Should those of religious faith be allowed to run this country?

Actually no, if you read it it's talking about things the Christian hated. Well, that was the practice at that time in many communities. It was particularly true in Christian Europe. Just look at what they did to existing religions when they moved into an area. LOLThe amazing thing about Islam is that it pretty much ignored what folk believed. Throughout the period when Christian Europe was starting Crusades (and the Crusaders coming back with amazing discoveries like the fact that most of the Muslim World had indoor plumbing) there were Christian and Jewish communities throughout the Muslim world.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

There's probably some truth to what you say. On the other hand, many people remained convinced that Communism was good no matter the evidence; many opposed and continue to oppose the war in Iraq; and many people are leaving liberal churches for conservative ones.The Islamists/Wahabbis don't just have a point of view (such as a disagreement over the war in Iraq, or on gay marriage), they passionately want liberal democracy destroyed; they passionately want the US conquered; they passionately want you converted or dead. Muslims who acquiesce to such people running their organizations and taking over their mosques are equivalent to those who would have allowed Nazis to take over their American organizations in the 1940's.Sorry: I don't buy the excuse. This is a matter way beyond the niceties of our liberal democratic understanding. This is a matter where a line gets drawn.

You are correct that there are Muslim extremists. The type of single-minded, fundamentalists, irrational belief system they adhere to is dangerous. That is exactly why any examples of such belief systems should be watched carefully and kept under control. They certainly should not be allowed positions of significant power.That is why many here spend time opposing the so-called-Christian cults that exhibit exactly the same characteristics. It is apparent to both myself and my Christian friends that the views of those friends and I are closer than those friends are the extreme Christian cults. In fact those fundamentalist Christian cults are much closer to the Muslim extremists than they are to other Christians or the Muslim Islamists are to the thinking, moderate Muslims.

quote:

---

Just a hint to help you find them - all those people who, when you find out they're Muslims, you're a little surprised because you had no idea? They're the moderates.

​

Every Muslim I've ever known has been a moderate. That's a lot of Muslims. I've never met a Muslim fundamentalist. (Probably not too many in Minnesota or Missouri.)

---

I think that's a pretty accurate general definition of a moderate. True faith, whatever the specifics, should give us a depth of character and not turn us into a caricature. A Christian should demonstrate their faith by being a good person, performing public works, caring for the oppressed and not by screaming at people. There are entire sects of Islam, Sufism being the most known, that do not follow the 'death to the infidel' model. Faith is not the enemy. The specific way that faith is expressed can be.Years ago, one of the signs of spring on my college campus was the appearance of Brother Jed. Brother Jed would set up at the student union and harrangue passersby with his "you are going to Hell, so repent, even though you're still going to go to Hell" theology. He once picked me out of a group walking past his 'ministry' and told me I was going to Hell. "Me?" I asked, "I'm just walking to class. What'd I do?" It was a tad disturbing, walking to French class (bad enough in and of itself) and finding out you're damned. For a long time afterwards, when someone would say 'Christian fundamentalist', I would think of Brother Jed. Not all fundamentalist Christians, not all strict Christians went to college campuses and screamed that guys with big feet walking to French class were damned. I never met another person that damned me, as a matter of fact, though that could be because I stopped taking French. I eventually stopped thinking that all Christian fundamentalists were Brother Jed nutjobs and started looking at them individually.The term 'Christian Fundamentalist' no longer has its original meaning. 'Christian Fundamentalist' has come to be shorthand for 'Christian whose views I don't agree with'. If you feel I'm wrong, please define CF for me. Is it enough to think abortion is morally wrong, or should there be the desire to ban it or does the CF have to blow up clinics? Does a CF want the freedom to put up a nativity display or does the need go to putting one up on the town square or is it the goal of the CF to have a cross on everyone's front yard? Does a CF want the Boy Scouts to have the right to meet in schools (the Boy Scouts are nominally Christian) or do they want a moment for silent prayer in schools or do they want religious instruction in schools? Will a CF tolerate open homosexuality and civil unions but not something called 'gay marriage' or do they want to put people back in the closet? Does a CF automatically hate and fear Jews/Muslims/Hindus/Jainists/etc? Does a CF seek change through paceful or violent means?To answer the original question of this thread, I think that America could someday elect a Muslim and even a CF would accept this as long as the election was orderly and legitimate. I don't know that they would like it, but they would tolerate it. When Kennedy ran for president, there was discussion about whether America would accept a Catholic and there was some discussion when Lieberman was running for VP as to America's acceptance of a Jew. We did choose a Catholic and, depending on your opinion of the 2000 election, we either selected or almost selected a Jew to be VP. Were anyone to declare themselves no longer part of America and instead a citizen of, say, Brother-Jedistan, they'd not be a CF but a nutjob and punished accordingly.

You simply asked why would a person remain a member of some organization whose policies were abhorrent unless she agreed with those policies. I gave an answer. I don't have to explain why a person would leave an organization whose policies she disagreed with -- the reason there is obvious, and that wasn't your question.At any rate, we are still discussing whether it is correct to assume that all Muslims support the Wahabbis. Your claim was:

quote:

---

I was told by Muslims that almost all congregations and mosques have been taken over by Saudi financed Wahabbi Islamists. [Emphasis is mine.]

---

So what did these vague, unnamed Muslims say when you asked them:

quote:

---

Why doesn't this "moderate majority" get on the congregation boards and fire the Wahabbi Imams? And if for some reason that isn't possible, why don't they resign from the congregation and form a new one?

---

I'm anything but a fundamentalist myself, but I disagree that there is a parallel between Islamists and Christian fundamentalists. That is why we do not see Christians of any denomination flying planes into buildings, chanting from the New Testament while cutting off heads of live and conscious victims, blowing up thousands of fellow citizens in an effort to derail democracy, and so on.Not that i haven't occasionally come across a Christian who, in the name of his faith, wouldn't want to see some kind of circumscribed democracy that is akin to a Christian theocracy. They, however, are very rare. The clear majority of evangelicals are like George Bush himself, a democrat to their very core.

They said nothing - truly, nothing.

I should add that a number of famous Muslims, like the avowed democrat and author Stephen Schwartz, have written extensively about the Wahabbi takeover of North American and, to a lesser degree, European Islamic organizations. In other words, this is not just a hearsay opinion.

It is a myth that the Crusades were Christian aggression. When Islam began in the 7th century, almost all the Middle East was Christian. How then, did it become Islamic? War. Mohammed's wars against Christians and Jews are noted in the Koran and elsewhere, and documented in history. The Crusades were a counter strike, an effort to take back Jerusalem and other defeated Christian land.

To get a bigger picture, we must understand that Islam was foudned with the intent to defeating and displacing Christianity and Judiasm. A quick read of the Koran makes that clear. Hence, Islamic civilization was born in opposition to, and with the mission of conquering spiritually and martially, Western civilization. Muslims are raised with this as a given. Hence, why even democratically minded Muslims acquiesce to Wahabbi takeover. That is, ultimtaely, they identify more with their Wahabbi brothers than their liberal democratic Christian citizen cousins.Perhaps, they are like the naive democratically minded Iranians who enjoined with the islamists to bring the Shah down, thinking they'd come out on top when the smkoe cleared. Instead, the utterly ruthless Islamists rampaged and murdered the democratic leaders, and took over. So, North American Muslims support the Wahabbi long term goal of transforming us into an Islamic civilization, but fail to realize that they cannot both keep liberal democracy and allow the Islamists domain over their institutions.Case in points: An imam of a major Vancouver, BC mosque, stated in a public sermon that Jews are pigs and monkeys (tytpical Islamic belief, but this time caught publicly). He was condemned coast to coast, but still has his job. Another Islamic leader, president of Canada's largest Islamic organization and a regular columnist in the influential and respect Globe & Mail, said on public TV that all Israelis iver 18 were fair game for terrorist murder. Again, coast to coast condemnation. Again, he keeps his job. If a prominent Jew or Christian had said the something similar about Palestinians, he or she'd have been toast.If we are to defend ourselves, we must realize that the tolerance and "liberal" part of democracy is not, to paraphrase someone else, a suicide pact. We must expect all others to accept these values. For if it is liberal democracy for me, but not thee, then nor will it be for me either much longer.

Wrong, totally wrong. Sorry but the motive of the First Crusade was to try to turn the interminable wars between the European Christian city-states outward. The Muslims were simply handy. Sorry, but you'll have to supply some evidence to back up a statement like that.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You are going to have to do more to link that majority of North American Muslims with the Wahabbi that simply repeat the assertian over and over. And since you are new here, I will give you a warning: the moderators here don't like it when a person's arguments amount to just repeating the same thing over and over, although they do tend to be more lenient toward those who, like religious fundamentalists and political conservatives, exhibit difficulty in dealing with facts and logic.--

quote:

---

Perhaps, they are like the naive democratically minded Iranians who enjoined with the islamists to bring the Shah down, thinking they'd come out on top when the smkoe cleared.

---

I don't understand your point. The shah was a known evil that needed to be dealt with -- the fundamentalists were the only ones in any position to be effective in this regard.At any rate, the majority of Iranians, who are still Muslims, support the more democratically minded reformers. That would seem to dispute your point.The conservatives who are in charge of Iran are not Wahhabis. In fact, they are very critical of the Wahhabis, considering them to be a medievel throwback (kind of funny, eh?). The conservatives in Iran are slightly more tolerant of religious dissent and Iranian women have more rights in Iran than in, say, Wahabbi dominated Saudi Arabia.-

quote:

---

n imam of a major Vancouver, BC mosque, stated in a public sermon that Jews are pigs and monkeys (tytpical Islamic belief, but this time caught publicly).

---

Jerry Fallwell made some bizarre comments linking homosexuals, feminists, and, I believe, the ACLU with the 9/11 attacks. This was publically caught, too. I don't recall that he ever made a definite apology for this, and I believe that he still has his job.--

quote:

---

If we are to defend ourselves, we must realize that the tolerance and "liberal" part of democracy is not, to paraphrase someone else, a suicide pact.

---

Nor is posing a false dilemma a sign of logical thinking.

The Byzantine Empire was Christian (Byzantine Catholic, to be exact). At the Battle of the Yarmuk in Syria on 20 August 636, the Muslims beat the Byzantines and took control of Syria. Egypt was lost to the Muslims in 642. The Muslims took Spain in 711 and got as far as the French city of Tours in 732 but were beat back by Charles Martel. Muslims kept control of Spain until 1492. Spain and France were not only not part of the Byzantine Empire at the time, they weren't even unified countries at the time; Charles Martel was the leader of the Franks.

I am much more than repeating an assertion. I have said that many well-known Muslim moderates, including Schwartz and Manji, have written about the Wahabbi takeover of islamic organizations. These same writers have bemoaned that the most prominent Islamic voices, such as CAIR, are Wahabbis in sheep's clothing. And there's more. Many Middle East studies departments have Wahabbi sympathizers, some have been financed by Arab states. Indeed, a few Muslim profs have been arrested for terrorist activities, to the shock of their universities and fellow faculty. And they also were associated with CAIR. (Check out "Middle East Forum," a web site run by a Harvard Professor on exactly this matter.)--quoteerhaps, they are like the naive democratically minded Iranians who enjoined with the islamists to bring the Shah down, thinking they'd come out on top when the smkoe cleared.I don't understand your point. The shah was a known evil that needed to be dealt with -- the fundamentalists were the only ones in any position to be effective in this regard.At any rate, the majority of Iranians, who are still Muslims, support the more democratically minded reformers. That would seem to dispute your point.The conservatives who are in charge of Iran are not Wahhabis. In fact, they are very critical of the Wahhabis, considering them to be a medievel throwback (kind of funny, eh?). The conservatives in Iran are slightly more tolerant of religious dissent and Iranian women have more rights in Iran than in, say, Wahabbi dominated Saudi Arabia.-quote:n imam of a major Vancouver, BC mosque, stated in a public sermon that Jews are pigs and monkeys (tytpical Islamic belief, but this time caught publicly).Jerry Fallwell made some bizarre comments linking homosexuals, feminists, and, I believe, the ACLU with the 9/11 attacks. This was publically caught, too. I don't recall that he ever made a definite apology for this, and I believe that he still has his job.--quote:If we are to defend ourselves, we must realize that the tolerance and "liberal" part of democracy is not, to paraphrase someone else, a suicide pact.Nor is posing a false dilemma a sign of logical thinking.

I would agree that, in the last century, the Muslims extremists demonstrate a greater degree of extremism in their actualy behavior. It is the type of thinking that I was refering to as "dangerous".Bush is a very good example of the kind of irrational thinking that is dangerous. We have some very difficult decisions to make over the next years and decades. To have any hope of making half way decent ones we need those making decisions to be able to incorporate facts (even if they are uncomfortable) and use reason and logic to come to conclusions (even if the conclusions are not welcome). This is the kind of thinking process that is discouraged by blind (willfully so) faith as a way of arriving at conclusions.Christians as a whole have moved further from this kind of thinking in the last few centuries than Muslims have is something I would have to agree with (even if it sounds racist in some way).However, that doesn't mean that the cults contained with in Christianity are not capable of retrogressing to a time when they could use violence to achieve the "work of God" is also my view.