Whether he would or wouldn't, or I would or wouldn't, is irrelevant. What is relevant is that a particular zoning commission did issue the permit, and a great many people want them to reverse that decision. This is about whether the thing is legal, nothing more.

Actually the only thing relevant to this particular thread is whether Barack Obama is "scum".

I completely agree. I hate the idea. But so far the law allows it, and, bad idea or not, we can uphold the law all the time or we can do so only when it suits us.

So how does one know everything about everything? With this logic, wouldn't all sources be wrong or self serving? What information could be reliable? Did history even happen? Are we all living a lie? Does one need to know every single event that happened on any given day in order to claim one of those events accurate?

I wonder how much easier a time the extremists would have recruiting if we were intolerant of Islam. I bet most extremists are upset over us allowing this.

That is a disingenuous statement. President Bush and President Obama made the same statement, the only statement they could make as president of all Americans, including Muslims.

from the Politico:



http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41076.html

I'm split.

On one hand:
AARRRRHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!


On the other hand:
Integrity is important and should be preserved.

I'm right there with you. The people I trust the least, on either side, are the ones who are not split.

Your going outside on Tuesdays is quite different from a building being erected as an inciteful landmark of sorts. One impacts only you, the other impacts many others. Excuse me, but please show me the Amendment protecting everyone's rights to build whatever they want wherever they want...

By your definition zoning itself is a violation of the 10th, yet SCOTUS has already said it is not. Except that my comment had a basis in reality (someone Bush-hating with little grasp of the actual issue). Yours made no sense.

I tend to try to avoid discussions categorizing a person as descriptors such as "scum" but rather steer towards the actual ideas.

My issue, and my point, is that sense should have prevailed and the permit not have been issued in the first place. However, now that it has, I believe the permit should be cancelled on the same basis that I would want the permit struck down if that stripper church of mine were being built.

You might as well describe human nature, Sky. People are notoriously vulnerable to ideologies, both religious and secular. They're also notoriously vulnerable to stereotyping and prejudice. It's not the fault of any particular group (though some are more predisposed than others), it's simple human nature. Evidence for this claim comes from the behavior of other apes in the natural world; they follow leaders, they fight, they form groups, and they make war. Chimps are infamous for such behavior. The human mind evolved from such as these, and we display these tendencies today.....

.....which is exactly what you are doing here. Islam is, in many cases, a bad religion. It is a bad ideology, but that doesn't mean it needs to be singled out for extermination. More importantly, it doesn't mean that the people who practice it need to be singled out or exterminated.
Actually, Islam is very much like other religions used to be. Hinduism Judaism, and Catholocism exhibited very similar tendencies when they were primitive religions. The problem with Islam is that it has not been forced to evolve in its home regions. Rather than being included in the global community it has been persecuted and excluded. We can debate that point forever, but what matters is the Islam sees it that way.

Islam is "tameable", as are all ideologies and religions. All it takes is a little mutually beneficial interaction and acceptance. Very soon, you would see an Islam, that is, a religion, that is so interdependent upon outsiders that it can't be fundamental or militaristic. It simply doesn't have the option anymore. Religions are made of people and they will behave like people.

Let me put it this way: I'm a follower of Christ. I believe in peace, tolerance, and forgiveness. I honsetly think that a man who existed 2000 years ago was the Son of the One True God and that he performed miracles and died for our sins. I believe that no man is closer to God than any other. My religion has survived and prospered because it is one of acceptance. But where it was persecuted, it fought back. If you came here today and told me that I couldn't practice my religion, I'd fight you, too. So is it any wonder that a primitive religion fights?

I daresay that you allow your general disdain for religion to be focused upon Islam as a whipping-boy. I'd even go so far as to say that you may allow your disdain for societal views that are not your own to be impressed upon religion, and from there to Islam. I could be wrong, and it is not my place to judge, but it is a question worth asking yourself.

Fundamentalist Christians, IMO, are just the evolved version of fundamentalist Muslims. Some still commit horrific acts, just not on such a broad scale and not so indiscriminately. Many are just blatantly stupid, and I have a hard time calling them fellows. As time passes, they, too, are being phased out.

As long as you can say that and as long as there are politicians, I reserve my right to present Jesus' teachings to any willing to listen. If you don't want to listen, that's fine, we'll pray for you anyway, but you don't get to silence us.

That sounds disturbingly translateable into eugenics, for many reasons, and I don't say that to take a jab at you. I guess the same could be said of me, since I champion a form of social-Darwinism, but at least I give everyone a chance.

It is in this point that we have another fundamental difference, Sky. I believe that society is best advanced by the spontaneous experimentation that freedom generates, while you seem to think there is some system by which it is best accomplished. I would no more readily condemn Islam, or religion in general, or Newtonian Physics, or Quantum mechanics to the dustbin of history any more readily than I would condemn you or myself.
You don't know whether or not there is a God, and neither do I. Neither one of us could even define such an entity; and where you see short-sightedness on my part for assuming that there is a higher intelligence, I see short-sightedness on yours for assuming there isn't Nobody knows what is out there.

What I can see is what is right in front of us. I see an inevitable system of little biological machines generated by an unimaginably vast array of laboratories that inevitably create ever more complex biological machines that all have the goal of producing greater order from leser order or disorder. I see divinity in life itself, and I see the divinity in the message of life that Jesus preached. I do not violate your freedom by telling you that, as you have the choice whether or not to believe it, or anything else that I say. At most you could arrogantly dismiss me as being annoying.

However, I see something else, as well. I see a perfectly good and large segment of the human population being labeled as worthy of destruction (in belief, if not in person) for the sole reason that someone sees it as a shortcut. Why not afford Islam the chances that have been given to us? Trade with them freely, let them integrate, and the destructive nature of their ideology will disappear. I guarantee you that.

But the question was about the Tenth Amendment and its impact on this particular freedom. The Muslims paid the fees, and got the permit. Now you show me where the Constitution gives you the right to stop it.

Ninth Amendment. James Madison specifically wanted that one to protect any right that he forgot to list in the first Ten. People have a right to do anything they want, as long as they don't break the law or harm other people's right to do the same. If McDonalds can build a building there then so can the Muslims. Equal protection under the law, it's called.

My definition? When did I give a definition?

Actually Safe-Keeper's original statement slamming Bush had some validity, since he only accused Bush of not upholding the Constitution where it didn't suit him. Argue that all you like, but your reply had nothing to do with it. You instead upheld a time-honored tradition of accusing someone of holding his opinion due to preconcieved beliefs, whether you have evidence of that or not. My comment asked if you weren't doing the same? Wrong I may be, because I don't know you any more than you know Safe-Keeper, but within the context my retort to you made every bit as much sense as yours to him.

Well said, I agree with almost everything you said and could not have worded it better myself.

I didn't say that.:06:

He snipped out your post so as not to spam the forum.

I think a few pole dancer establishments should be built across the street and on either side of the new mosque. Should not really offend anyone or disrupt anything on moral grounds. Perfect ok in my book. Got the permit and paid the fees. Why not? Sounds like fun!!!! Ha ha.....:doh:

Edit: sorry for the many typos due to my extreme speed-typing. but I'm tired, and lazy anyway (as always), and it is late over here, so I do not take a second read now. and if I would not type typos anymore, some people maybe even would wonder what is wrong with me. :)

No, I am not talking on human nature in this disucssion, and I refuse to do s, for in the context of this discussion'S topic it is not needed, therefore, I completely ignore it. I focus on: ideologies, not individuals, not human natures, ideologies are not all the same, some are more aggressively pushing than others, some ore more for the benefit of the many, some are more for the profit of the few, and some propagate more positive things, and others more negative things.

[/quote]
People are notoriously vulnerable to ideologies, both religious and secular.[/quote]

Again, there are differences. For example I have quoted in the past an essay by Bonhoeffer, who examined the nature of human stupidity in nthat text and mentioned that it is more a sociological (group) than psychological (individual) phenomenen and issue. He expresses the observation nthat in groups people tend to be more vulnerable to fall for the tendency the crowd is heading at, while isolated individuals seem to be more likely to withstand stupid mass phenomenons. I would say, no, I am convinced that it is the same with ideologies (as well as popular media culture).

Ouh, let's leave this dangerous simplification of what a scientific evidence is out of here. The scientific working standard is a bit more strictly, and i also must point out that eye-witness reports of random chance witnesses or professional observers never have the status of a scientific theory, necessarily.

No? Why is that, when it is a bigger threat to mnakind than any other ideology we know of, and when it claims global domination and extinction or subjugation of everything else as it's oltimate goal? BTW, extenrination is a word that I have NEVER used in any of these debates. I want to bring its spreading to a halt in hour home societies, and push it back. where it stays, it needs to be replaced, for I rule out the possibility that this ideology can be "modernised", "reformed", "tamed" or whatever.

When they support Islam as islam defines itself by its own scripture and self-understanding, than I do single them out for sure, and hold them respnsible for their belief, becasue thanks to the presence of every single individual, Islam is one head stronger in our home societies, and has one voice more to claim its goals. The same is true for fake-Muslims or apostates who just are to afraid to realsie that theay ar4e apostates, both groups may not be in active support of real islam, but nevertheless they help its cause by talking it nice and not standing up against it and giving it a big silent anonymous background that serves as a retreat area for the radical islamic claims. In German we call such people "Mitläufer", I am not sure I know the exact translation for that, I think my earli8er attempts were wrong, so I leave it to the german word. Mitlöufer are respnsible as well, becasue their passivity and silent support creates the space and opporutnity where the active idea can unfold. for example, only a minority of Germans were active Nazis, but very many were Mitläufer. Without these mitläufer, the Nazis would not have been able to rise.

Wrong. Islam pretty much saw itself as the climax oh human civilisation - until Napoleon löanded in Egyp and all that scientific and civilisational and military superirioty of the Europeans was revealed to the Muhammeddan world. Since then it tends to claim special rights for itself and wants to claim that the Wetsern acchievements in science and technoloy and so forth owe it to the muslim world to be given them for free, although the Muslim world did little, and often: nothing to gain and deserve them them, and it thinks the West owes it to them for the offence of being so superior that it has to submit to islam - so that Islam'S claim to be the peak of civilisational evolution would be correct again. but societies must be ready for technolgical and scientific modernisations, they must be ripe, or they get crushed or paralysed by the new. In case of islam, you have a medieval, primtive mind-world, depending on superstititon and submissive, fatalistic obedience, colliding head-on with the modern West and all the items and qualities that brings. even more, they got hit by a seocnd desaster, they found out that they had oil. It served as a wonderful excuse why they would not have to chnage and adapt to the nodern time at all. why should they, if they could become rich and simply buy all the wonderful foreign items, and the operators could be leased? for the muslim world, oil is as much a curse as it is for us. for us it is, because they have it but not us, for them it is, becasue it has prevented the realisation that the reason for their medieval, stagnating, porimtive society is not a conspiracy by the West, but islams own anti-intellectual nature, its inherent stagnation that seeks not creative modenrisation and developement, but a fundamentlaist, totalitarian fixiation on a far away past that dictates rules and habits that are no longer adequate for the creative flexibility of the modern world. the clash of civilisation - in reality is more a clash of times, more than anything else. Reason for it is the islamic ideology and the way it has educated the thinking patterns and cultural developement and social role-modelling islam is handicapped by so much - and terrorises peopole with nevertheless, especially women, and infidels. but of course it psychologically castrates muslim males as well. relations between family fathers and sons are a very critical conflict in the West, giving birth to more and more social explosives. Social workers ofteh describe family structures as "crippled", seriously ill, and "pathologic". In Germany we have two turkish female Islam critics, who time and again bring it to the formula that more than anything else the uslim world needa a global sexual revolution. Both women are right, an they get plenty of fire for that. And the Germans themselves? Have nothing better to do for attacking them as well, becaseu especially Frau Kelec is a very detemrined defender of Wetsern values and the western underatabding of freedom. Germans ask instead why this freedom could be claimed to be so precious, and that it remindsa of the Nazis claimed superiority to defend this freedom. when hearing such sick comments, I realise in what a hopeless mental asylum i am already living.

That is naivety resulting from total lack of understanding islam. You also seem to make the big, big mistake to think that what has worked in America necessarily works in all other cultures as well. You should know that better - you have seen your share of the mess created by this flawed assumption.

I'm sorry to say, but you will leanr better by painful experience. the question is not if, but when. Until then I only can recommend you get half a dozen of books on islamic scritpure (academic anaylsis, else you are lost), and history. for the world it will probably not make a difference. But maybe for yourself.

Chriszinaity and Islam do not comlpare. I have compained so oftenm now why that is so, and i am in very good acadmeic comnpany with that opinion, that I will not do it once again, since it would be a waste of time anyway. Just realsie one thing, at least. you talked of self-defence of Christinaity (while it could be argued that in the past oit was very much in the offence, and today doesnot dare to defend itself, but that just as a side remark). Islam's understanding does not know a peace of mutual coexistence as you outlined it. the homo islamicus is the goal of evolution, it is ther will of allah that all and everything mist follow his law, that ois the direction at which natural evolution is developing anyway, and not acepting that, standing against iodslam, refusing it is thus an ogfence against Allah, and an attack omn nature and man himself. Therefore you have this strict divbison between the house of war and the house of Islam. Peace in islam means the absence of any potential challenger who could disturb the "peace" of Muslim monoculture and uniformity (uniformity=strength by being united), thus there cannot be peace as löong as the hopuse of war is not brought down. islam is not in self-defence, James. Like the russians after WWII, it only knows "forward-defense", attack, not preempti9vely, but to neutrlaise the offence that is given by the other, the non-muslim qulaity, simply existing. the concept of tolerance and coesitence that you just fantasised about, thus does not work with Islam. Islam only was brought to temporrary halts, where it wasx confronted by resistence that was stronger than it's own forces. but Islam prohibits to cement such a situation in peace treaties, but the Quran demand that only temporary seizefires get agree to, which should not last for longe rthan i think two years (Quran), so that the muslim army can regain strength , but on the other hand is not exposed to the risk of getting infested and blotted by the infidel's thoughts and habits. islam is the most successful military conquest operation of all uman history, it aism at nothing less than global rulership an thiknks that is a natural direction at which evolutuon is drifting anyway. One could realyl say that Muslim aggression is just an attempt to help nature to unfold in the way Allah has already decided anyway, you see.

Since years I am saying that Islam is not just any relgion, but that it is more politics and social control than anything else. My disdain for relgion comes due to it's anti-intzellectualism, the rejection of the human mind and dignity, and its lack of reason and logic. the method I prefer to deal with the world is that of our ancient greek heritage: Ratio, logic, the scientific methodology. Allm this can be targetted as an argument against islam, too, yes, but if you still have not understood that islam stands out from the crowd of religions, and that is does not know fundamentlistic lineages, but is fundamentalistic in its most original, natural form and essence, then I do not know how i could make that any more clearer to you or anybody else. As I see it our situation comopares to the era of Rome's fall, caused by the barabars by its gates, but also by econimic patterns and misdevelopements that are disturbingly similar to patterns we observe - if we want to see them - in the present as well. the parallels are stunning. For further info olin that I recommend the formidable anaylsis in Herfried Münkler's "Empires" http://www.amazon.com/Empires-Domina...4&sr=8-2-spell. Over the years I had several books on the rise and fall of empires, but this is by far the best that I have ever read.

Simply wrong you are. I have explained, why. In this thread, any many times before.

I love this bigot arrogance and haughtiness behind this remark that I hear time and again. what you say in reality, is this: "You may not believe in my god, but my god nevertheless is so right and so winderful that he even can love you still." Shove it.

If poeplöe approach and ask you aboiut it, it is okay you answer their questions. But oif oyu enter the npoublic sühere where I have the same right to be like oyu have, then we both have to behave in a way that the other must not bother our presence. That emasn, you keep yopur radio so silent that you do not interfere with the radion listenin of other people, and then the other people will do the same for you, and cointrol their radios. But when you seriously expect that just beasue you think the place is yours anybody not wanting tom loisten to aour radio needs to leave and shall not use this public sopace, then I'll set up a fight.

My argument on freedom is that freedom ends where freedom is used to destroy freedom. This implies, in this context, that I reject the idea of unlimited freedom - with regard to this implication. See my exchange with Steve some days ago. I once again refer to Poppers tolerance paradoxon and freedom paradoxon as well, that I have quoted releatedly now.

do not comlare scientiifc theory-building and religious dogmas. and betetr do not even comolare islam and other relgions. It is absurd, it simply does not compare.

I again refer to the ancient Greek trsdition of scientific methodlogy that is beeing sued until today. It has brought us much more relief from misery and disease, than any religion ever has. It has given us a billion times more insight into the universe, than and relgious dogma ever has. And scientific methodlogy hardly has ever been the reason for cimmititing the worst atrocities and the biggest bloodblaths known in human history. You want to increase that status of relgion by trying to see equal the assumnption of God existing being the same like the assumption that God doies not exist. but you have one problem there. you are not even basing on an observation that god exists. Thus you cannot form a hypothesis oin any grounds.Thus no theory. And since you cannot form a theory in a scientific, nobody has any need to prove oyur theory wrong in orer to propve that God does not exist. Becasue you have no theory. I'm sorry, but your belief already disqualifies at the very first hurlde or scientifc, and i also would say: rational thinking. I must no prve anything, James. you are the one claimning that God exists. The burden of evidence is up to you, completely. I have not made any observation that there is a god or not. You make the claim, so you miust come up with observation, hypothesis, testing it, theory-buiolding and model-building, then using it for poredcitions and then check again if the model predicts correctly or not. You would need to undergo this process in order to be taken serious in your cliam or belief. but you cannot. On the other hand. I would not need to do the same for atheism, because I claim nothing. My obervation is that I observe nothing when looking for God. Since i lack any ohenomenenon to observe, I form no hypthesis on God existing or not exosting, I form no theory of non-God or god, and form no model to predict non-god or God. It simply is something that does not even exist as a question to me. I would only need to show that if you would be able to form a model to predict a phenomenon (and explaining it with god) thati can explain the facts of your theory in a better wy with a model of mine - that of science. And as a matter of fact, science has done that, not with relgion'S scinrtiifxc models (it has none), but with its mere claims.

Religion and science do not compare. Science is coinstantly checking temporary models and theories, and if needed, correcting or replacing them. Religion is claming eternal truths that should be lasting forever, unchecked, unquestioned, not rationally analysed, but simply believed.

If you have read until here and indeed understood a bit what I tried to say, you understand why I do not even answer to this nonsense paragraph. You once again see islam as somethign that it simply is not.

In holland or germany, some years ago, a church gave property to a muslim community, right on the other side of the street, directly opposite to the church. The mosque was build. The Muslims then complained and said the church had to got, it would be an offence to Islam and a discmrination of devout muslims if they go to the mosque and mist watch the chruch while on their way.

A German brothel during the football championship four years ago had an advertising that showed all international flags and a football. First they got intimidating letters. Wheh that did not work, several men described as being looking arabic, started to visit them and intimidating, bullying and threatening girls and guests and the owner, demanding that the Saudi flag had to be removed . the police recommended to comply - in order to not provokate. That there was a serious breaching of he law and threats of violence going on, was totally ignored.

I do not take it for granted that your idea would work, warhawk. Things are worse in Europe, but in america you will be in some years where we already have been some years ago then. In america islam sees that advancing slowly and on the lath of smallest resistence is the best way to spread islam and lulling the natives. :) that's why things are a bit different in ameica and europe. But the relaxed impression in merica, is misleading. the nature of the group pushing the mosque at GZ-project should ring alarm bells. The project is a wanted, cooly calculated confrontation, nothing else.

:har::har::har::har::har:
Aramike is still stuck.
Conditions on zoning have to be generally applicable, banning only mosques without banning all places of religious worship fail that so are unconstitutional on the basis that it is discriminating against a religion.
Its why his comparison with restrictions on strip joints is bogus as those conditions which apply to strip joints apply to all strip joints which means they pass the test of general application.



As for Pearl Harbour Steve I think you are missing something, in fact several things.
Funnily enough they are things which are the main basis for most of this website.
So what exactly is the legal status of the japanese boats in Hawaii and isn't the body responsible for these the same body that does the USS Arizona and USS Utah


Sky still doesn't realise that he is exactlty what was warned against

Lower Manhattan isn't some holy sanctified ground either. Has anyone actually been there? It's filthy, grungy, dirty water hot dogs sold by a swarthy vaguely middle eastern guy, street vendors hawking Twin Towers garbage, plain ol' New York City. There's fast food joints, sushi restaurants, bodegas and crap just like any other downtown. I have no idea why people are trying to turn this into some kind of holy shrine. Build the damn mosque already, just like the million others in NYC.

Acceptable, of course.


Perhaps, but you cannot ignore the role human nature plays in the creation and sustenance of ideologies. If you want to talk about science, let's do so in a format to which science is accustomed. You can't simply skip the human nature part of the equation and go straight to ideologies.

You tell me what I already know by saying that ideologies are different. Societies of lesser primates are also different depending upon their environment and the societies around them. My point is that they all work around the same basic principles. Every human society is formed by a collection of human minds, Sky, as are the ideologies they form. I think you're skipping a very important step in the understanding of human sociology; you can't fix a machine by knowing what it does, you must know how it works.

I see no difference between Bonhoeffer's observations and studies of social primates by the likes of Goodall, Hrdy, and Short. You yourself have mentioned on many occassions where we disputed economics and social structure that "no man is an island" while I was defending individualism. So what is this, now? I don't understand what you intend to prove by this argument.


It's not a simplification, it's just observation by scientific minds. For every one source you can produce that says humans don't behave in a way similar to their primate ancestors, I'll give you five more credible sources with complete citations that support each other. In fact, I'll bet I can do that using only ten books.

I don't think you're looking deeply enough into the issue Sky, if you don't mind my saying so.



Now you make my case for me. You may not use the word "extermination" and i did not accuse you of doing so (though I see where it was implied, sorry), but look at the words you use; "halt", "replaced", "rule out the possibility that it can be modernized". What you are saying is that you believe Islam, and the people who follow it, cannot be redeemed other than conversion to a different set of beliefs. Do I need to tell you how much that sounds like a fundamentalist Islamic perspective?


I bet Mohammed would approve, if only you were a Muslim. Do you not see what you are saying?


Mitlaufer means someone who is a follower or a hanger-on in English. I think it literally means "with loafers", or in English: silent consenters or somesuch. In any case, it means someone who does not form their own opinions.

Even so, I see a flaw in your logic. Most Christians, even Catholics, would not support the hegemony of the Pope. Most Muslims in developed countries would not support Islamic theocracy, either. They are not willing to go back to that life. That is why they have fled thei home nations.

Furthermore, there is little comparison between post-WW1 Germans and the Nazis. The Germans that fled the Nazi regime didn't go back. We should welcome the refugees of Islam. You're exacerbating the difficulty of assimilating them by attacking them. I see the Mitlaufer in Germany as being roughly analagous to the citizens of Iran or Syria today, they have nowhere else to go because they are poor and other countries refuse them.

Strange they didn't realize that when the Macedonians and Romans conquered them.

I think you're making a big leap in logic, my friend, and if I may say so, a huge error in strategic thinking. Most of Islam does want to have what we have, that much is true, but you are willfully ignoring the human factor in the equation, not to mention the economic factor.

In fundamentalist Islam, the general rule has been that Sheiks and Caliphs control most of the wealth and have huge harems. That's human nature. That's what happens in primitive totalitarian societies. Need I cite examples?
The only reason the common people go along with this is because they know nothing else; but if we introduce the fruits of Western civilization to them, they will begin to leave the hardcore tenets of their faith, which is based entirely upon the baser elements of human nature. That much I will agree with you upon.

Persecuting them is not the answer. That will only generate more violence and more discord. We have better ways to undermine totalitarian ideologies. Use your head.


Longest. Paragraph. Ever.:DL:salute:

Good economic analysis in the first part. You are quite right about oil being as much of a curse to Islam as it is to us, but oil is only as good as what it can buy, and the non-muslim world has goods of every type imaginable in great abundance.

You take the argument to a new level by mentioning social workers. Yes, social workers often describe problems as being more severe than they really are, and they often prescribe social entitlements as the remedy, but then again, what would you expect them to do? They're social workers; like any workers, their entire livliehood depends upon identifying and solving problems to an acceptable degree within a society. What would you expect them to do? Do you realize that you're doing the exact same thing? You see a problem where there isn't one. You prescribe medications for the symptomns without recognizing the disease.


I make no mistake. I've seen economic freedom (as they jokingly call what Iraq has now) work first-hand. Even in that limited context, it works. It works brilliantly. Have you seen the lines of Shiite and Sunni Muslims and even Kurds who are willing to put aside their differences to make an honest dollar doing even menial work? I have. These people have been oppressed and impoverished and have lived under Islam all their lives, but they cooperated to provide for their families and themselves. I worked alongside them. I talked with them. They listened to my stories about the Bible and I listened to their stories about the Koran. I helped their children and they thanked me for it. We even fought together. There is a deeper meaning to human nature than simple ideology as you define it, Sky.


I've had my share of painful experience, and I believe these people are worth the effort.


Not a side remark, but the mark of a religion that has evolved.

Sorry for cutting your response short, but my point still stands in the face of it. Islam is a religion of people, and you do yourself and everyone else a disservice by assuming it to be otherwise.

That's all I have time for now, but I'll continue after work and a quick check f the boards.