Kingdom on Earth (Re: Barack Obama comments)

I'm sorry Buz but that is simply bullshit when you claim the Qu'ran advocates "the extermination of classified segments of the citizenry."Further, he did not force all other religions out of Mecca and in fact, was aided by Jewish and Christian allies in his conquest of Mecca.In addition, one of the major functions of Saladin was to protect Christian and Jewish places of worship in Palestine and to aid and protect pilgrims in their travels.So other than your continued strawman misrepresentation of Islam, what would be the problem with a Muslim President?

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

And this part I have never denied. You are correct that there are war verses (technically not written by him, but yeah). While he was thr originator of the religion, it was not completely divorced from its Abrahamic beginnings, which were just as violent and intolerant, if not more so.And he did war on other religions.However, you leave out the fact that there are also verses on peace and how to war, which would rule out terrorism, and he practiced those as well. I'm not trying to say he was some peace-monger. He was violent like most people leading societies in those days, specifically when trying to carve out their own kingdom. But he did act peacefully as well, and did not engage in the absolutism you confer on him.To this end, your interpretations of the passages are not mandatory. This is certainly what most militant factions believe. But that is not what most moderates believe and there are more moderates than militants. Not that % means anything, but this indicates that there is no ABSOLUTE interpretation by which devout and good can be judged.I think you are doing a disservice to the majority of muslims, when you adhere to the militant's interpretation. I honestly do not see how you can do this, while rejecting people who claim that Catholicism is the interpretation for any devout and good Xian.And as a quick nod to another topic, the Xian church was built in a different time period. Jesus was rising as "king" from a point of servitude, and with no forces to speak of. Yet his royal status and divinity came from his lineage to a man who was just as brutal and intolerant... indeed much more so... than Mohamed. {AbE: The Xian church's rise to power after his death, the reason for its present existence, was equally built on brutality and intolerance. Thus it is a bit hypocritical to cast stones.}Edited by Silent H, : AbE

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Hi, H. I'm not contradicting you here, just adding a few extra thoughts. Not only that, but most Islamic scholars also fee that it is important to interpret all of these verses in their proper historical context, that is, the situation faced by Mohammed's followers (specific acts of betrayal, for example, or treaties that are invalid because they were first broken by the infidels).- Me, I have always maintained that Islam is what Muslims actually believe and do, and Christianity is what Christians actually believe and do. One can cherry pick whatever verses one wants from the Qur'an or the Bible, and can point to whatever Islamic faction or Evangelical sect one wants, but in the end it is what the actual adherents themselves say and do that matters.Edited by Chiroptera, : clarificationEdited by Chiroptera, : Agh! Previous version has been answered and quoted -- reverting to the original to avoid confusion.

---

It has become fashionable on the left and in Western Europe to compare the Bush administration to the Nazis. The comparison is not without some superficial merit. In both cases the government is run by a small gang of snickering, stupid thugs whose vision of paradise is full of explosions and beautifully designed prisons. -- Matt Taibbi

Total agreement of course. Just wanted to add to your add... If I remember right, that point is something we hammered home (or tried to anyway) in that earlier thread with buz. I think that is an important issue which I find interesting most people avoid, though it is requested for Xian and Jewish writings when criticisms are thrown on them. Indeed there is much concern over establishing context and even factual records of the times... but for Islam it seems to be... see he killed those people over there, and that's all we need to know.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

It never takes long for a creationist to reach for the Hitler analogy. Xtians, protestant xians, have done the same.Prior to 1492, over 40 million North American people (with around 1800 religions) were slaughtered and/or "converted" by protestant xians.Around the same time, both protestant and catholic "missionaries" to South America made quick work of the thousands of native religions and millions of native peoples there as well.Same story for the Caribbean.Same story for Africa.Same story for India.Same story for Asia.Same story for the South Pacific.Same story for Australia.Same story for the Arctic.I think y'all missed the Antarctic ... but still and all ... I think y'all got Hitler beat. I'm calling bullshit on this one.Care to provide a cite from a reputable historian?(Given that you've had over 2 months to produce the Deborah Ray cites, I'm not gonna hold my breath.) You have yet to show that Islam is a greater threat than xianity.Provide historic proof of Islamic folks slaughtering and/or converting:
South American natives.
North American natives.
Caribbean natives.
Asians.
Australians.
Inuit.

What's wrong with that? I mean I know why I have a problem with that. Do you?

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

H, I have no interest whatsoever in discussing much of anything with you.

Well the feeling is mutual. This was simply a point I thought was interesting for you to make, given the guff you gave me over the same thing.Ciao.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Don't you ever tire of the misrepresentation, Holmes?More to the point, don't the admins ever tire of your misrepresentation?

But she's always a woman to meGreat lyrics...

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

Okay, I'll bite... Yes, I do tire of all the misrepresentations you make about me, and I do sometimes wonder if the admins get tired of it.Heheheh.Merry Xmas.P.S.- my comment to her included no misrepresentations. prove it in another thread and I'll buy ya a cookie.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Really?Because I've always been particularly fond of Chumbawamba's Mouthful of Shit myself, Juggs.It brings me such fond memories of your posts when I hear it.

1. The further removed from the reformation, the less concern about Catholicism's history.2. The reason Catholicsm was brutal in South America is because it was allowed to be being the majority ideology of the conquerors. Persecution of both the natives and protestent missionaries in Mexico and SA was prevalent all the way up to the 1950s when it began to diminish.3. Protestant via the Reformation and the Constitution prevented forced religion and persecution in North America.Thus, the eventual election of Kennedy over time.PLEASE NOTE: MY CONCERN IS NOT THAT A MUSLIM PRESIDENT WOULD IMMEDIATELY WORK TO FORCE ISLAM UPON AMERICA. MY CONCERN IS THAT ONE MIGHT BE INCLINED TO UNDERMINE THE WAR ON TERRORISM. OBAMA DECLARES HE WOULD BRING GROOPS HOME BY SPRING, 08.CONCERN 2: A MUSLIM PRESIDENT MIGHT BE INCLINED TO UNDERMINE THE US SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL.OBAMA ON ISRAEL: http://www.americanthinker.com/...ck_obama_and_israel_1.html

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Well at least we see who's got class.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I'm sure chiro will handle the JFK catholic thingy.But the obama-Israel thing. I dunno. Just because someone else says something, doesn't mean he believes it. He's been pretty dogmatic as far as Israel is concerned (as far as I've seen), and in a pro-Israel sense. That's considered severe criticism? That seems pretty tame and within the framework of accepted (legal) action. I agree with it pretty much 100%. And yet I actually support our continued work against militant Islam.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard