Church plans Qur'an burning

[Platapus]

Wow.

I knew we had nutters in this country, but this really shocks me.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/29/florida.burn.quran.day/index.html

In protest of what it calls a religion "of the devil," a nondenominational church in Gainesville, Florida, plans to host an "International Burn a Quran Day" on the ninth anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks.

The Dove World Outreach Center says it is hosting the event to remember 9/11 victims and take a stand against Islam. With promotions on its website and Facebook page, it invites Christians to burn the Muslim holy book at the church from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.


.....

The Islamic advocacy group Council on American-Islamic Relations called on Muslims and others to host "Share the Quran" dinners to educate the public during the monthlong fast of Ramadan beginning in August. In a news release, the group announced a campaign to give out 100,000 copies of the Quran to local, state and national leaders.


"American Muslims and other people of conscience should support positive educational efforts to prevent the spread of Islamophobia," said CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper in the release.


The National Association of Evangelicals, the nation's largest umbrella evangelical group, issued a statement urging the church to cancel the event, warning it could cause worldwide tension between the two religions.
"The NAE calls on its members to cultivate relationships of trust and respect with our neighbors of other faiths. God created human beings in his image, and therefore all should be treated with dignity and respect," it said in the statement.


.....the Dove center is also hosting a protest against Gainesville Mayor Craig Lowe, who is openly gay, on Monday at Gainesville's City Hall.

.....


Book burning in America? Have some sunk that far? What do they really expect to accomplish with this?



I hope the world recognizes that these people do not represent the culture of the United States. I, for one, did not spill my blood in a foreign country to support a culture of book burnings. I know that freedom of expression allows burning books, but it just seems so wrong, hateful, and ineffective.



p.s. One religion calling another religion "deceptive" :shifty:

[mookiemookie]

Disgusting.

[Onkel Neal]

Almost as bad as burning the flag, and that practice has a lot of defenders.

[tater]

Burning books ain't my thing (I collect them ;) ).

That said, it is freedom of expression. What would really disturb me would not be a few nuts burning books, but the government protecting THAT book out of being PC.

[TLAM Strike]

I don't think this go far enough, I think they need to burn all religious texts.

Only way to start to replace superstition with science and rational thought..

:03:

[Platapus]

Oh I agree, the Government should not take any stand on this. Just like the government should not take a stand on burning the flag.

I am just sorry that this "church" is so insecure about their own faith that the would need to stoop to the lowest level like this. They would be pitiful if I were not so angered about this.

[tater]

What was the reaction of the major churches to the Danish cartoons?

At the very least I recall some of them saying that the problem was in fact... blasphemy. That fit well with the generalized Western reaction which was to not print the images the news story was about, then also bend over backwards to throw THOSE nuts a bone and claim that sensitivity trumps freedom of expression.

Not something I'd do (one holy book being pretty much the same as any other to me—If I really needed to start a fire badly and I had to burn books, I's start with the religious stuff ;) ), but it doesn't really get my knickers in a bunch.

[Schroeder]

This will go a long way in the Islamist's propaganda wars.:damn:
How dumb can one get...says the guy from a country that burnt books 75 years ago.....?

[Oberon]

Children will play...

[Skybird]

Burning holy books is a very reasonable things in cold witner nights when you are cold and could need a seat near a fire. No other type of book has brought more horror and injustice upon mankind, than holy books.

On this special event in question, there are two ways I think about it in detail.

The first is illustrated by this famous image of Huineng, 6th Chan patriarch, and those who are familiar with the context understand the relevance here:

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/8814/huineng.png (http://img199.imageshack.us/i/huineng.png/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

The other way to think on the matter, has something to do with this:

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=MmNhNTg0ZmY1NzA4NWJmMjM0YjI1MzAwNzljYjFiNDM=



Stop Islam now, while there still may be time. Since half a century the West delivers monumental advanced investements to islamic demands - but islam does not deliver anything in return, and does not answer on the same terms, but pushes for more special status for itself and minimising the rights of other cultures.

Do not tolerate what does not tolerate you in return, in the same way.
Do not give others those rights that these others want to withhold from you.
Insist on a principle of reciprocity. 50 years of one-sided advanced investement of ours while the other side only always points fingers at us, are more than just thin evidence that we have shown good will. Such hilarious ammount of good will even int he face of totalitarian intolerance could also be called - stupidity, or rejection of reality.

[SteamWake]

Well it would seem that the orginization has acheived its goal.

Even if not a single book is burned it has A:Gotten a mention in mainstream media and B:Got you guys talking about it.

Mission accomplished.

[Subnuts]

People who burn books usually end up burning people sometime in the future.

[tater]

Note that the OP article of course interviews CAIR, an organization that is in fact connected to terrorism, and the Islamic Brotherhood.

[krashkart]

They should at the very least wait until the dead of winter when the poor are having a hard time keeping warm. :yeah:

[SteamWake]

They should at the very least wait until the dead of winter when the poor are having a hard time keeping warm. :yeah:

Thinking outside the box.. I like it.

[antikristuseke]

Well this has got to be the worst idea I have read of this week.

[Tribesman]

Well this has got to be the worst idea I have read of this week.
It is funny though, this church will have to spend money getting copies of the book just so they can burn it.
Book burners of this ilk are a publishers dream.

[antikristuseke]

Reminds me of the protesters in Postal 2 chanting "Save a tree, burn a book!"

[UnderseaLcpl]

People like this make it hard for me to be a Christian. I have absolutely no compunction about announcing to the world that I believe a miracle-working carpenter from Nazareth was the Son of God and died for our sins - that's easy, but then I turn around and see that these people are my fellow believers!? WTF?

Thanks for showing people the better side of our religion, guys. No, really. We'll win a ton of converts that way. I'm sure Jesus is smiling down on your intolerant asses right now. After all, Christianity's message is that you get to look down on non-Christians, right? Hey, as long as we're burning their books, why not don crosses and go slaughter their women and children in the name of God? Peace be with you. A-holes:stare:

[antikristuseke]

What we should do is take all religious extremists we find, shove them all on an island and let them duke it out to find out who is right, the winners get a slice of pie and some .50 caliber aspirine. The whole even would be refereed by hardcore pacifists, as those ****ers wouldn't interfere. After the slaughter is done and the pacifists have either caught a stray bullet or starved to death the entire island could be turned into an actual throne of skulls for Khorne with fountains of blood beside it for tourist attraction and general atmosphere. then to plagiarize even more stuff there should allso be everburning bushes spelling out gods last words to his entire creation: "Sorry for the inconvenience".

[geetrue]

Not all christians would agree with this protest, all christians are followers of Jesus Christ and even Jesus would not agree with this book burning protest.

It's just a way for this particular pastor to get atention in his home town in Florida ... attention spells more traffic, more traffic spells money and money spells having it made.

They do the same things in the south with revival, advertising revival, conjuring up revival with the false gifts of the Holy Spirit, tongues, prophecy, words of knowledge, phony healing, promises of prosperity.

All they do is give the body of Christ a bad name, but the Lord knows who belongs to Him and they hear His voice not follow the bad guys.

These guys are going to get some attention from the muslims for sure and I bet God lets them do the number on them.

This is what St James the brother of Jesus had to say about anger:


My dear brothers and sisters, always be willing to listen and slow to speak.

Do not become angry easily, because anger will not help you live the right kind of life God wants.

So put out of your life every evil thing and every kind of wrong.

Then in gentleness accept God’s teaching that is planted in your hearts, which can save you.

[TLAM Strike]

Well this has got to be the worst idea I have read of this week.
You need to read more.... :O:

[Aramike]

To be completely honest, while I don't condone what they are doing, it doesn't bother me all that much. Quite frankly its probably been a long time in coming, what with all the cherished symbols of the western world being regularly, and OPENLY burned by Muslims.

[UnderseaLcpl]

To be completely honest, while I don't condone what they are doing, it doesn't bother me all that much. Quite frankly its probably been a long time in coming, what with all the cherished symbols of the western world being regularly, and OPENLY burned by Muslims.

Fair enough, but Christians shouldn't be doing this. Christianity is not supposed to be about about an eye for an eye.

[antikristuseke]

If you read the bible, in parts it is. Christianity is no less brutal than islam is in its holy texts, the difference is only in interpretations by the majority. With the bible it is nigh on impossible to follow every rule it imposes since some of them are contradictory. Same as the Qur'an, torah and every other religious text I have read.

[GoldenRivet]

the actions of this church are completely uncalled for.

[Seth8530]

meh let em burn them books. who gives a rats crap lol

[Aramike]

Fair enough, but Christians shouldn't be doing this. Christianity is not supposed to be about about an eye for an eye.I don't see this as a case of "eye for an eye". This burning is an expression of a certain shared belief of specific Christians who believe that the Quaran represents something anathema to their beliefs. It does not cause harm to anyone, at least no more than any other form of protected speech.

Personally, as I am not a Christian, I cannot qualify the following, but it seems to me as though "turning the other cheek" never was intended to mean that Christians should simply bite their tongues. Perhaps one can say that Christians should only spread their creed without attacking others, but that is merely an argument of semantics. Our world (and world perception) is relative - meaning, that saying "this is the right way" clearly implies that other ways are wrong.

I can't intellectually fault someone for stating that clearly, rather than merely relying upon the obvious implication, as the ultimate equation is the same.

So this church wants to make a strong statement that Islam is bad ... so what? I happen to agree that Islam, in it's most fundamental form, is a dangerous religion. Ironically, while Christianity's works teach turning the other cheek, as it were, Islamic texts do not. In other words, Islamic texts don't afford any argument of interpretation in this matter, whereas Christianity's does. To me, that's an interesting dilleneation all by itself.

[Aramike]

If you read the bible, in parts it is. Christianity is no less brutal than islam is in its holy texts, the difference is only in interpretations by the majority. With the bible it is nigh on impossible to follow every rule it imposes since some of them are contradictory. Same as the Qur'an, torah and every other religious text I have read.I don't think you're nearly as well-versed in this matter as your statement would suggest. Christianity (meaning, Christ-like) is based upon Christ, whom doesn't appear until the New Testament of the Bible. If you understood this, you'd clearly be aware that the texts describing the expected behaviors of those who prescribe to the Christian faith are no where NEAR the barbarianism and brutality of Islamic works describing the same.

While no doubt there has been much evil committed in the name of Christianity, let us not confuse that for the modern interpretations of the texts which the religion is based upon, as that would be intellectually shallow.

The bottom line is that, as an atheist, I do not believe that religion is what caused, or continues to cause, men to be brutal to other men. I believe it's man's very nature, and if religion wasn't an excuse, we'd simply find another. (If you were alive while the secularist Soviets were placing nuclear missiles in Cuba, you'd understand.)

It is a grave logical error to take what has been done in the name of some document as the definition of that document itself. Rather one should examine said document as its own definition and be equally capable of finding fault within the texts as well as the interpretation (read: spin).

[UnderseaLcpl]

If you read the bible, in parts it is. Christianity is no less brutal than islam is in its holy texts, the difference is only in interpretations by the majority. With the bible it is nigh on impossible to follow every rule it imposes since some of them are contradictory. Same as the Qur'an, torah and every other religious text I have read.

Not in the New Testament, with the exception of Revelations. Certainly not in the Gospels, which is what most of my faith is based upon.

Unlike some of my Bible-thumping bretheren, my faith is not built upon the idea of the Good Book's infallibility. I know it was written by people and as such it reflects human imperfections. The bible gives the value of pi as "3" in Kings, so it obviously isn't infallible. However, we still have Jesus' example to follow, and He would never condone the burning of religious texts, or any persecution for that matter. Our Lord and Saviour was above such things. Why stoop to violence and hatred when your message is so obviously superior?

Sadly, many consider the Bible, in its entirety, to be a permanent rulebook of some kind without ever looking into any kind of historical context. In the worst-case scenarios, they somehow decide that it gives them licence to lord over non-believers. I don't see it that way. I can put the Old and New Testaments into two words: Survive, and Thrive, respectively. The Old Testament established basic rules needed for cooperative human survival (Don't eat parasite-ridden pork! Don't commit adultery or covet your neighbor's oxen; you'll start a fight, and that's bad!) It's also full of ancient rivalries translated into a religious medium.

The New Testament, on the other hand, is a religious guide for a developed society, with Jesus Christ as its shining exemplar. It preaches forgiveness and reason, as shown by His example. The Son of God is not concerned with the secular aspects of religion because His faith is so tremendously superior that it has no need to persecute or demean others. All He asks is that you ask for His salvation, and if you don't, there are millions who will ask for you . He demands little of you, and offers everything in return.

Call me an idiot or whatever you please, but I'll be praying for you from now until the day I die. I have no shame in admitting that my God is a Jewish caprenter. Even if there is no god, and the Bible is nothing but a lie, I take pride in trying to follow the example of a humble man who gave everything for the sake of the people who killed him. Even the mopst die-hard secularists have to admit that there is some divinity in that.

[Aramike]

However, we still have Jesus' example to follow, and He would never condone the burning of religious texts, or any persecution for that matter. Our Lord and Saviour was above such things. Why stoop to violence and hatred when your message is so obviously superior?The problem with that is that He was above a great many things which we as humans often find necessary. The divine would naturally be.

However, I don't consider a symbolic burning of texts to be "violence", nor do I consider the admonisment and disdain of evil to be "hatred".

Again, I don't condone what this church is doing. I see it as being unnecessarily inciteful. However, I don't see it as such a black and white issue, either.
Even if there is no god, and the Bible is nothing but a lie, I take pride in trying to follow the example of a humble man who gave everything for the sake of the people who killed him. It is the fact that such interpretations of the modern Christian faith are more common than not which makes me harbor great respect, even envy, for those who engage in it.

[Skybird]

When Islamic societies start to worry about how they massively, shamelessly discriminate other beliefs and cultures and how they supress the display or the historic monuments of expression of such other cultures and even destroy them - then I will start to worry about burning the Quran.
Freedom is all nice and well, but it ashould be given to somebody else only if he does not use that freedom to destroy freedom. Building that mosque is a provocation and the orginsation behind that coup is directly linked to openly hostile Islamists of the most radical spectrum, as explained in the article I linked. It is a mocking of the victims - and many Americans and Westerners are even lame enough in their heads not to see it or not wanting to see it.
That some nevertheless are so pissed by the fact that the ideology that has caused, motivated and justified the 9/11 attacks now even is shameless enough to raise it's own ugly grinning face over the graves of the victims and to stageact a satire of itself being oh so innocent and even a victim of misunderstandings, is so rhich and underhanded that people feeling the urge to to "burn it" in a way is just a natural human reaction.

Brind down Islam - before it has completely brought down freedom, education and enlightenment. The damage already is big, the dark seed in the minds of peope already has been sown, it's presence in world media and global attention makes it the number 1 top item in the list of headlines, it's influence already is such that it is given more privileges and special rights and special status and special attentions than any other cult, relgion, ideology. And still it says it's not enough! It will never be enough - not before all is it's own.

Burnijg books usually is not good. But there are somne books that are bad and evil and have cause dnothing but hate and intolerance and bloodshed throughout their history. Hitler's Mein Kampf, or the Quran are two such books. You should not cry if their poisenous ideas and content get lost: it would be a great acchievement for mankind. There simply never comes any good from these books, and there is no way you can relativise the evil of their content by saying that burning the one book opens door and gate for burning all books, that is nonsense caused by crucifying onself over absolutist demands. You do not portest when Chriszian churches get opressed in islamic countries, and Jewish communtiies are almost driven out, fleeing countries wehre they lived since centuries now.

The receiver of your good will in no ways deserves your good intention. Be careful you do not will the other that freedom that he needs to take away from you freedom. Free societies need to define where freedom ends, too: and that is when freedom gets abused for destroying freedom, like Islam does.

[Aramike]

Burnijg books usually is not good. But there are somne books that are bad and evil and have cause dnothing but hate and intolerance and bloodshed throughout their history. Hitler's Mein Kampf, or the Quran are two such books. You should not cry if their poisenous ideas and content get lost: it would be a great acchievement for mankind. There simply never comes any good from these books, and there is no way you can relativise the evil of their content by saying that burning the one book opens door and gate for burning all books, that is nonsense caused by crucifying onself over absolutist demands. You do not portest when Chriszian churches get opressed in islamic countries, and Jewish communtiies are almost driven out, fleeing countries wehre they lived since centuries now. There's only one thing I disagree with here, and wish to comment on.

I have no problem with the burning of the the Quran as symbolism, but I wouldn't want it (or even Mein Kampf) completely destroyed. These are excellent examples of the depths which human depravity can reach, and along with historical context, they can definitely be useful in helping us from being "...doomed to repeat..." history.

The rest of your points? Spot on.

[Admiral8Q]

That is terrible. Get a brain man is my advice to that old guy.:nope:

[Skybird]

I have no problem with the burning of the the Quran as symbolism, but I wouldn't want it (or even Mein Kampf) completely destroyed. These are excellent examples of the depths which human depravity can reach, and along with historical context, they can definitely be useful in helping us from being "...doomed to repeat..." history.


It is said that othing can stop an idea whose time hgas come. While I take that more in a romantic than literal understanding, i tend to think that dieas and ideologies can be infectous the the ojne and the many minds. Thus, if I identify an ideology to be extremely irrational end driven by hysteric sentiments and to be of extreme evil like religious fanatism and fundamentlaism, then I tend to think that not much can be learned from them in the way you described it, but that they can infest minds by just being dealt with. So, if you want to save them, please do it like oyu handle ebola and anthrax and all the other biological agents for war as well: in a deep hidden bunker where you have doors of steel 10 cm thick and extremely limited access, with security all around, and the place hidden from the public, at best being buried, forgotten, and become a silent victim of time.

We must not always preserve the germs of terror and evil. Destroying it, if we can, may prove to be fully sufficient. Think of it as one step on the stairs that our ancestors have tried, slipped and barely survived the fall by getting a grab at last second, and then climbed higher, leaving that slippery step behind and never wasting another thought on it. What can belearned from it: Only to watch out more careful for the steps before you.

[Aramike]

It is said that othing can stop an idea whose time hgas come. While I take that more in a romantic than literal understanding, i tend to think that dieas and ideologies can be infectous the the ojne and the many minds. Thus, if I identify an ideology to be extremely irrational end driven by hysteric sentiments and to be of extreme evil like religious fanatism and fundamentlaism, then I tend to think that not much can be learned from them in the way you described it, but that they can infest minds by just being dealt with. So, if you want to save them, please do it like oyu handle ebola and anthrax and all the other biological agents for war as well: in a deep hidden bunker where you have doors of steel 10 cm thick and extremely limited access, with security all around, and the place hidden from the public, at best being buried, forgotten, and become a silent victim of time.

We must not always preserve the germs of terror and evil. Destroying it, if we can, may prove to be fully sufficient. Think of it as one step on the stairs that our ancestors have tried, slipped and barely survived the fall by getting a grab at last second, and then climbed higher, leaving that slippery step behind and never wasting another thought on it. What can belearned from it: Only to watch out more careful for the steps before you.I understand where you are coming from, but I have to respectfully disagree. Take away Mein Kampf, someone will just write another. But the ACT of taking it away would make it a martyr of ideological openess.

People have believed in such evil since well before Hitler or Mohammed - their infamies merely propelled their works to the forefront of our discussions. However, evil texts being available to all, due to their overwhelming opposition, clearly displays what as a species we've decided what is right, and what is wrong.

Destroying such works would only remove the disdain society has for the ideas they represent - it would do nothing to rid the ideas themselves.

And, quite frankly, removing the fact that derision for those ideas are mainstream would leave our world as open to those ideas as Germany was to Hitler - and that I find outright frightening.

[Skybird]

Such ideas might want to show up again, yes, maybe later, maybe earlier. But we must not reserve the the space, time and opportunity for them to do so - by not fighting against their symptoms but even protecting their manifestation. I see too often that what is of hostile nature is getting tolerated in the name of freedom or "learning from it", but nothing gets learned for sure, only the hostile idea is allowed to grow and gain influence, and everybody just stands and watches it and says "It's okay, that is our freedom".

The Nazis were not made to go away from learning from them, but by killing them. Religious fanatism throughout Europe was not made to go away by learning from it, but from opposing, superior education that then started to confront it head on. Where an evil idea is given free space in the name of tolerance or freedom, we do not see people learning from it how to avoid it, but we see the fanatism growing in influence and size again.

It's like with weed in the garden. You do not allow it some refugium, and you do not just observe how it is doing, but you cut it off, you rip it out by the roots, and you eventually use poison to prevent it from coming back soon. It comes back, yes - but later.

The fight against what is bad, or "evil", is never producing a final result. It buys time - whether or not you buy more or less time, and need to fight sooner or later in the future again, is up to your action in the present. We simply live in a dualistic world concept of our minds, we cannot imagine the world to be different. Everything rising already holds the reason of its own fall inside of it. This ensures that there is movement and change and hopefully: developement. Everything seems to run in cycles. We can only try to influence the length of time between the beginning and the ending of something, and we want to make the time between both very long if it is somethign good, and we want to make the time between both very short if it is about something bad. But in the end, neither the good nor the bad will ever last forever.

So lets take a deep breath and mobilise all our powers to make sure the darkness of mind will not last one generation longer than absolutely necessary. Switch on the searchlights and push dark ideas into the focus of our spotlights to expose them as what they are and see them in full light and unhidden detail - no matter how much they complain about not being given the respect that they claim for themselves. What relgious ideas call respect, in fact is just religion's denial of checking itself.

[Tribesman]

The irony here is that many of skys lines can be taken from mein kampf.

The fight against what is bad, or "evil", is never producing a final result
hmmmmmm....a wanasee solution.

So, if you want to save them, please do it like oyu handle ebola and anthrax
A new screenplay, the eternal muslim.:doh:

[Stealth Hunter]

I have no problem with the burning of the the Quran as symbolism, but I wouldn't want it (or even Mein Kampf) completely destroyed. These are excellent examples of the depths which human depravity can reach . . .

....wow.:-?

Funnily enough, the Qur'an borrows most of its background religious materials from the Bible (both New and Old Testaments) and the Torah. In fact, the Angel Gabriel is supposedly the messenger who brought Mohammad all the makings to be compiled into the Qur'an (this, of course, completely ignoring the teaching that Jesus was a prophet of Allah and was very wise and powerful from being backed by him).

. . .and along with historical context, they can definitely be useful in helping us from being "...doomed to repeat history...".

There's nothing dooming about the Qur'an. No more than there is about the Bible. The problem of religion is its spawning of fanatics. They are what's really dooming in all this. But they can be found in anything just about, including politics.

[tater]

People buying books to burn them IS symbolism, nothing else.

This is not the real topic, but in these discussions at some point there is usually a false connection made between private actions and "censorship." The latter requires state action—it's not like some fundies can stop the sale or publication of the koran. In fact, as noted, they actually increase sales by the number bought to burn. Burn enough, and the next printing might be BIGGER :) .

Note of course that walking around with a Bible is likely a crime in most Muslim countries.

[Skybird]

Sure, sure , it's all a question of "interpretation" what essentially leaves little room of interpretation. The evil lies in the eye of the beholder only.

Just compare the state in which Islamic societies are, regarding tolerance and multiculturalism, and Christian ones. compare to what degree Christians base primarily on the old testament, or the four gospels n owadays. Try to see such a reformist difference in the Quran/Hadith/Sharia, in islam's global behavior today. Islamic societies are were christian ones were many generations ago - locked in intellectual darkness and fatalistic religious superstition and fanatism, not even mentioning the enslaving of women.

and explain why every year in Muslim countries and in the name of Islam thousands and thousands of people get killed (claimed Muslims and infidels alike), even more discriminated, tortured, driven away - without all this raising big concerns and protests amonst Muslim populations - while in the West this is not so, but all is so incredibly much better and more humane and free over here. How comes that infidels and foreign priests time and again get murdered in Muslim countries for religious reasons, whereas in the West the assassination of Muslims is a real rarity?

Islam has nothing to do with it?

Islam has all to do with it, becasue it is a time trap. The clash of cultures, is a clash between historic eras. Islam today is in and celebrates that condition as civilisational superiority where our ancestors have been several generations ago, centuries and one millenia ago. Islam is driven by those motives that in past centuries the West has been driven by - but is no more!!! - when there still had not been a loss of power and control of the church, and where the West culture was when it was under influence of the dogma of the OT and the Catholic church. Those were bad and dark times for europe. We have left them beidn sicne lomng. Islam is stuck in the middle of this darkness - since many centuries, and I do not see it even trying to creep put of it. Instead, it tries to enforce this darkness on all others, too.

Changing that dogma, leaving it behind, having a reformation, a focussing on the new testament and the four gospels, having a pushing back of the religious people'S power and refusing the church almost total control: all this are inevtiable preconditions for the freedoms and humanistic ideals we have today, the cultural blossoming, the developement of arts and sciences both in quantity and quality, the forming of a cultural tolerance that is possibly unique in the history of mankind. The big wars we fought in the past generations: were not fought over religious missions anymore, but nationalistic and political ideas.

But islam should not have anything to do with the state the Islamic world is in - stuck with it'S head in the a### of history, 1400 years deep, impotent by itself when it is about agriculture, technology, science, economy, true tolerance for others, legal rights, and declaring half of mankind - the female - as de facto slaves, and all infidels as victims that either must be killed or subjugated, dealt with in mandatory discrimination to let them feel their just penalty for resisting the will of Allah?

It is not about being offensive, SH, but Islam is the biggest pain in the a## of the world, a problem for all of us refusing to embrace it, and the biggest cause of bloodshed, torture and supression in the modern world. Islam must fundamentally change itself, and that means, since it cannot be changed, it must be replaced, and this is not possible as long as well-meaning tolerant guys int he West continue to save it from asking critical questions about itself, not analysing it's own history and identity, and just deceiving itself and all others as well. the confrontation, the conflict this means, is inevitable and is absolutely a necessity if Wetsern freedom and tolerance and ideals and culture and humanism shall survive, at least in the part of the world that is called "the West".

And I think even in the Islamic world there is a bit of discomfort with one's own ideologic basis - else one would not invest so much energy on denying it's barbaric heritage, nicetalking it, glossing over it, and even denying or forging history when it does not confirm with Islam'S official opinion on how things have been.

This constant underlying attitude that the bad being done in the name of Islam has nothign to do with Islam, is getting tiresome. Islam has much less space for interpretation, than most people are aware of. and that is becasue Muhammad had a high interest in making his preachings anythijg but open to ionterpretation - he was after exactly the opposite, to secure his claim for power and his undisputed control by enforcing uniformity and preventing (by supression, accusations of heresy, and assassination) all opinions that were not falling into line with him. Absolute power and free opinion do not mix well together. Interpretation is the last thing that Muhammad wanted/Islam wants.

[UnderseaLcpl]

It is the fact that such interpretations of the modern Christian faith are more common than not which makes me harbor great respect, even envy, for those who engage in it.

Thanks, Aramike. That's nice of you to say. I may even forgive you for ripping all of my limbs off and killing one of my favorite gefreiters, you flea-bitten Satanic Hellhound:DL:03:

[tater]

OK, so book burning pisses many of us off (though if you're gonna burn books, religious fantasy titles are a great place to start ;) ).

That said, what about when here in the west, we see something functionally the same to me. Self-censorship.

Danish cartoons. What newspapers, magazines, or TV networks showed the "offensive" cartoons? Which ones? South Park—censored by its network. This is the same as book burning to me. It's not state action, but it is a SYMBOL of submission. It is a symbolic burning of documents that mean something—the Constitution, for example. Note that they did NOT self-censor the countless episodes that poke at "Jesus and Pals" on South Park. Or the attacks on Mormans, or Scientology. Only one religion gets a pass.

Ceding our freedom of expression for any reason is wrong. If that means not getting POed about the expression that is book (or flag) burning, so be it.

[Skybird]

OK, so book burning pisses many of us off (though if you're gonna burn books, religious fantasy titles are a great place to start ;) ).

That said, what about when here in the west, we see something functionally the same to me. Self-censorship.

Danish cartoons. What newspapers, magazines, or TV networks showed the "offensive" cartoons? Which ones? South Park—censored by its network. This is the same as book burning to me. It's not state action, but it is a SYMBOL of submission. It is a symbolic burning of documents that mean something—the Constitution, for example. Note that they did NOT self-censor the countless episodes that poke at "Jesus and Pals" on South Park. Or the attacks on Mormans, or Scientology. Only one religion gets a pass.

Ceding our freedom of expression for any reason is wrong. If that means not getting POed about the expression that is book (or flag) burning, so be it.

Not to mention what is about stoning women for alleged adultry becasue a male witness counts two times over a female. Hanging homosexuals. Cutting of limbs becasue the thief was hungry and caught a banana. Stabbing the daughter to death because she became guilty by having been raped by group of men (who maybe even belonged to the family). Claiming right of property over females and whipping wives if they are not obedient enough. Beheading infidels if they resist islam. Demading Jews to wear yellow dots on their cloathing.

And so very very very much more up to the scale of genocide against christian populations in africa, terror against buddhists and hindus in asia, terror and war in Lebanon, hate preaching in mosques and islamic culture Centres throughout europe, etc etc etc.

It all has nothing to do with Islam, it's just the misdoing of some freaks who misunderstood islam and give it a bad name - with most of the Muslim world staying silent on these things and even supporting them with their states' money.

In the past 8 years or so, almost 16,000 people have been killed in the name of Islam, in warzones, and in muslim nations, and in mixed nations - genocides like in southeast africa not even counted. Substantial reactions from the Ummah to all this? None, just shrugging shoulder at best. But when a cartoonist in the West does in the West what in the West is perfectly allowed by Western rule, law and habit: drawing a cartoon, then all hell breakes lose, and Islam is once again presented as the perfect victim of global conspiracy. One critical word, one question on Islam - and immediately the religion of peace runs rethorical and sometimes practical amok, breathing fire and brimstone and teminding us to be more "sensible" and to prove once again that we are tolerant while being slapped into the face and pushed back one more step once again.

[Aramike]

....wow.:-?

Funnily enough, the Qur'an borrows most of its background religious materials from the Bible (both New and Old Testaments) and the Torah. In fact, the Angel Gabriel is supposedly the messenger who brought Mohammad all the makings to be compiled into the Qur'an (this, of course, completely ignoring the teaching that Jesus was a prophet of Allah and was very wise and powerful from being backed by him).So? How does this relate to anything being discussed?

(We are discussing the particulars of the literary DEMANDS of modern faiths, not their histories.)There's nothing dooming about the Qur'an. No more than there is about the Bible. The problem of religion is its spawning of fanatics. They are what's really dooming in all this. But they can be found in anything just about, including politics. You completely misunderstand my point.

What I was saying is that, take the actions of men throughout history (a great example: the crusades) and preserve the texts they interpretted as a justification, as a way of identifying the contexts in which evil is committed.

What YOU are trying to illustrate is the Bible and Quran are somehow similar in their texts. They are not. The Quran (specifically its demands upon modern Muslims) is barbaric at best. The Bible (specifically its demands upon modern Christians) is not.

[Admiral8Q]

The solution is to go burn stuff... Riiiight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCtD3OJ-_Es

[Wolfehunter]

The solution is to go burn stuff... Riiiight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCtD3OJ-_Es


I agree everyone should have a gun. :rock: Let there be anarchy.

[antikristuseke]

I don't think you're nearly as well-versed in this matter as your statement would suggest. Christianity (meaning, Christ-like) is based upon Christ, whom doesn't appear until the New Testament of the Bible. If you understood this, you'd clearly be aware that the texts describing the expected behaviors of those who prescribe to the Christian faith are no where NEAR the barbarianism and brutality of Islamic works describing the same.

While no doubt there has been much evil committed in the name of Christianity, let us not confuse that for the modern interpretations of the texts which the religion is based upon, as that would be intellectually shallow.

The bottom line is that, as an atheist, I do not believe that religion is what caused, or continues to cause, men to be brutal to other men. I believe it's man's very nature, and if religion wasn't an excuse, we'd simply find another. (If you were alive while the secularist Soviets were placing nuclear missiles in Cuba, you'd understand.)

It is a grave logical error to take what has been done in the name of some document as the definition of that document itself. Rather one should examine said document as its own definition and be equally capable of finding fault within the texts as well as the interpretation (read: spin).

So the new testament suddenly makes the old destament moot?

And I'd agree, religion is just a tool used to get people to act like complete arseheads. Sure there are others, but I would rather see a world without organized religion. Personal faith is fine, i think it is nonsensical, but fine.

As for the soviet remark, i was born a citizen of the soviet union, trust me, i know the horrors of that regime better than you probably ever could.

[Aramike]

So the new testament suddenly makes the old destament moot?Yes, as far as Christianity is concerned.

It's called the "New Covenant", and if you actually understood the religion you're seeking to condemn, you'd be fully aware that Christianity specifically abandons concepts such as "eye for an eye" in favor of "turning the other cheek".And I'd agree, religion is just a tool used to get people to act like complete arseheads. Sure there are others, but I would rather see a world without organized religion. Personal faith is fine, i think it is nonsensical, but fine.I'm sure there are plenty of people just like yourself who'd rather see a world rid of (insert organization representing that which one doesn't believe in here). Thankfully people of your mindset aren't in charge, else we'd be at the whims and mercy of whatever ideas have the greatest traction at whatever time.

In fact, you should be equally thankful, because imagine a world where your wishes COULD feesibly come true. I suspect you wouldn't like that world at all, as its likely religious leaders would have eradicated organized science by now.

My rule regarding such things is simple: make sure your principles can't come back to bite you in the ass. As such, I choose freedom as a principle - freedom to agree, disagree, and join others in espousing both.As for the soviet remark, i was born a citizen of the soviet union, trust me, i know the horrors of that regime better than you probably ever could. You'd be suprised. But the question of who's perception of horrors is greater is another discussion for another time, and is not at all relevant to the topic at hand.

[Skybird]

At Jesus' life times, there was no new testament and no "christian church". There was only Judaism and the Thora. and the old testament indeed compares more to the old Judaic entity Jahwe, and presents the same image of a revengening, tyrannic psychotic God who tortures his followers for fun to test them, and who commands and set up demands and threatens most unforgiving penalties and extinction if he is not obeyed. Jesus introduces a very different concept of "God", which transcended the level of literalism and the conept of the old "volcano-god", and put man in responsibility for his fate while also showing that he is already embedded in a greater context. In principle Jesus was a reformer of Judaism, and Christinity if a reformed version of Judaism, expressed in the NT. The OT compares to the old Thora. but there is no new thopra that could be compared to the NT.

A comparable historic developement in Islam never took place, there is no reformed Islam and not reformed version of the Quran. Islam thus remained on the level of orthodox Judaism and fundamentalists who focus more on the OT than the NT. It is my strong conviction that people who try to take the NT as literal as the OT (fanatic Jesus-lovers taking the NT literally), simply have so far missed the most important part of the message of Jesus, and that is: don't do like this anymore, for God is not like this.

In the end, Muhammeddans, orthodox Jews and fundamental Christians all share the same basic mindset - and thus they all compare in their level of intolerance, anti-intellectualism and readiness to bring barbary and backwardedness upon mankind. Do not burn the Quran only but the Thora and the OT as well. It's all the same poison murdering thought and claiming superiority where there is just an intellectual hole, and a void where there should be reason. It's all three just offsprings of one and the same mind, and if given the opportunity, the one will behave as barbabric and hateful as the other.

[Castout]

In the end, Muhammeddans, orthodox Jews and fundamental Christians all share the same basic mindset - and thus they all compare in their level of intolerance, anti-intellectualism and readiness to bring barbary and backwardedness upon mankind.

I know some people who accepted money as a payment to kill the enemy of the state but they were just used and have been convicted. They consider themselves very patriotic. Is this the fault of patriotism too?

It's the people not the teaching.


Do not burn the Quran only but the Thora and the OT as well. It's all the same poison murdering thought and claiming superiority where there is just an intellectual hole, and a void where there should be reason. It's all three just offsprings of one and the same mind, and if given the opportunity, the one will behave as barbabric and hateful as the other.

And replace them with intellectual, material arrogance and narcissism where there is just an intellectual and spiritual hole?

People will find whatever things or people to hate and when there's none they make them and create all kind of excuses to justify themselves. It's the people who are troubled and most likely don't even like themselves very much. I've come to believe that many people hate other people simply because they remind themselves of how bad they truly are and instead of being sorry and repentant they embrace hatred as a form of self defense and as a result of immaturity. From school bullies to despotic head of state . . . . . .and you would just blame religion or God even on all that? A bit unfair and even irrational isn't it?

[antikristuseke]

I'm sure there are plenty of people just like yourself who'd rather see a world rid of (insert organization representing that which one doesn't believe in here). Thankfully people of your mindset aren't in charge, else we'd be at the whims and mercy of whatever ideas have the greatest traction at whatever time.

In fact, you should be equally thankful, because imagine a world where your wishes COULD feesibly come true. I suspect you wouldn't like that world at all, as its likely religious leaders would have eradicated organized science by now.

My rule regarding such things is simple: make sure your principles can't come back to bite you in the ass. As such, I choose freedom as a principle - freedom to agree, disagree, and join others in espousing both.You'd be suprised.

I am not in favor of baning religion, but would rather prefer a world where people would be sensible ennough to abandon the concept and just accept that there are things in this universe we can not explain yet. There is no need to fill in the blanks with god did it. That does nothing to advance human understanding, and may even hinder it as a fallback for the mentally lazy. Why bother trying to figure something out when the answer s allready there?

Just so there are is no confusion, I detest organized religion of all kinds, don't see as any one being better or worse than the others. Same as my view on politicians.

[Skybird]

And replace them with intellectual, material arrogance and narcissism where there is just an intellectual and spiritual hole?
It's not up to religion to claim something like this. That would mean to make the perpetrator the judge and the jury.

Religion and spirituality are mutually exclusive.
Belief and reason are mutually exclusive.
religion and belief, and knowing and learning are mutually exlcusive.

But reason is a basis for spirituality.
and science and spirituality go together most wonderfully.


People will find whatever things or people to hate and when there's none they make them and create all kind of excuses to justify themselves. It's the people who are troubled and most likely don't even like themselves very much. From school bullies to despotic head of state . . . . . .and you would just blame religion on all that? A bit unfair isn't it?

I knew muhammeddans who turned, under great perosnal risk and sacrifice, tino apopstates, and I contributed a bit to that decision of theirs. I was not unfair to them, but you are unfair to reasonable people when you ignore that ideas and ideologies influence and educate people. The Quran preaches intolerance, it's own superiority, the inferiority of all others, and its demand to be in total control. and if your read the Quran correctly: in understanding of the historic sequence of the Sura's roots (the Quran just sorts them by length, not by time) and in awareness of the abrogation principle, you are left with little or no space for wide-ranging interpretations.

And that is what the world is getting from it. Since centuries, since over a millenia, and whole cultures got destroyed by it and whole people got subjugated by it, loosing the future that otherwise may have been theirs. And that is especially true for the Arabs themselves. they had so much better starting coinditions comoared to Europe, at the timemuhammad came. tjhen came muhammad, and the great stagnation and apathy began. If I were Arab, I would curse Muhammad's name over this cultural crime he has committed to my people.

Yeah, sure, if a greedy, hate-ridden, intolerant, surpemacist ideology causes people to bully other cultures and tolerate violence in the name of Islam, this ideology has nothing to do with it.

Do you even realise what you have said when you said it is like this, that it is not the ideology, but the people? You by that implied that people get not edcuated to be in rage or apathy, but that they are in rage by probably some defective genes, must supect, that they are like this because they are what they are and already got born like this, for "it is the people, not the religion". And that, different to a critical argument and view of Islam that is intellectually founded, is pure racism indeed. I never, nowhere, ever said something liked that all Arabs or Persians are dumb or untypically aggressive by nature and race. I said that their damn Islamic ideology teaches them how to be dumb and aggressive, and that the long stagnation of their countries has somethign to do with that way of edcuation, or better: indoctrination as well.

And that are two very different ways to view things.

[Ducimus]

Wow.

I knew we had nutters in this country, but this really shocks me.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/29/florida.burn.quran.day/index.html

Doesn't shock me in the least. I've seen church people do all sorts of crazy things.



Book burning in America? Have some sunk that far? What do they really expect to accomplish with this?

When it comes to religion, our society went somewhere over the coo-coo's nest awhile ago. What do they expect to accomplish? Affirmation of their belief's while concurrently sending a political and "patriotic" message.



I hope the world recognizes that these people do not represent the culture of the United States.

We're not all judeo christian evangelical fundamentalists, but there are a larger number who are. The rest of the world might be able to tell the difference, but the muslim world won't. To be fair, i cant tell the difference between muslims either. To me they're ALL whackjobs in my eyes, so im indifferent to our own judeo christian whackjobs burning the koran.

. I know that freedom of expression allows burning books, but it just seems so wrong, hateful, and ineffective.

You got the wrong and hateful part right.



p.s. One religion calling another religion "deceptive" :shifty:

Christianity as an organization has always done this in one form or another, thoughout history. To Judeo christian evangelicals, their god is the one true god, their religion the one true religion, and everyone else must be converted, and brought to see "the light and the way."

FYI, my two favorite bumper stickers on this subject are:
- "It's not God i Have a problem with, it's his fan club"
- "Jesus save me from your followers".

One of these days i may have the balls to put them on my truck, but i tend to keep my beleifs to myself, less I become what i despise.

[TLAM Strike]

One of these days i may have the balls to put them on my truck... You can put those on your truck too. :03:

Saw a rust bucket of a Mustang with a blue pair yesterday. :roll:

[Ducimus]

Yeah i seen those. I laugh every time. But i figure the dangly bit trailer hitch is kinda like owning a hummer... compensation for something that's lacking. I don't have to prove my beliefs to the rest of the world, or feel the need to do so. That, and i don't need some whackjob keying my truck. :shifty:

[Aramike]

Just so there are is no confusion, I detest organized religion of all kinds, don't see as any one being better or worse than the others. Same as my view on politicians. Either that's a failure of perception or a depraved sense of "anything goes" relativism.

For one, I see the religion that sends out missionaries with medicine as far better than the one which sends out zealots with bombs strapped to their backs.

[antikristuseke]

But it is the people who do that, not the religion. Their motivations may be religious, but religions are not sentient beings ordering anyone to do anything. Religion is just a convenient excuse to do either good or bad.

And yes, I do concider morals relative, hell, everything is relative, there are no real absolutes. Morals , for instance, are nothing more than a society deems acceptable at the time, sure it may be dressed up as divine orders, but it came from people. What I wouldnt say, though, is anything goes since humans are sentient and social beings, which means we should take eachother in to account when making our decisions, your freedom ends where my nose begins, or however that saying goes.

[Skybird]

But it is the people who do that, not the religion. Their motivations may be religious, but religions are not sentient beings ordering anyone to do anything.
Wrong. Relgions may not be being, but ideologies, but they order very well what people have to do and what not. That kind of commanding people is whzat defines religion. you obey, than you are a beoiever, you do not, than you are a heretic or an infidel. Obedience is the essence of religion.

Religion is just a convenient excuse to do either good or bad.
No, that are morals.



And yes, I do concider morals relative, hell, everything is relative, there are no real absolutes.

but still morals are not all of the same relative value. There are morals being more valuable than others, and since moral standards (and relgions) also define cultural standards, cultures also are not all of the same relative value - some are more humane and "good" than others. For example "do not do to others what you do not want to be done to you" is not really of the same moral standard and value like "obey, don't ask", or "it is acceptable to whip or kill a woman if she was disobedient to you, or got raped."

[Skybird]

Either that's a failure of perception or a depraved sense of "anything goes" relativism.

For one, I see the religion that sends out missionaries with medicine as far better than the one which sends out zealots with bombs strapped to their backs.
And then there are those missionaries who go out with medicine - but only give it to those in need if they submit.

In the end, when you think you must make your personal rerlation to your relgion a public affair, you are no onger baout releigon, but politics. Best thing is a missionary who gives help when he is asked for, and never loses a single word on religion and does not waste one day with building temples, just lives his life on the basis what his reason and thought have showed him to be good for the few and good for the many. If it is convincing, others will become aware of his way of life. If it is not, he should not try to talk people into something.

You must not believe in a religion in order to want to help people. ;) when you decide to help, do it for the people, not because your deity told you you should. Don't do it to collect some points on your heavenly banking account. Don't do it to raise attention for your ego. Just do it - that is good enough.

[Castout]

Do you even realise what you have said when you said it is like this, that it is not the ideology, but the people? You by that implied that people get not edcuated to be in rage or apathy, but that they are in rage by probably some defective genes, must supect, that they are like this because they are what they are and already got born like this, for "it is the people, not the religion". And that, different to a critical argument and view of Islam that is intellectually founded, is pure racism indeed. I never, nowhere, ever said something liked that all Arabs or Persians are dumb or untypically aggressive by nature and race. I said that their damn Islamic ideology teaches them how to be dumb and aggressive, and that the long stagnation of their countries has somethign to do with that way of edcuation, or better: indoctrination as well.

And that are two very different ways to view things.

I never said anything about bad genes. I'm disgusted with eugenics the practice and the belief.

I've known some nice smart well educated Muslims who are very tolerable towards non Muslims . . . . . .and I've known some Christians who are racist or like to utter racist remark among themselves.:shifty:

People get misguided and mis-educated all the time. When you don't have much to look forward to, no money, and little prospect of getting a decent job, when your environment is full of crime, criminals and abuses then you would be likely to fall into the pattern and becoming one of those problem yourself. Radicalism or extremism is one of those

I've known Muslims who tolerated their children to seek more about other religions even allowing their children to convert to other religion or even becoming a priest of another religion altogether. I've known idealistic Muslim who are NOT afraid to open another religion holy text to seek the truth and they did this by themselves. Some converted to Christianity in the process while others gained respect of the other religion/belief in the process.:yep:

On the contrary I've known NOT even a single Christian who's unafraid to open the Quran to seek the truth.:nope:

I hope more people would let go of their psychological defenses that is fear that sometimes surfaces as hatred and see people as the people they are. Life is too short to be spent on hating people especially with little real reason. We're all pitiful and we're all mortal but at least we could make this life to be more beautiful and meaningful by helping each other however we could and however little we could afford.

Sons of Adam today I'm telling you as a fellow son of Adam that we're pitiful even for the most privileged of us. Our life is too short and our death is too long. Our awareness is like a feeble grass, green and fresh in the morning but brown and dried up in the evening and to die the next morning. Do you know not that we are all brethren in this life and time that we happen to share?! Since we are so pitiful and since we are so much alike than most of us could ever realize try to help one another so that we could lighten the burden and share the joy of this short life that we're now enjoying but not for much longer.

[tater]

Without going so far as to fall into a "no true Scotsman" fallacy, people who hold certain beliefs cannot really belong to certain groups, regardless of self-identification. I'd posit that Christians are not those who claim to be Christian, but those that meet some basic standard of at least trying to behave as a Christian. Ditto for Muslims, a good faith effort to follow the koran as written is required. Obviously, if the definition is "being born to Muslim parents" then we run into the logical fallacy. Since religions are nothing more than a voluntarily held set of beliefs, I think that membership should in fact be defined as holding those beliefs true.

I, for example, am technically a Catholic. I'm Confirmed in the church, etc. I'm an atheist(even anti-theist)/agnostic(have to be agnostic on deism, can't know one way or another).

If I lived someplace so intolerant that I had to hide my atheism, I'd claim to be a Catholic, but not follow all the rules (not follow any I could get away with not following). I in fact did this as a kid (I became an atheist in maybe 5th-6th grade or so).

So yeah, there are Muslims who don't follow it closely, and they're great. The less they follow their doctrine, in fact, the better they are.

It's interesting that the most tolerant muslims (meaning populations in general) are in places where they don't understand Arabic. The more people are taught Arabic (to be able to read the koran), the less tolerant they become (which is the point of teaching Arabic to Muslims outside the ME). Remember, only ~200 million understand Arabic worldwide, and there are 1.2 BILLION Muslims. That means the vast majority cannot even read their own holy book.

[Castout]

It's interesting that the most tolerant muslims (meaning populations in general) are in places where they don't understand Arabic. The more people are taught Arabic (to be able to read the koran), the less tolerant they become (which is the point of teaching Arabic to Muslims outside the ME). Remember, only ~200 million understand Arabic worldwide, and there are 1.2 BILLION Muslims. That means the vast majority cannot even read their own holy book.

Quran has been printed and published in local languages and in English as far as I know. So it's available to anyone who would read them. And those who have the boldness to read another religion holy text by themselves usually have read through their own.

[Skybird]

whatever, Castout, I must admit I see what you said as a sentimenta self-deception about the content of Isalmic ideology. And whether you have met some muslims and christians or not, what I have too, btw, does not chnage that. I stuns me time and again when I focus on the content of a teaching or ideology, anbd people reply to me with leaving the content totally unreflected uand instea dlisting a handlful of peope they have met and liost them as exceptions that should illustrate that the ideology's content is not what it is.

BTW, I have read the Quran, and plenty more of academic background literarture on the issue of islamic scripture (Hadith, Sira), philosophy and history. I do not hold such a bad opinion of Islam because I do not know anything about it. I think this bad about Islam becasue I know quite a bit about it - and I have met muslims in Mulsim people who may have been avble to recitate the Quran by mind, but still knew less about Islam than I do, becasue their education systemtically denied them to learn the ability to reflect about what one is memorising. That is the difference between a tape recorder, and a free mind. Throughout the nineties I travelled quite a lot in Muslim countries, some was private, some was professional, I was with a team of foreign correspondents. when I had my fist such trip, I had the same confused illusions about Islam on my mind, like you and so many here. I had read some mixed books about it, wanted to see it as something humane and good, ignored the warnings in some of the books, arrived on planet Islam - and was cojmpletely stunned by the obvious discrepancy between the wellmeaning descriptions in the books, and the harsh reality. Which left me confused for years to come.

It took several years, and not before my travelling years had come to an end I was able to find the time and peace to sit down and reflect upon all these contradictory experiences. But once the process started, I more and more realsied that the contradiction wa sonly between the nicetalking books and reality, whereas when the more academical, analytical got compared against reality, it all fell into place.

For me, it is about both academical input AND experiences from reality. and that is a basis that makes me feel quite strong and confident that my assessement of Islam both in ideologic theory and the real world, is a more correct one than the description of those islamophile Westerners who panically try to gloss over it and nice-talk about it and ignore everything in it that does distorub their illusion of that there ever has been or could be a mutually tolerating peaceful coexistence with it. All the talking baout Allah and God's will and divine revelation means nothing to me, all that I immediately put into the wastebin. What matters to me is that Islam is about not allah, but muhammad (thus: Muhammadanism), and that Muhammad used his sermons to establish himself as a completely earthly ruler and dictator and conqueror. and muzh of the superstitious stuff and inner contradictions in the Quran not only can oinly be understod but actually even make sense - if oyu see them against a perspective thorugh muhammad's eyes and political intentions. It is not by random chance that in islam politics and rlegion are not separated, but are just one monolithic block. And for wetsern constitutions separating between both, this monolitihic nature denying such a separation is a big problem: islam claims the constitutions' guarantees for free practice of relgion, and then abuses this protection to push political goals that ultimately aim at turning wetsern nations into Muslim nations - while at the same time preventing any opposition to this political goal of Islamisation by claiming that it is it's relgious right to do so and the constitution allows it to practice religion freely.

Pah. The biggest cultural disaster in the history of mankind claiming to be the big solution for mankind's problems: totalitarianism, superstition, female slavery, supremacism, sexual inhibition in psychoneurotic dimensions. Great remedies, these. :down:

Since probbaly nobody took the link on page 1 or 2 as something to care for, here is the text, to bring all this back on topic:


Rauf’s Dawa from the World Trade Center Rubble
Meet the Ground Zero Mosque imam’s Muslim Brotherhood friends.

Feisal Abdul Rauf is the imam behind the “Cordoba Initiative” that is spearheading plans to build a $100 million Islamic center at Ground Zero, the site where nearly 3,000 Americans were killed by jihadists on 9/11. He is also the author of a book called What’s Right with Islam Is What’s Right with America.But the book hasn’t always been called that. It was called quite something else (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2549148/posts) for non-English-speaking audiences. In Malaysia, it was published as A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post-9/11 (http://www.911familiesforamerica.org/images/RaufWTCcover.jpg).

Now it emerges that a “special, non-commercial edition” of this book was later produced, with Feisal’s cooperation, by two American tentacles of the Muslim Brotherhood: the Islamic Society of North America and the International Institute of Islamic Thought. The book’s copyright page tells the tale:

http://www2.nationalreview.com/images/pic_mccarthy_072310_420px.jpg

Both ISNA and IIIT have been up to their necks in the promotion of Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood’s ruthless Palestinian branch, which is pledged by charter to the destruction of Israel. In fact, both ISNA and IIIT were cited by the Justice Department as unindicted co-conspirators in a crucial terrorism-financing case involving the channeling of tens of millions of dollars to Hamas through an outfit called the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. For the last 15 years, Hamas has been a designated terrorist organization under U.S. law.

Dawa, whether done from the rubble of the World Trade Center or elsewhere, is the missionary work by which Islam is spread. As explained in my recent book, The Grand Jihad (http://www.nationalreview.com/redirect/amazon.p?j=1594033773), dawa is proselytism, but not involving only spiritual elements — for Islam is not merely a religion, and spiritual elements are just a small part of its doctrine. In truth, Islam is a comprehensive political, social, and economic system with its own authoritarian legal framework, sharia, which aspires to govern all aspects of life.

This framework rejects core tenets of American constitutional republicanism: for example, individual liberty, freedom of conscience, freedom to govern ourselves irrespective of any theocratic code, equality of men and women, equality of Muslims and non-Muslims, and economic liberty, including the uses of private property (in Islam, owners hold property only as a custodians for the umma, the universal Muslim nation, and are beholden to the Islamic state regarding its use). Sharia prohibits the preaching of creeds other than Islam, the renunciation of Islam, any actions that divide the umma, and homosexuality. Its penalties are draconian, including savagely executed death sentences for apostates, homosexuals, and adulterers.

The purpose of dawa, like the purpose of jihad, is to implement, spread, and defend sharia. Scholar Robert Spencer incisively refers to dawa practices as “stealth jihad (http://www.amazon.com/Stealth-Jihad-Radical-Subverting-America/dp/1596985569/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1279900646&sr=1-5),” the advancement of the sharia agenda through means other than violence and agents other than terrorists. These include extortion, cultivation of sympathizers in the media and the universities, exploitation of our legal system and tradition of religious liberty, infiltration of our political system, and fundraising. This is why Yusuf Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and the world’s most influential Islamic cleric, boldly promises that Islam will “conquer America” and “conquer Europe” through dawa.

In considering Imam Rauf and his Ground Zero project, Qaradawi and the Muslim Brotherhood are extremely important. Like most Muslims, Rauf regards Qaradawi as a guide, and referred (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/12/us/nation-challenged-religious-opinion-muslim-scholars-back-fight-against.html?scp=6&sq=Imam%20feisal%20abdul%20rauf&st=cse) to him in 2001 as “the most well-known legal authority in the whole Muslim world today.” And indeed he is: a prominent, Qatar-based scholar whose weekly Al Jazeera program on the subject of sharia is viewed by millions and whose cyber-venture, Islam Online, is accessed by millions more, including Muslims in the United States. Not surprisingly, his rabble-rousing was a prime cause of the deadly global rioting by Muslims when an obscure Danish newspaper published cartoon depictions of Mohammed.

Qaradawi regards the United States as the enemy of Islam. He has urged that Muslims “fight the American military if we can, and if we cannot, we should fight the U.S. economically and politically.” In 2004, he issued a fatwa (an edict based on sharia) calling for Muslims to kill Americans in Iraq. A leading champion of Hamas, he has issued similar approvals of suicide bombings in Israel. Moreover, as recounted in Matthew Levitt’s history of Hamas (http://www.amazon.com/Hamas-Politics-Charity-Terrorism-Service/dp/0300122586/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1279905704&sr=1-1), Qaradawi has decreed that Muslims must donate money to “support Palestinians fighting occupation. . . . If we can’t carry out acts of jihad ourselves, we at least should support and prop up the mujahideen financially and morally.”

Qaradawi’s support for Hamas is only natural. Since that organization’s 1987 founding, it has been the top Muslim Brotherhood priority to underwrite Hamas’s jihadist onslaught against the Jewish state. Toward that end, the Muslim Brotherhood mobilized the Islamist infrastructure in the United States.

The original building block of that infrastructure was the Muslim Students Association (MSA), established in the early Sixties to groom young Muslims in the Brotherhood’s ideology — promoting sharia, Islamic supremacism, and a worldwide caliphate. As Andrew Bostom elaborated in a [I]New York Post op-ed (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/behind_the_mosque_yXUJDCpszRLF9dG1heLU1H) on Friday, Imam Rauf, too, is steeped in this ideology.

In 1981, after two decades of churning out activists from its North American chapters (which now number over 600), the Brotherhood merged the MSA into ISNA. In its own words, ISNA was conceived as an umbrella organization “to advance the cause of Islam and service Muslims in North America so as to enable them to adopt Islam as a complete way of life.” That same year, the Brotherhood created IIIT as a Washington-area Islamic think tank dedicated to what it describes as “the Islamicization of knowledge.”

After Hamas was created, the top Brotherhood operative in the United States, Mousa Abu Marzook — who actually ran Hamas from his Virginia home for several years in the early Nineties — founded the Islamic Association for Palestine to boost Hamas’s support. One of his co-founders was Sami al-Arian, then a student and Muslim Brotherhood member, later a top U.S. operative of the terrorist organization Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which he helped guide from his perch as a professor at the University of South Florida. In 2006, al-Arian was convicted on terrorism charges.

Marzook and other Brotherhood figures established the Occupied Land Fund, eventually renamed the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), to be Hamas’s American fundraising arm. The HLF was headquartered in ISNA’s Indiana office. As the Justice Department explained in a memorandum (http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/623.pdf) submitted in the HLF case:
During the early years of HLF’s operation, HLF raised money and supported Hamas through a bank account it held with ISNA. . . . Indeed, HLF (under its former name, OLF) operated from within ISNA, in Plainfield, Illinois. . . . ISNA checks deposited into the ISNA/[North American Islamic Trust] account for the HLF were often made payable to “the Palestinian Mujahideen,” the original name for the Hamas military wing. . . . From the ISNA/NAIT account, the HLF sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook . . . and a number of other individuals associated with Hamas.
Ultimately, the HLF raised over $36 million for Hamas. At the height of the intifada, this was not about the social-welfare activities Hamas touts to camouflage its barbarism. As the journalist Stephen Schwartz of the Center for Islamic Pluralism has observed, “Ordinary Americans should be shocked and outraged to learn that Hamas was running its terror campaign from a sanctuary in the U.S.” In addition, prosecutors showed that ISNA was central to a 1993 meeting of top Brotherhood operatives, who were wiretapped “discussing using ISNA as an official cover for their activities.”

Meantime, in 1992, the IIIT contributed $50,000 to underwrite an al-Arian venture, the World & Islam Studies Enterprise (WISE), a front for Palestinian Islamic Jihad that ostensibly employed several members of the PIJ governing board. IIIT has been under federal investigation since 2002 — and after his terrorism conviction, al-Arian went into contempt of court rather than honor a grand-jury subpoena in the probe.

In 1991, the Muslim Brotherhood’s American leadership prepared an internal memorandum for the organization’s global leadership in Egypt. It was written principally by Mohamed Akram, a close associate of Sheikh Qaradawi. As Akram put it, the Brotherhood
must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.
The memorandum included a list described by Akram as “our organizations and the organizations of our friends,” working together to implement this sabotage strategy. Prominently included in that list were ISNA and IIIT.

The Ground Zero project to erect a monument to sharia overlooking the crater where the World Trade Center once stood, and where thousands were slaughtered, is not a test of America’s commitment to religious liberty. America already has thousands of mosques and Islamic centers, including scores in the New York area — though Islam does not allow non-Muslims even to enter its crown-jewel cities of Mecca and Medina, much less to build churches or synagogues.

The Ground Zero project is a test of America’s resolve to face down a civilizational jihad that aims, in the words of its leaders, to destroy us from within.

"Moderate muhammeddans"? Islam is fanatism and fundamentalism by defintion. There is nothing like "moderate extremists" - there is only people tolerating extremism 8which is the same like practciing it, in my book), or standing up against it and sending it to hell. In 1939, a vast majorityof Germans did not wish neither an attack on Poland, nor a WWII. But since this majoity of war-refusing Germans did not stand up against the Nazis in the time before, they nevertheless got what they claim they did not want: an attack on Poland and a WWII. There were active perpetrators (some). There were "Mitläufer" (most). And there was the smallest group of all, those actively resisting by fighting and sabotaging, by poratcicing civil disobedience and hiding or smuggling Jews out of Germany although risking their own life by that. Of these three groups, the first share the greatest guilt. The second, the "Mitläufer", may not have done something active, but right this is why theyx also have to accept thgeir share of guilt, for withiut their passivity, things wpould not have been able to happen the way they did. rightfully claiming to have resisted the Nazis and refusing to be held responsible for what happened, can only the third group. -

[tater]

Quran has been printed and published in local languages and in English as far as I know. So it's available to anyone who would read them. And those who have the boldness to read another religion holy text by themselves usually have read through their own.

Translated editions are not the same. It's sort of like listening to what "moderate" muslims (meaning pundits or others in the global, public eye, not people at large) say on TV in the US, then reading translations of what they say on arabic language media... the difference is striking.

The bottom line is the more devout the muslims are, the more fundamentalist they are. This is unsurprising since in the sense of Christian sects, all major muslim sects are "fundamentalist." Are individuals variable? Sure. Again, it's like going back far enough into Western history. There was a time when anyone who was an unbeliever pretty much kept his mouth shut, or couched his writing in sort of religious language to make it look like he was not a heretic. The deists fall into this category. They say "god," but with a wink.

[Tribesman]

The more people are taught Arabic (to be able to read the koran), the less tolerant they become (which is the point of teaching Arabic to Muslims outside the ME).
You miss entirely the core issue there Tater.
The people doing that teaching mainly come from the two fundy schools and they teach because its their new interpretation of texts that they want to spread.

all major muslim sects are "fundamentalist."
That is because you use a rather unique interpretation of the word "fundamentalist".

I stuns me time and again when I focus on the content of a teaching or ideology,
It used to stun me that you only accepted fundamentalist ideologies, but I am used to it now.:rotfl2:

[Ducimus]

all major muslim sects are "fundamentalist."

That is because you use a rather unique interpretation of the word "fundamentalist".




You know, in my mind, the muslim world PROVED they're all fundamentalist when they rioted the world over because some guy draw a freaking cartoon of mohammad. In one fell stroke, they proved the cartoonists point. I honestly do not beleive there is such a thing as a "moderate" muslim. As much as i disagree with judeo christian evangical's, at least they don't resort to violence over stupid caricatures.

[Tribesman]

You know, in my mind, the muslim world PROVED they're all fundamentalist when they rioted the world over because some guy draw a freaking cartoon of mohammad.
So you are rewriting history to get your point "PROVED" in your mind.

[Aramike]

You know, in my mind, the muslim world PROVED they're all fundamentalist when they rioted the world over because some guy draw a freaking cartoon of mohammad. In one fell stroke, they proved the cartoonists point. I honestly do not beleive there is such a thing as a "moderate" muslim. As much as i disagree with judeo christian evangical's, at least they don't resort to violence over stupid caricatures.:yep:

[Ducimus]

So you are rewriting history to get your point "PROVED" in your mind.

I didn't rewrite anything. It was all over the news of every persuasion (left or right) at the time.

[TheSatyr]

I have to admit that Skybird's views scare me. He seems to view Muslims the same way his ancesters viewed Jews in the 30s. And we all know how that turned out.

[Skybird]

I have to admit that Skybird's views scare me. He seems to view Muslims the same way his ancesters viewed Jews in the 30s. And we all know how that turned out.
The Jews were victims of racist crimes. they did nothing to provoke them.

islam is an ideology that educates people to behave in this and not in that ways. This ideology is no victim, it is a perpatrator, due to its aggressive, intolerant, inhumane content.

It makes absolutely no sense to compare the Jews' fate back then with islam's parade today. But it is standard tactic by islamophiles to cloaim that Muslims are victims int he same way Jews had been back then. Jews were sitting at the receiving end of aggression. Islam is the origin of aggression. "Jews" refer to individuals, to people. "Islam" refers to an totalitarian ideology that combines claims of religious supremacism with political claims for dominance and an education for gagging the free mind and preventing intellectualism, critical thinking, and objective analysis.

But that is not as scaring - becasue it can be resisted, if only one wants that - as people like you are, allowing all that. Or better: it is a very depressing sight to see people giving up freedom because they are too afraid to stand up in defence of freedom, for they think freedom is negotiable if only that allows to avoid fighting for it. You find me scaring? You should edcuate yourself a bit more about Islam by using non-pro-Islamic sources - and then understand why to be scared of it. I - am just warning of the darkness to come - but I am not the cause of it. So do not be scared of me, but of your own fearfulness.

[Tribesman]

I have to admit that Skybird's views scare me. He seems to view Muslims the same way his ancesters viewed Jews in the 30s. And we all know how that turned out.

It is funny that many of his posts can come straight from "my struggle" and he himself says he can't join protests or start protests without it being full of neo nazis saying what he wants to say.....yet because he is convinced of his intellect he cannot make the connection between his views and uncle adolfs.


I didn't rewrite anything. It was all over the news of every persuasion (left or right) at the time.
Would you like to run through the news again of any persuasion from at the time?
Since you are saying .....
"You know, in my mind, the muslim world PROVED they're all fundamentalist when they rioted the world over because some guy draw a freaking cartoon of mohammad. " when the truth is far from that.
You are talking about a few idiots in a couple of countries rioting months after the event after some pillocks had spent ages trying to make them angry. Even then the pillocks had to make up there own versions of the cartoons to try and get a mob going.
Remember that Dutch idiot Wilders trying to get a reaction? Making a film to provoke try and offend.
All he really got was piles of comments about how crap hias film was and complaints from the Danish cartoonist.

[Ducimus]

Would you like to run through the news again of any persuasion from at the

Nope, because I don't give a rats ass if you or anyone else agrees with me or not. I don't expect you to. I do not need to have someone else agree with me in order to validate what i feel is right or correct. I stated what i thought, and why i thought it. If you don't like or agree with it, well tough. People say lots of things i don't like or agree with too. That's life.

[Tribesman]

Nope, because I don't give a rats ass if you or anyone else agrees with me or not.
Interesting, so you are happy to go through life with your opinions based on false "proof" just because your memory is faulty and you are scared of the truth.
I stated what i thought, and why i thought it.
Indeed, yet your thoughts don't add up do they.

[Platapus]

Translated editions are not the same.

That is correct. This is why I have three different English translations of the Qur'an on my desk at work. The differences between the translations can be important, especially when trying to evaluate interpretations of specific passages.

I am, in fact, looking for a fourth translation just to act as a check on the other three.

[Ducimus]

Interesting, so you are happy to go through life with your opinions based on false "proof" just because your memory is faulty and you are scared of the truth.

Indeed, yet your thoughts don't add up do they.

:yawn: yeah, sure, whatever. You win at the internets.