speak, for it shall be given you in that hour what ye shall speak;

20for ye are not the speakers, but the Spirit of your Father that is speaking in you.

21`And brother shall deliver up brother to death, and father child, and children shall rise up against parents, and shall put them to death,

22and ye shall be hated by all because of my name, but he who hath endured to the end, he shall be saved.

I can't find:

Even if your faith will bring you to fight your family, don't be afraid to kill your parents or your siblings for your faith, as you will be saved for your faith.

Is this your paraphrasing?

Likewise the quote from John is taken out of context. I can see how those who engaged in witch burnings etc did use this literally. Like you said if people want to manipulate the text they will.

Here is the full parable, and the trouble is with parables the simple minded or devious will take it literally. I suppose when Jesus spoke of his disciples as fishermen and shepherds, congregations should have been drowned and forced to eat grass.

John 15

1`I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman;

2every branch in me not bearing fruit, He doth take it away, and every one bearing fruit, He doth cleanse by pruning it, that it may bear more fruit;

3already ye are clean, because of the word that I have spoken to you;

4remain in me, and I in you, as the branch is not able to bear fruit of itself, if it may not remain in the vine, so neither ye, if ye may not remain in me.

5`I am the vine, ye the branches; he who is remaining in me, and I in him, this one doth bear much fruit, because apart from me ye are not able to do anything;

6if any one may not remain in me, he was cast forth without as the branch, and was withered, and they gather them, and cast to fire, and they are burned;

7if ye may remain in me, and my sayings in you may remain, whatever ye may wish ye shall ask, and it shall be done to you.

8`In this was my Father glorified, that ye may bear much fruit, and ye shall become my disciples.

9According as the Father did love me, I also loved you, remain in my love;

Again could you please point me to any acts of violence on the part of Jesus, Buddha, Confuscius, Zororaster, the Jains, Bahá'u'lláh etc? Did they declare war on others, kill and enslave them? Take their women and children and use them for their own pleasure? Force them to convert at the point of a sword? Mohammed did.

This still remains a fundamental difference which you have not reconciled with the claim of Islam being "a faith of peace".

You also missed my point as to the weaping and wailing of Hezbollah et al. They are not really concerned about the loss of life on their own side, let alone anyone else's.

All they are concerned with is the Muslim Martyr factory. The more bodies thrown on the pile the better. The gullible are persuaded they get a free rack of sex slaves with every bomb delivered. Even corporate America hasn't come up with a sales incentive to match.

I am 100% on your side that we should get rid of drinking, smoking, and possibly even cars to save lives. But that's hardly an either/or with terrorism.

[Cat]

Combined with its belligerence, stated enmities and lack of democratic restraint this is a recipe for starting an entire new cycle of escallating violence in the region.

Belligerence: list me the wars started by Iran. List me the stated enimities that are not mutual. And explain to me what you mean by "democratic restraint", if you just mean Iran is not a democracy like half of western europe, then OK, but that's painfully obvious. However, not all forms of government that are not fully democratic are inherently evil. Why in many european states we still have hereditary monarchies, which means that the head of state is not elected democratically. Other states which are democratical use pre-emptive strikes and torture. Democracy is no gurantee of goodness, perhaps it is just a necessary but not sufficient prerequisite.

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household." (Matthew 10:34-36 NASB)

"I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled!" ... "Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three."... (Luke 12:49,51-53 NASB)

"If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple." (Luke 14:26 NASB)

Did Jesus et al. actually fight and engage in violence against his/their enemies? Well, Mohammed, like Jesus, was persecuted in the initial phase of his relgious conversion. He was forced out of Mecca and repeatedly attacked. Perhaps unlike other founders of religions, he fought back and won. Mecca sent various raids against Medina, which they lost. A ceasefire was accorded, which the Meccans broke, Muhammed marched on Mecca with a superior force and after small border skirmishes, the Meccans surrendered. Islamic monotheism was established over pagan politheism and idol worship. Muhammed himself explicitly acknowledged that he was continuing the tradition of the religion of Abraham, Moses and Jesus and brokered peace with the Jews and other "people of the book". While Jesus did not fight either the established clergy or the roman occupier, innumerable leaders throughout history have shed blood in his name. However, both Jesus and Mohammed constituted a grave threat to established authority, not because of potential wars, but because they subtly but profoundly changed the social and cultural status quo. Both had peaceful messages: "fight those who fight you and do not commit aggression for God does not like those who commit aggression" (Q'ran 2:190-191) I think fighting in self defence is acceptable for a persecuted and oppressed minority. Mohammed did not wage wars of conquest to spread his word, and early christian communities had also to fight back in order to survive. Interpreting this as saying that Islam is a religion founded on violence and bloodshed is a distortion.

If you make long lists of what you think is hypocritical behaviour on part of guerrilla organizations and think this serves as an argument against a religous faith you are mistaken. If you expected me to post a list ranging from Abu-Ghraib to Guantanamo and Falluhjah, then you are mistaken again. It is of no value to post those lists, what would they prove? That both parties at war "sin" against the highest principles they hold sacred? Well, isn't that obvious? When you take up a sword to win an argument you have already lost.

In this respect, think of what Ghandi had to say about Mohammed:

"I wanted to know the best of one who holds today undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind ... I became more than convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet, the scrupulous regard for his pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the 2nd volume (of the prophet's biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of the great life."

[fryke]

Like my history teacher used to say: Democracy is the worst form of government - with the exception of every other form of government.

Don't believe democracy alone would bring peace to a whole region. If you at the same time assume that the various groups in a region want to bash each others heads, you also have to assume that they would vote for persons who would favour continued head-bashing. And if the intention is to simply "control" these countries from the outside, then that's one fine way of selling another dictatorship as "democracy" and "freedom".

There needs to be a vision. And I'm not sure the vision of Mr. Bush is to the liking of a majority of people in the Middle East, because it'd probably go something like: "We want there to be a couple of weak democracies we can leech on." Of course it would be disguised as things like "freedom" etc. again.

[rubaiyat]

When you take up a sword to win an argument you have already lost.

Yet again we have Muslims killing a humanitarian nun in Somalia, firebombing churches and threatening the Pope, because of "lies" that they are violent.

Irony, along with any sense of self criticism, is obviously not a core belief of Islam.

Why not? The model for this violent reaction to any criticism is Muhammad himself, who had Ka'b bin al-Ashraf a local Jewish poet killed for "maligning" him. Similarly he did not rebuke but rewarded the murder of Abu Jahl, in cold blood, with the spoils of the deceased. The same with Umaih and even his uncle Abu Lahab for having rebuked him for threatening them.

I suggest readers follow up on your little glossed over events of the early years of Muslim "conversion".

The "skirmishes" by the "peaceful" Muslims resulted in the killing of the Meccans who were defending a caravan being attacked by Muhammad and his followers. The Muslims took their victory as a sign of their righteousness, and therefore a sign to continue the violence, when by all accounts it was more a result of the half heartedness of the Meccans themselves.

Contrary to your statements the people of that time were not all pagans, most were Jewish and Christian, whom Muhammad personally "converted".

Just one example of how the conversion was done. After defeating the Jewish tribe of Bani Qurayzah he had all 700 men sat along trenches dug in the tribe's marketplace, where the muslims beheaded them. The women and children were enslaved. That enslavement meant rape because in the words of the prophet: "Forbidden to you are your mothers, your daughters, your sisters, your paternal and maternal aunts... Also married women, except those whom you own as slaves. Such is the decree of God" Sura 4:23-24.

Those tribes that "chose to convert", clearly had the options set out for them.

Muslims do not apologise for any of this, after all this was Muhammad, the model for all muslim behaviour. Then and now.

Time and again we see what really angers "peaceful" Muslims. Not violence itself which is seen as irrelevent if perpetrated against non-muslims, but any criticism of Islam, no matter how patently obvious.

[Cat]

And how does this relate to the admissibility of racial profiling? Would we not commit the same errors? Or do you think it is most appropriate to fight fire with fire? Have you ever asked your local christian priests to apologize for all the sorrow that the christian churches have done? Do you always take the actions of fanatical minorities as representative of the majority? In Basra 150 people out of a million protested in the streets against the pope. Wow, that sure is a threat ... When was the last time an islamic country invaded another?

[rubaiyat]

Originally Posted by Cat

And how does this relate to the admissibility of racial profiling?

It is you who choose to call it racial profiling, because you do not want an investigation of islamic terrorists within the muslim community!

Perhaps we should be "racially profiling" the Bahá'í, like in Iran at the end of a rope.

Or like the Islamic countries that "racially profile" their Christian and Jewish minorities. The few they have not killed or persecuted into exile.

Would we not commit the same errors? Or do you think it is most appropriate to fight fire with fire?

Turn the other cheek again, as an admission of guilt?

What do you suggest, convert under duress and join the islamic Borg?

Have you ever asked your local christian priests to apologize for all the sorrow that the christian churches have done?

Have you asked your imam to apologise for all the crimes of jihad, forced conversion, honor killings, sanctioned rape, slavery, violent subjugation of women, Jews, the Bahá'í, Christians, even fellow Muslims? Not to mention Al Qaida!

Appointed by Allah and a perfect example in everything, I guess an apology is not to be expected. He probably explained it is all a plot of the Jewish cabal and the CIA to try and make muslims look bad.

Yes, I have asked christian priests who almost fall over themselves to agree. They have all taken to wearing hair shirts.

I'm sure the Somali nun, despite her humanitarian work, was apologising when they shot her.

Do you always take the actions of fanatical minorities as representative of the majority?

Fanatical minorities or majorities seem to be a marked feature of islam. "Moderate" muslims, who only seem to survive in non-muslim countries, barely raise a voice against the actions of the minorities.

Real outrage is reserved for ubiquitious perceived "insults to islam".

Islam's aim is to cow everyone into silence. Even the Catholic Church is having to take extreme measures to prevent another muslim assassination attempt on the Pope.

Time to take stock of the Ummah's extreme beliefs, prejudices and even basic understanding of the society they choose to live in. My barber hasn't a clue about Christmas! What parallel universe is he living in?

Having been given refuge from their own crappy islamic countries they want to drag ours down to their level. Unfortunately they may be succeeding.

When was the last time an islamic country invaded another?

We are only talking about the last time? Only other islamic countries? Not the entire span of history?

Post World War II:

Iraq v Iran, Iraq v Kuwait, Morrocco v Western Sahara, Algeria v Morrocco, Syria v Lebanon, Lybia v Chad, Lybia v Tunisia, Lybia v Burkina Fasso, Pakistan v Bangladesh, Sudan v its neighbors. And when Iran gets the bomb...

What parallel universe are you living in?

The one where the Jewish baby eating cabal and the CIA bombed the World Trade Centre?

[Viro]

Originally Posted by Cat

About the bible:
Matthew
10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
10:15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
(same in Mark 6:11, Luke 10:10-10:12)

Those that do not receive The Word will be punished, destroyed, worse than Sodom.

The difference is that it isn't down to the Christians to punish. Note, it refers to the day of judgment, at the end of time, where *God* is judge. Not Christians.

Matthew 10:21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.
10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

Even if your faith will bring you to fight your family, don't be afraid to kill your parents or your siblings for your faith, as you will be saved for your faith.

It's hilarious how you choose to misread that passage. Even in the verses you've quoted, it is clear that it isn't the Christian who will fight his family. Rather, it is his family who will fight him because of his faith. It is nice how you chose to cut the quite short at 10:22. For 10:23 states "When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes". Notice the assumption that Christians are the ones who are being *persecuted* instead of *persecuting*? And what is the response? To wage war? No, it is to move on to a different place, preaching the gospel.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

Those who not believe in Jesus will "not see life" (be killed?) and God will seek vengeance on him. Those that do not believe in Jesus will be rounded up by his followers and burned, for not sharing their faith.

Again you are choosing to misread and completely misrepresent Christian theology. Unlike Islam that seeks to unite the world in submission to Allah under his one Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), the Christian Kingdom is the one in the life to come. You may think them stupid for believing in the after life, but that *is* the goal of all Christian teaching. Upon death, we are judged for our deeds, and hence it is imperative that everyone trust in Jesus because all will be found short of the mark, apart from those who belong to Jesus.

[Viro]

Originally Posted by rubaiyat

I'm sure the Somali nun, despite her humanitarian work, was apologising when they shot her.

Actually, she forgave her killers with her final breaths. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/...Nun_Killed.php