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

quote:

---

My point is that, as a people, they have an identity apart from our own.

---

Really? In another post you said:

quote:

---

It is instructive, though, that Iranians are not arabs, and that iranians ahve experienced first hand the horror of Islamism. Thus they see what others have not.

---

So, even you seem to recognize that Muslims are not as single people with a single identity.-

quote:

---

That is why they have allowed passionate enemies of democracy and western civilization to take over their institutions....But i also know that far too many, because of the very tenets of their faith, believe that it is their mission to Islamicize us, even if that means democracy falls.

---

Which still has not been demostrated.

It's a silly title, isn't it. All it involves is the number of posts you've made and at the rate you're going you'll be at the big table soon. To start a thread we have a section called Proposed New Topics. You post your thread idea there. The Admins will work with you to get it organized if needed, make sure the content is clear and somewhat defined to try to limit wandering, and that it is not simply one that there are already existing threads on the same subject. It will then generally be promoted to the appropriate forum.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes, it is "PC" to want to actually read the context of a passage to determine its actual meaning. It is much, much better to just take passages out of context to support your assertians, especially when you have no factual data to support it.

I wrote: "That is why they have allowed passionate enemies of democracy and western civilization to take over their institutions....But i also know that far too many, because of the very tenets of their faith, believe that it is their mission to Islamicize us, even if that means democracy falls."You responded: "Which still has not been demostrated."It's been demonstrated, but you refuse to see it.Here's a quote from Muslim writer Schwartz in testimony before congress:
"This is how it works today. The born Muslim who comes here essentially comes here to get away from this stuff. The born Muslim by and large comes here to enjoy the economic and social benefits of becoming an American. They come here from places where Islamic extremism has made their lives miserable and they come here hoping to get away from it, as I said. They get here and what do they find? They find that Wahhabism with Saudi money dominates American Islam. To them this is a gigantic shock, a horrifying shock."
Page not found – Center for Security PolicySchwartz, however, doesn't address the fact that they allowed the wahabbis to takeover.

A few clarifying questions:
In terms of Creationism, are we talking the six-days-about-6,000-years-ago version or 'it is a metaphor for what took place over billions of years' or 'intelligent design'?
What's the definition of oppression and oppressive legislation? Are we talking about anti-gay laws or laws that don't let me buy wine on Sunday?

The former and both. Of course, if you're a Whiskeypalian the latter is moot.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I found Shwartz' testimony, as transcribed in your link, less than compelling for the same reason I do not find your posts very compelling, namely he makes a lot of assertians but provides no documentation.Normally I would just assume that this is the nature of Congressional testimony, but others have the same problem with his other works.

You could not be more wrong. And there are many others who have said the same, including Daniel Pipes. To be blunt, you appear to find denial more comforting than the truth.

More (that i suspect you'll choose to deny):Sucuri WebSite Firewall - Access Denied"Backed by money from Saudi Arabia, Wahhabis have built or taken over hundreds of mosques in North America and opened branches of Saudi universities here for the training of imams as part of the effort to spread their beliefs, which are intolerant of Christianity, Judaism and even other strains of Islam."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31402-2003Oct1FrontPage magazine.com :: Terrorism: Growing Wahhabi Influence in ...
Rather, Wahhabi control over mosques means control of property, ... that have
carried out this campaign are the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), ...
Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out - David Horowitz - 84kMuslim Leader Who Was Once Labeled an Alarmist Is Suddenly a SageTwo years ago, an obscure Muslim spiritual leader named Sheik Muhammad Hisham Kabbani stepped to the microphone at the State Department and issued a chilling admonition to Americans to beware the Muslims in their midst.He warned that Islamic extremists had infiltrated the vast majority of American Muslim mosques and student and community groups, and that they had bought more than 20 nuclear warheads and were paying former Soviet scientists to break them into chips that could be carried in suitcases."We want to tell people to be careful, that something major might hit quickly," he told a forum on Islam convened by the State Department."Now the sheik, who was denounced as a charlatan by nine major American Muslim organizations, is back in the spotlight as never before. He has appeared on CNN, "Today," MSNBC, NPR and more since the terrorist attacks, cast as the Muslim who dared to blow the whistle on his brethren. Two weeks ago, he briefed the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Uzbekistan, a country that has supported the United States in its war on Afghanistan and whose president has offered Sheik Kabbani a warm welcome."
Race Matters | News & fighting inequality

The following series of twenty quotes are uncannily difficult to attribute to either a Christian OR a Muslim source. Think you can do it? The exercise reveals just how similar the rhetoric of both sides can be. It underlines just how much religious extremism is a major part of our problems at home and in the Middle East.Each of these quotes is from one of the following people:Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson or Osama Bin Ladin1. In today's wars, there are no morals, and it is clear that mankind has descended to the lowest degrees of decadence and oppression.2. America is polluting the whole world.3. The government is committed to supporting God's religion, the country remains a strong bulwark for religion, and the people are among the most protective of God's religion, and the keenest to fulfill His laws.4. One-world opinion is taking the side of the Palestinians, not the side of Israel.5. There will never be world peace until God's house and God's people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world.6. The government does not cease to cry over matters affecting religion, without making any serious effort to serve the interests of the religious community.7. We are on the brink of our destruction, and if we do not awaken now, it will be too late. We have been victimized by traitorous behavior on the part of our leaders.8. The media strives to keep the people occupied with minor matters, and to stir their emotions and desires until corruption becomes widespread among believers.9. There is no way that a United Nations, treaties, or any other human instrument can bring about peace. Such things mean nothing when one nation desires the land and resources of another.10. We have allowed rampant secularism.... We have insulted God at the highest levels of government.11. One particular report described the gaps and the shortcoming in the philosophy of the government, the situation of the law within the country and the arbitrary declaration of what is lawful and unlawful regardless of divine law as instituted by God.12. Priorities of spiritual work are lost while blasphemy and polytheism continue its grip and control. We should be alert to these atrocious plans carried out by the government.13. America is in imminent peril... rotting from within.14. The American people have put themselves at the mercy of a disloyal government, and this is most evident in Clinton's administration. The American government is leading the country towards hell.15. The termites are in charge now, and that is not the way it ought to be, and the time has arrived for a godly fumigation.16. If America is not suffering the irrevocable judgment of God, she is dangerously close.17. Americans have committed unprecedented stupidity. We anticipate a black future for America.18. If the judges appointed by man will not deal with those who take innocent human life, then God is going to enter in and bring justice. And when that happens many of the innocent will suffer along with the guilty.19. All these crimes and sins committed by Americans are a clear declaration of war on God.20. A condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It'll bring about terrorist bombs; it'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor.I will post the answers tomorrow.
EZThis message has been edited by EZscience, 06-07-2005 03:07 PM

quote:

---

To be blunt, you appear to find denial more comforting than the truth.

---

(Sigh) And, to be blunt, you appear to be paranoid, determined to find evidence of an Islamic conspiracy no matter where you might find it. Name calling is way, way too easy. Maybe if you'd present evidence by people who do not appear to have some sort of axe to grind.From the home page of jihadwatch: Their stated purpose is to promote the idea that Muslims are a threat to the US, not to critically examine the evidence.The Washington Post article is about a Saudi Arabian cleric coming to the US and visiting known Wahabbists, has a quote from a Senator that Wahabbism is anti-democratic, and a mention of some of the organizations shut down on suspicion of terrorism. No mention of actual evidence that American Muslims are some sort of subversive threat.frontpagemag is David Horowitz's blog. Horowitz is a well-known neo-con fanatic whose main shtick these days is to harass academics whose opinions he doesn't like.The racematters article, again, offers no actual evidence to back up Kabanni's claims. In fact, the article quotes: So I see no good reason to accept that there is some growing Muslim menace in our midst. I guess that means I am in denial.

Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch is scholarly and attentive to detail. If you see it as weak, present your evidence. David Horowitz has, with the help of a few leftists I might add, created an "Academic Bill of Rights." It is an entirely neutral document, meant to ensure that profs teach and not indoctrinate. If you think this bill is ideological, read it and quote me the biased or otherwise conservative ideology within (there is none, but try to find it if you wish).Essentially, you're practise denial by asserting, but not proving, a lack of credibility on the part of those who offer evidence of the growing risk. You deny that the Wahabbis have taken over most islamic organizations. You deny the power and scope of the worldwide islamist movement. You even deny that esteemed, democratically-minded Muslim have credibility.

Now, the argument can be made for the anti-Sunday-wine laws and other similar laws (commonly referred to as 'blue laws' because no booze makes you feel blue) as tolerance for those of a religious bent. You could also argue that it's part of the regulation of public morals (can't buy cigarettes or porn until you're 18, no booze until 21,etc). It's also possible to be both a Christian and a libertarian and hold that the blue laws should be repealed on general principle. Personally, I've never been in desperate need of a bottle of wine, so I'll go either way.Six-day-creationism may be difficult to defend scientifically, but it doesn't really affect public policy. The Precambrian Era doesn't affect zoning or mandatory minimums or the rate of return on 30-year Treasury notes. I'd be interested in hearing why it should deny someone public office.Anti-gay laws, however, are a biggie. Making sodomy or premarital sex illegal or limiting the number of marital aids (actually a law in Texas- I think the limit is 4) has been pretty much shot down by the Supremes. Saying that it is illegal to love whem you want to is just hard to justify. Someone that feels homosexuality should be stopped somehow would have a hard time enforcing the law of the land.We haven't seen the Supremes rule on gay marriage and, as it stands, we're seeing it legal in some states, illegal in others and nebulous in most. The argument can be made, however, that marriage has traditionally been a religious and cultural institution and that the most stable family unit is a monogamous mother-father unit. We also outlaw polygamy for this reason. I don't think that wanting to preserve the traditional definition of marriage makes one a CF or makes one unfit to serve the public. Personally, I think the Mass Supremes screwed up by ordering gay marriage and refusing to give the state time to get a final legal decision or allow the process of amending the state constitution to go forth; civil unions (like common-law marriages) would have been an acceptable stopgap and given time for people to catch up with the law. My fear is that a few judges are going to decide the issue in such a way that gays suffer a huge backlash just when they were closing in on the tolerance they'd been fighting for.What other criteria exist for the CF?PS- whiskeytarian? LOL

No, you are presenting these peoples' testimony as evidence -- it is therefore your responsibility to explain why we should find their opinions trustworthy -- you are the one who has to establish their credibility.You have provided no factual evidence -- just assertians made by others who themselves provide no evidence other than their own say-so.Edited to add:
I should clarify what I just wrote.All the articles you link to just have people making assertians. Yet no actual hard evidence is presented to back up the assertians. You make certain claims; when asked for evidence, you quote others who just make the same claims.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 07-Jun-2005 09:02 PM

As I said it depends on the actions of the person. The items I listed are clear indications of either an ability to ignore evidence in decision making or a lack of critical thinking capabilities.The ability to think critically and to make decisions that are evidence based are both reasonable criteria to examine in anyone wanting to hold a position of power. It's not the beliefs themselves that are the issue but rather the capabilities of the person who will be making decisions that will affect everyone.IMHO it is reasonable to wonder if anyone that believes the universe is 6000 years old or that certain people should be deprived of rights and protections based on some religious dogma are capable of making informed decisions when in a position of power.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion