Racial profiling

[pds]

Now now Cat.

You're usually right on, and mostly right here, but "the catholic church has been burning people alive for hundreds of years..."

Ok - not a native speaker, you are forgiven for not using past tense.

But the point is well made - the west has had it's renaissance and it's enlightenment. Islam is still trying to deal with those concepts and, granted, the terrorist response is part of it's own "inquisition."

@Rubiyat...

Sorry to hear that you think that only Islam is spread by the sword. Please look into the colonial period once again. The treatment of native mexican-americans by Jesuit priests and other church officials was the source of my discontentment with Christianity. It was the sword and the knife, not the sacrificial example of Christ that brought the cult of Jesus to the world.

 

[rubaiyat]

I am perfectly well aware of some of the past history of christianity. One of the reasons why I am extremely concerned at the intolerant and oppressive stance of a significant part of Islam both in the past and today.

Keep in mind that Christianity's core faith is that of love for one another and to turn the other cheek. It began as a persecuted minority that gained its acceptance and most of its conversions by example and persuasion.

People typically lapse from the teachings. The examples you gave of the Conquistadores, are that of looters who used the excuse of religion to cover their own ambitions. They weren't the only ones to ever convince themselves their crimes were based on noble principles.

Where this differs from Islam is that Islam was from the beginning a martial religion with Mohammed as its commander. It's faith includes some of the tenants of love and peace but from the beginning it was brutal, killing, raping and enslaving many people that it conquered. All this happened under the leadership of its founder.

Can you imagine Jesus, Buddha, Zororaster, or Bahá'u'lláh actually going to war, looting, putting whole populations to the sword, enslaving their women and children to be sexually exploited, in the name of their God?

The death sentences on apostasy, stonings, mutilation, slavery, oppression of non-believers and women are all codified in the Koran and Sharia law. Which is why very few Islamic scholars have said Ossama bin Laden and his followers are acting contrary to the Koran, because they aren't.

Modern western democracies through the development of secular humanism have separated religion and government. Their civil law protects all their citizens, muslims as well as all other faiths.

This particularly seems to enrage many muslims who see such toleration as contrary to their teachings which do not separate religion from government and they are willing to act on their beliefs. Their idea of paradise is to make life hell for as many people as they can.

If we don't defend ourselves we must succumb. I don't see that as an option.

 

[rubaiyat]

The catholic church has been burning people alive for hundreds of years for disagreeing with the official christian worldview, which rests on a literal interpretation of the bible.

Actually the Catholic Church does not rest on a literal interpretation of the bible, for example they accept scientific evidence as to the age of the universe. A bit slow on the uptake but they got there eventually.

Can you tell me when was the last "burning" by the Catholic Church?

Now tell me when was the last stoning, beheading or amputation by Islamic authorities?

Let's see this is Friday, so it would have to be...

 

[rubaiyat]

Here's some good news

Saudi Arabia promises to remove references to Christians as "swine" and Jews as "apes" in school textbooks.

Just a taste.

 

[Mikuro]

Irregardless muslims are not being rounded up randomly. The surveilance they are under is directed at those who are actually calling for or conspiring to violence. The same as police keep an eye on skinheads. I suppose that is racial profiling to "pick on" whites with shaven heads, Union Jack T-Shirts and heavy boots?

There seems to be a disconnect here. I don't think anyone's saying we shouldn't touch muslims if we have good reason to believe they're up to something. That's not racial profiling; that's legitimate intelligence. Nobody's saying otherwise. The only problem is when you use race as the only reason for suspicion, which is the issue here (no matter how much rhetoric is wrapped around it by politicians).

The non-muslim world emerged from most of its injustices long ago through liberalism and an increasingly open, free debate, that allowed the change.

Islam seems to be caught in a time warp and even has a large percentage trying to turn back time and lashing out at everyone else in the process.

I agree a lot with this. Imagine what would happen if you took 21st-century technology and put it in the hands of Christian churches hundreds of years ago. That's basically what's happening now.

I really don't think it's fair to judge their religion/culture as harshly as many people do, because ours was no better when our society was at the level theirs is now. The world has never advanced in unison. It's like adults who chastise their kids for the same things they did when they were young.

Of course, judging them by our own standards of the past doesn't work too well either, since they're using modern, dangerous technology. It's like a child with a gun. Kids will be kids, but if they're wielding that kind of power, they'd better grow up in a hurry.

That said, I really don't think the way to help the maturation of a society is to bomb the @#$% out of it, but...well, we're lacking a bit of cultural maturity ourselves in that regard. There are some people who think all our problems will be solved by promoting literacy and education among mideastern women. I don't think it's that simple, but I like the direction, at least.

Here's some good news

Saudi Arabia promises to remove references to Christians as "swine" and Jews as "apes" in school textbooks.

Just a taste.

How...progressive.

 

[Cat]

Burnings lasted well into the 18th century in Europe, enslavement of blacks ended in the second half of the 19th century in the USA, racism had its heyday in the 20th century with various racial laws.

Still now in the west people are discriminated against for no other reason than skin color, "speaking funny" or having certain beleifs, and, yes, this sometimes leads to violence and death.

State and church promulgated racism have been abandoned, but it took us quite some time to get there.

Christians came to prominence once they succeded in turning their religion from a faith for slaves and women into the faith of the emperor. Half of europe was converted by the sword. You can bet that there is plenty of justification for that in the bible.

 

[rubaiyat]

You can bet that there is plenty of justification for that in the bible.

No there wasn't, unless you can find the quotes for me. The slavery exists in small sections of the old testament as does the eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth but is clearly contradicted by everything in the New Testament.

The vast majority of Europe was converted by evangalists. To my knowledge the sword was first drawn against the beligerent tribes in the Prussian and east Baltic regions by Charlemagne. Charlemagne can be said to have used the church to secure his political aims.

Even the Norsemen who plagued christian Europe for centuries, capturing and selling millions of christians as slaves to the Moors in Spain, were converted by evangalists and not at the point of the sword.

The violence crept into the complex relationship between church and state once it was well founded.

Either way I am not going to absolve violence by religious extremists of whatever persuasion. For a good part of modern history we had eliminated sectarian violence in the West and it is now returning with a vengence from the East and striking not only at Christians and Jews, but Hindus,Buddhists, the Bahaii, what is left of the Zororastrians in Iran and Afghanistan and even alternate Muslim sects.

I keep coming back to this. It is being justified by what is clearly written in the Koran and the death penalty against apostasy in Islam that stops any criticism of either its contents or interpretation. Speak up against the Koran or its interpretation and you die.

Violence is a central part of the Koran whether you admit it or not. It is there in black and white. Pretending it is not is obviously not working, and seems to be taken as just a sign of a weak, corrupt western civilisation that has criticised itself into a state of permanent apologia.

Any reforms in the Islamic world against mutual self destructive violence, violence against women and other religions, ending of slavery etc have been violently opposed by those decrying those reforms as imposed by the west and unislamic.

They're right! So what are you going to choose and what are you going to do about it?

 

[Cat]

Charlemagne can be said to have used the church to secure his political aims.

And you don't think the same has happened to Islam? Is nobody in the middle-east using religion as a means to an end? So who's the culprit, the faith and the faithful or those who abuse the faith and use it as "opium for the masses"?

If tyrants and warmongers claim religious justifications for their actions, is the fault in politics or in religion?

If the state power is identified with a religious creed then when you speak up against the convenient interpretation of holy texts given by the powerful, you speak up against the dominant power. It is the worldly power of the state that reacts, not the spiritual power of the religion.

Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has reapeatedly called for peace, for unity, for an end to violence in Iraq. He has advocated free and fair democratic elections and was even nominated for the nobel peace prize for his efforts. That does not seem to be in accordance with the way you picture Islam. Sistani is a leading, politically involved Ayatollah, yet his words and actions contradict what you claim about all the violence in Islam.

If you are referring to Iran, rather than Iraq, then again I don't see the "violent" Islam you speak of. Khamenei recently asserted that Iran would never attack any other country and that production of nuclear weapons was out of the question. In accordance with this Ahmadinejad declared that Iran had no intention to produce nuclear bombs or attack other countries, mentioning specifically Israel, he remarked that he saw elections as a solution to the current problems, not wars.

Where is this aggressive, suppressive Islam? The "weak and corrupt" west has launched several attacks against Islamic states, no Islamic states have done so in quite some time. Small groups of fanatics which represent neither a country nor an organized religion have launches terrorist attacks across the globe, and these deranged fundamentalists have given their own personal interpretation of what their faith means to them and used it to justify crimes and political violence. However, you cannot take this as representative for the billion or so faithful muslims around the world. If it were representative, we already would have a full-scale "hot" world war right here and now.

Despite the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon, despite all the threats issued to Syria and Iran, there is no full-scale war. The christian/jewish west has attacked and threatened several muslim countries, but they have not reacted in kind. Who is propagating violence here?

You (grudgingly) tell me that perhaps the Old Testament is filled with a wrathfull, vengeful god, that kills men and beasts alike, but that the New testament contradicts all that. Well, isn't the Old testament part of the jewish and of the christian faith? Should we just follow the New one? Go ahead, found another protestant evangelical sect, but catholics and jews will follow the ten commandments and the Torah. Moreover, doesn't Jesus tell us that he has not come to change the laws that were given to us? Doesn't he tell us that he effectively is the son of god, the son of the god of Abraham, Moses and David who is the God of the Old Testament?

There's not as much smiting in the New Testament, but how can you honestly ignore all the passages where god kills or torments sinners or political opponents of his chosen tribe? Jesus repeatedly refers to the old prophes of the old testament and pronounces that he is in agreement with them. Doesn't he himself prophesy something like "Brother shall kill brother, and the father the child: and the children will rise up against their parents, and cause their death." because of religious wars? Didn't Jesus come "not to bring peace, but a sword"?

If you go cherry picking quotes from assorted religious texts, you can always find engough violence and exceptions to justify your own violence and double standards. Those that do not listen to the word of god, will end like the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah: voilà your justification for bombing the hell out of those unbelieving muslims. White phosphorous on civilian population? Not a problem! Cluster bombs on residential area's? Why not: it's in the bible! Indeed: "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" as our saviour says, but, hey, they are not like us. So who cares if they get all the dirty stares and get searched twice as often in airports, while we are burning those who share their religious faith with "fire unquenchable".

You cannot export democracy with weapons. If change is not forthcoming out of Islamic countries, then trying to impose our ideals will only turn people against them. By military threats you strenghten those that use fear to rule, you strenghten the power of fundamentalists who preach against the west and charismatic populists who use religion to gain power. Invest in a future with dialogue, with help for the poor and famished, with education, leading by example, and you will avoid violence and oppression.

 

[Rhisiart]

Religion is particuarly dangerous when it is fueled by political ambitions, rather than theology or a genuine passion for the well-being of humanity.

The Catholic Church was spectacularly guilty of this for hundreds of years. New Islamic states such as Iran, are de facto run by Ayotollahs who most clearly have political ambitions.

Osama bin Laden's own Wahibian Sunni sect, the mainstay of Al-Queda, has a very strong political agenda (i.e. to bring about a Global Islamic Government).

Likewise, George Bush's followers believe that the creation of great wealth is an intregal part of being a good Christian and this can only be acheived by political control of both the US and oil-rich countries.

The Jews beleive they are God's children and have a God-given right to the whole of Palestine.

You can argue the toss over the Bible, Torah and the Koran. But the political power brokers will use any quotes out of context from these Holy books to further their political ambitions.

 

[rubaiyat]

Religion is particuarly dangerous when it is fueled by political ambitions, rather than theology or a genuine passion for the well-being of humanity.

Religion is dangerous full stop. Because it claims ultimate authority on behalf of a deity/s who never seems to directly speak for Him/Themselves. Also because they claim the ultimate rewards/punishments, so anything can be justified in their name.

The Iranian Ayatollahs twin objectives against the Shah were to protect their large property holdings and theological power. Cat seems to be quite ingenuous about their nuclear ambitions, quoting (only some of) what they say, not what they are doing (now going down the plutonium path) and totally ignoring their vitriolic statements against Jews and calls to destroy Israel in the most brutal terms.

Ahmadinejad seems to be crazier than Osama bin Laden, who I think is quite calculating and lucid from his own perspective. Ahmadinejad believes in armagedon and seems hell bent on bringing it on himself.

It would be hilarious if not tragic to believe Iran is non violent. Ignoring the decades of state sponsored terrorism reaching as far as the Buenos Aires synagogue bombing, you only have to look at the internal violence against their own people, killing religious minorities as well as anyone singled out by Islamic "justice". The poor gentle Bahá'í have been particularly singled out, although all minorities suffer.

Where is this aggressive, suppressive Islam?

Where is it not? The closest to a free democratic Islamic state is Turkey which has the blood of millions of Armenians and unknown number of Kurds on its hands. A Turk even attempted to assasinate the Pope. The next closest thing to an Islamic democracy is Indonesia which again slaughtered a quarter million East Timorese and drove a substantial number from their homes into West Timor whilst trashing the country. It is also attacking christian and animist Papuans, Christians all over but particularly in Sulawasi and Maluku, Hindus in Bali, Chinese Christians, Buddhist and Daoists in Java etc.

In Sudan there has been a vicious war against the southern Christians and animists for decades which has spread to the Dafur region and east on the border with Ethiopia. Somalia, Egypt, Algeria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Lebanon, Jordan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Thailand, The Netherlands, Spain, Germany, The Philipines, France, Nigeria, Britain, the list goes on and on. Smaller scale violence has appeared virtually everywhere, even on the idyllic beaches of Australia.

The only reason we do not have full scale war, yet, is Iran does not have the atomic bomb, yet, although they are putting all the infrastructure including long range missiles in place. Meanwhile war by proxy in Lebanon, Iraq and many other countries is doing the job nicely. The "billion or so faithful" represents many peaceful members as does any selection of humanity, but also seems to be able to spontaneously produce endless excuses and bombers.

The west has supressed violent Islamic states where provoked and rescued muslims in Kosovo, bombing christian Serbia into submission to do so. Attempts to protect humanitarian assistance in other locations such as Somalia and Lebanon were attacked.

Do not take any of this as support of George W. Bush's war in Iraq. The man is an idiot and I can find no other, kinder way of putting it.

I am not going to bat for the Israelis either, but they were attacked by the Arab Nations on formation of their state and have been essentially at war since. In the process they have become a classic case of power and greed corrupting an intelligent moral people. I figure they believe they have nothing to gain from Arabs, whatever agreements they come to another group will break them. I believe the lessons from the holocaust (which is alternately denied by the Iranians and then criticised as not thorough enough) haunt them, that they believe they ultimately stand alone or perish.

I will squash the absurd statement that rhisiart made that "The Jews beleive they are God's children and have a God-given right to the whole of Palestine." There are plenty of Jews, even orthodox, who believe Israel has no such thing. Some of the most orthodox in fact believe Zionist Israel has no right of existence at all.

Cat your quotes from the New Testament mystify me, could you please give me references. Where are you getting these from? Hopefully not Saudi textbooks.

You clearly are not representing an extremist view, but within the Arabic world and beyond, ludicrous "facts" such as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are promulgated and fueling all this blood letting.

Given that such "knowledge" permeates muslim society and spontaneously materialises into violence why should we not attribute the violence to its source, islamic prejudice?

 

[rubaiyat]

btw Cat everytime I hear or see the Hezbollah, Hamas or any radical Arabs weaping over the deaths of innocent civilians, for whom I genuinely do feel sorry, I am reminded of images that stick in my mind.

1. The celebration of Palestinian self government where gunmen firing up into the air killed a young girl.

2. The Arab family that was struck by one of the first Hezbollah rockets into Israel.

3. The celebration of Palestinians when Sadam Hussein invaded Kuwait and the planes struck the World Trade centre.

4. The holy Shiite mosques blown up to incite sectarian violence.

5. The Iraqi Imams blown up by other Iraqi Imams over a turf war for Iraqi "hearts and minds"

6. The town of Lockerbie with the ruins of the Jumbo jet plowed through it.

7. The Libyan diplomat shooting the London policewoman

8. The Jordanian suicide bomber who told his wife to leave the Royal Hotel, when her bomb belt developed a fault, then let off his own bomb filled with ball bearings and nails.

9. Wheelchair-bound Leon Klinghoffer being thrown off the Achille Lauro by Palestinians.

10. The hundreds of Kenyan and Tanzanians killed and maimed in the African US embassy bombings

11. The statues of Buddha in Afghanistan being blown up by the Taliban

12. The soccer stadium in Kabul, built with western aid money, being used by the Taliban to stone to death "adultresses" or anyone else fallen foul of the Islamic police.

13. Lebanese Shiites cheering on rockets fired into Israel.

14. The blood covered Indonesian guards killed and maimed by bombers outside of the Australian embassy in Jakarta.

15. Captives having their heads sawn off.

16. The people who praised Saddam Hussein and his "good" reign of murder and terror in the name of Arabs.

There are too many images, they all blur one into another. Mostly they are of a people hell bent on revenge, real or imagined, at no matter what cost. People whose emotional control seems to be permanently set on "hate" and not "peace".

 

[Cat]

Cat seems to be quite ingenuous about their nuclear ambitions, quoting (only some of) what they say, not what they are doing (now going down the plutonium path) and totally ignoring their vitriolic statements against Jews and calls to destroy Israel in the most brutal terms.

Do you actually know what is needed to produce nuclear weapons? Weapons grade uranium needs at the very very least 20% enrichment, Iran is capable of less than 5%. You need thousands of centrifuges to enrich enough uranium for use in a nuclear reactor with ~2.5 - 4% enrichment, and many thousands more to reach true weapons-grade at more than 80% enrichment. Iran has just done basic test runs of its machinery, and has hundreds, not thousands of centrifuges in operation. When the plant at Natanz is completed it may house something around ~5000 centrifuges.

Iran has signed and ratified the Anti-Proliferation treaty, unlike Israel. Iran has been inspected by the IAEA and its director El-Baradei:

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has called on the world for calm on the Iran nuclear issue, saying there was no imminent threat from Tehran.

There is a lot of hype, IAEA chief, Dr Mohamed ElBaradei, said here on Thursday of Tehran’s nuclear agenda, adding that a fine line needs to be drawn between hype and reality.

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.

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.

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, I'm not impressed by your list. Similar lists can be given for most religions, states or races. Such lists are worthless and do not constitute an argument either for or against racial or religous profiling.

There's a lot of stupid reasons for killing or getting killed and I agree that religion might be one of the most stupid. Also there are a lot of stupid ways to waste money. "Security" as we are doing it now might be one of the most stupid. If you want to save lives, ban smoking and drinking and you'll save more lives and money than by "spur-of-the-moment" security measures that essentially give up the "western" values that we try to "defend" by implementing them.

 

[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]

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]

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]

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/2006/09/18/africa/AF_GEN_Somalia_Nun_Killed.php