Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Pause Switch to Standard View The Islamophobia Industry Strikes in...
Show More
Loading...
Flag farragut August 20, 2012 10:28 AM EDT

I'm sorry, but that kind of balkanization would destroy any national fabric. Inter-community warfare would become standard.


Let us leave our religious prescriptions and proscriptions in the churches, temples, and mosques. We can handle public and business life without the stinking patina of discredited mythology.

Flag mountain_man August 20, 2012 1:05 PM EDT

Aug 20, 2012 -- 1:26AM, Miraj wrote:

It's done with speed limits.  Why not sodas?


Because you would have a fractured society that would soon devolve into a world that's not a safe place to live. Just think your scenario though a bit more and you'll see. Look at the bigger picture. Look at past history.

Flag rangerken August 20, 2012 2:04 PM EDT

The reason we have a constitution, and a federal republic in the US is because the loose amalgamation under the Articles of Confederation demonstably did not work! Balkanization must be avoided and ridiculed whenever and wherever it rears its ugly head here.


And religion belongs inside each religion, and NEVER outside in any secular way. Preaching and proselytizing is fine...but NEVER should any religion be able to impose or coerce.


My fairly libeal Episcopaliananism woks for me...but it does not work for many others...and it must never, ever, be allowed to affect others. The same is true for any and all other religions. And when one tries it must be opposed and openly ridiculed.


It is not 'Islamaphobia' to state that Shariah has no business, absolutely none, not a bit, of business ever intruding on anyone who is not a believer in Islam. The same may be said about Catholic canon Law and non Catholics, or whatever the Wiccans believe and non Wiccans, and so forth. And it is not the least bit 'anyreligionphobic' to state this...not at all.


Ken

Flag TRUECHRISTIAN August 20, 2012 9:59 PM EDT

x


Aug 19, 2012 -- 12:48AM, Miraj wrote:


And for those people who are Muslim and American, they have every religious right that a non Muslim would have in this country. That doesn't include Sharia law, but it most definitely includes freedom of religion and assembly.  



The religious rights of Muslims in America does include Shari'a.




The religious rights of Americans who happen to be Muslims do indeed include Shariah, within their religion, NOT outside it, just as the religious rights of Americans who happen to be Catholics includes Canon Law, within their religion, NOT outside it. Just as Canon Law must NEVER intrude inside the Mosque, or in the secular lives of non Catholics, Shariah must never intrude inside the Church, or in the secular lives of non Muslims.


Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.


Ken




Catholic Canon law is not Christian Canon Law.  


You can be a Christian and not obey Catholic Canon Law.  


It is not essential to being a Christian.  


You do not have to obey Catholic Canon Law to be a Christian. 


If I understand Miraj correctly Sharia or Islamic Law is essential to being a Muslim.  


If you object to Islamic-Sharia Law then you MUST also object to Jewish-Halachic Law and also Catholic Canon Law.  


You can have local, city, county and state laws about speeding and  drinking sodas. 


However those are secular laws.  They must be or at least should be applied equally.   


 


 




 

Flag Miraj August 20, 2012 10:26 PM EDT

Muslism can't be Muslims 24/7 without Shari'a, but Islamic law (fiqh) is a separate and more complex issue.  Much of it is ignored by some portion of the Muslim community out of neccessity.


And, yes, Shari'a law does exist outside of the mosque and in secular society, as does Jewish law and Christian law.  Their affects on secular laws can be found in the workplace, on store shelves, in finance, contract law and in marketing; not an exhaustive list by any means.  The halal and kosher food markets are worth many BILLIONS of dollars in North America alone.  That's not counting other needs religious devotions bring to the marketplace.  


The fastest growing minority in the US is Asians.  Most Muslims are Asian, so a lot of those in that growing minority are Asian Muslims.  Their dollars are good here and it will have an effect on the public square, and not just for Jews and Muslims.

Flag REteach August 20, 2012 10:34 PM EDT

I ran into the local middle eastern grocery store the other day. It was somewhat refreshing seeing the cashier wearing a hijab and a tee shirt from the local Catholic parochial school. It made me happy. 

Flag Miraj August 20, 2012 10:38 PM EDT

Aug 20, 2012 -- 10:34PM, REteach wrote:


I ran into the local middle eastern grocery store the other day. It was somewhat refreshing seeing the cashier wearing a hijab and a tee shirt from the local Catholic parochial school. It made me happy. 




A lot of people would be surprised to know that in many ME countries, it's not at all uncommon for Muslim students to attend Catholic schools.

Flag TRUECHRISTIAN August 21, 2012 12:06 PM EDT

Aug 20, 2012 -- 10:26PM, Miraj wrote:


Muslism can't be Muslims 24/7 without Shari'a, but Islamic law (fiqh) is a separate and more complex issue.  Much of it is ignored by some portion of the Muslim community out of neccessity.



But you can be a Christian without Catholic Canon Law.


Much of the Roman Catholic Canon Law is ignored by "some" portion of the Roman Catholic Community out of neccessity.  


I doubt that most of the Roman Catholic community even knows much about Roman Catholic Canon Law.     


I also doubt that most of the Islamic Community knows much about Islamic Law.  


 


Aug 20, 2012 -- 10:26PM, Miraj wrote:


And, yes, Shari'a law does exist outside of the mosque and in secular society, as does Jewish law and Christian law.



And Roman Catholic Law also exists outside the church but it is followed ONLY by Christians who are Roman Catholics. 


 


Aug 20, 2012 -- 10:26PM, Miraj wrote:


  Their affects on secular laws can be found in the workplace, on store shelves, in finance, contract law and in marketing; not an exhaustive list by any means.



I do agree that Roman Catholic Law and Islamic Law and Judiac Laws do have affect Secular Laws.  


But Secular Law is different from Roman Catholic Law and Islamic Law and Judiac Law.  


 


 


Aug 20, 2012 -- 10:26PM, Miraj wrote:


  The halal and kosher food markets are worth many BILLIONS of dollars in North America alone.  That's not counting other needs religious devotions bring to the marketplace. 



I agree. 


However neither a Jew, Roman Catholic, or Muslim can be arrested if due to neccesity that break their own laws or the laws of others.  


 

Aug 20, 2012 -- 10:26PM, Miraj wrote:


The fastest growing minority in the US is Asians.  Most Muslims are Asian, so a lot of those in that growing minority are Asian Muslims.  Their dollars are good here and it will have an effect on the public square, and not just for Jews and Muslims.




I will certainly agree that the dollars of Asian Muslim, Roman Catholics and Jews are all equally good and affect the public square.  Because money is secular.  


A Muslim or a Jew out of necessity or for greed can break Sharia or Judiac Laws.   But they cannot be arrested or sued in a secular court for breaking those laws.  


If a Non-Muslim or a Muslim signs a contract and breaks the contract they can be sued.  Wether it is an "Islamic" contract or not.    


If any Islamic Law runs counter to Secular Law it is invalid in the U.S.   The same applies to Judiac Laws and to Roman Catholic Laws. 


The bottomline is that Secular Law "trumps" Religious Law in the U.S.      


 




 

Flag Miraj August 21, 2012 1:29 PM EDT

Contrary to simplistic popular thought, there is no bright line between US "secular law" (which is not entirely secular) and religious law.  Secular law doesn't always trump religious law.  I have only a minute before I have to run, but I will point out that one of Beliefnet's board members and bloggers, Jay Sekulow, is a lawyer who specializes in protecting Christian legal rights.  He spends a lot of time in court challenging the separation of church and state because he knows there is no bright line and that courts do consider both.

Flag TRUECHRISTIAN August 21, 2012 2:47 PM EDT

Aug 21, 2012 -- 1:29PM, Miraj wrote:


Contrary to simplistic popular thought, there is no bright line between US "secular law" (which is not entirely secular) and religious law.  Secular law doesn't always trump religious law.  I have only a minute before I have to run, but I will point out that one of Beliefnet's board members and bloggers, Jay Sekulow, is a lawyer who specializes in protecting Christian legal rights.  He spends a lot of time in court challenging the separation of church and state because he knows there is no bright line and that courts do consider both.




I would agree that sometimes there is no "bright" line.   Sometimes the line is "dim".   


Sometimes the line is "bright" sometimes the line is "dim". 


However the fact remains is that there is a line. 


Jay Sekulow will be arguing his case in a Secular Court.  


He will not be arguing his case in an Islamic, Jewish or Roman Catholic Court.   


The line between Islamic, Jewish or Roman Catholic Courts is pretty clear.  


If Jay Sekulow were to bring this case before a Roman Catholic Court and the case was to be decided by Roman Catholic Canon Law I think it would be much more likely that he would win his case then if he was have it tried in a Jewish Court, Islamic Court, or Secular Court.  


Jay Sekulow works for the ACLJ.


"The American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ) is a conservative Christian, pro-life group that was founded in 1990 by evangelical Pat Robertson."


We all know about the deep love and respect that Pat Robertson has for Muslims, don't we?  Undecided


What the ACLJ is dedicated to is to protect the rights of Fundamentalist Conservative Evangelic Christians.   


I would think that if there is going to be a crossbeam in the shape of a cross to bring comfort to Christians that under the Constitution that there should also be a symbol to bring aid and comfort to members of other religions or the non-religious.  


If the crossbeam that survived the 9/11 attack was intalled as a memorial at a place that was owned and funded by the Roman Catholic Church or other Christian Church there would be no case.   


But since it is on a secular site that is not owned by the Roman Catholic Church or an Evangelical Christian Church and since it is being funded by a secular souce there is a case that it is in violation of the First Amendment.  


 


 

Flag REteach August 21, 2012 7:43 PM EDT

Secular courts grant divorce and allow remarriage when Catholics courts may not.  
Damn Christians and their religious laws! 

Flag mountain_man August 21, 2012 9:39 PM EDT

Aug 21, 2012 -- 1:29PM, Miraj wrote:

Contrary to simplistic popular thought, there is no bright line between US "secular law" (which is not entirely secular) and religious law.


There pretty much is. No church, no religion, could punish me for breaking one of their laws. I could, and would, stand in front of any religious official, or unofficial for that matter, and say right to their fact that their god is full of crap - and there is not a damn thing they can do about it.


Secular law doesn't always trump religious law.


In the USA, it does.


I could not care less what some pettyfogger of an ambulance chaser does. The Supreme Court and the lower courts have consistently upheld that "wall of separation." Some of the lower courts have tried to do something different, but they're always shot down by the higher courts.


Flag REteach August 21, 2012 10:04 PM EDT

Aug 21, 2012 -- 9:39PM, mountain_man wrote:

Secular law doesn't always trump religious law.


In the USA, it does.



I think it depends on how you define it.  Just because you got a secular divorce does not mean that you can demand that the Catholic church remarry you or recognize your civil marriage.  The State does, of course.  But some people really want the RCC to grant them an annulment to make them legal in the eyes of the church and it doesn't happen. 


Flag rangerken August 21, 2012 10:53 PM EDT

Aug 21, 2012 -- 9:39PM, mountain_man wrote:


Aug 21, 2012 -- 1:29PM, Miraj wrote:

Contrary to simplistic popular thought, there is no bright line between US "secular law" (which is not entirely secular) and religious law.


There pretty much is. No church, no religion, could punish me for breaking one of their laws. I could, and would, stand in front of any religious official, or unofficial for that matter, and say right to their fact that their god is full of crap - and there is not a damn thing they can do about it.


Secular law doesn't always trump religious law.


In the USA, it does.


......The Supreme Court and the lower courts have consistently upheld that "wall of separation." Some of the lower courts have tried to do something different, but they're always shot down by the higher courts.





Mountainman is right on point, right on facts, right on US law, right on the intent of our constitution, right on our cultural values, and right in his opinion.


Religious laws belong inside, and only inside individual religions!!!!! Theocracy has a perfect record of failure and barbarity...always has, and does today wherever it rears its backward, barbaric head...it has no place in the United States.


Ken...(who, just by the way, IS a 'believer'...but that's my business and must never impact aanyone else)

Flag TRUECHRISTIAN August 21, 2012 10:56 PM EDT

Howdy REteach


Aug 21, 2012 -- 9:39PM, mountain_man wrote:

Secular law doesn't always trump religious law.


In the USA, it does.



I think it depends on how you define it.  Just because you got a secular divorce does not mean that you can demand that the Catholic church remarry you or recognize your civil marriage.  The State does, of course.  But some people really want the RCC to grant them an annulment to make them legal in the eyes of the church and it doesn't happen. 





That is true because the wall of separation cannot force a marriage in Roman Catholic Church because that violates the RELIGOUS doctrine and dogma of that church


Secular Law can not force the Roman Catholic Church to marry Atheists or Muslims or Homosexuals.  


 You are more likely to get an annulment from the Church Fathers if you are poltically connected and wealthy and willing to make a large donation for the poor.  Innocent


 


 




 

Flag mountain_man August 21, 2012 11:00 PM EDT

Aug 21, 2012 -- 10:53PM, rangerken wrote:

Mountainman is right on point, right on facts, right on US law, right on the intent of our constitution, right on our cultural values, and right in his opinion.


Wow! I'm not that right that often.

Religious laws belong inside, and only inside individual religions!!!!! Theocracy has a perfect record of failure and barbarity...always has, and does today wherever it rears its backward, barbaric head...it has no place in the United States.


Ken...(who, just by the way, IS a 'believer'...but that's my business and must never impact anyone else)


You and I both served in order to protect our laws, our culture, our values, our Constitution. Religious laws may guide the adherents of that religion, but have absolutely NO jurisdiction on those outside that religion. A religious law can NEVER trump a secular law. Not in the USA anyway. The law forbids it.

Flag mountain_man August 21, 2012 11:02 PM EDT

Aug 21, 2012 -- 10:04PM, REteach wrote:

I think it depends on how you define it.  Just because you got a secular divorce does not mean that you can demand that the Catholic church remarry you or recognize your civil marriage.


That's not what we are talking about. One cannot go to a church and get a civil divorce. They have to go through the civil court system. Then they can also get some kind of whatever from their church.


The State does, of course.  But some people really want the RCC to grant them an annulment to make them legal in the eyes of the church and it doesn't happen.


What the RCC does or says is irrelevant to our divorce laws. The RCC cannot grant divorces that have a legal standing outside of that religion.

Flag rangerken August 29, 2012 12:02 AM EDT

Expanding on what Mountainman wrote, if a married couple gets an annulment from the Catholic Church that does NOT mean that they are divorced according to the laws of whatever state they happen to live in. And that is a good thing in my opinion. Secular law must always predominate in this country. That's why shariah doessn't bother me. It has no secular authority.

Flag mountain_man August 29, 2012 10:02 PM EDT

Aug 29, 2012 -- 12:02AM, rangerken wrote:

Expanding on what Mountainman wrote, if a married couple gets an annulment from the Catholic Church that does NOT mean that they are divorced according to the laws of whatever state they happen to live in. And that is a good thing in my opinion. Secular law must always predominate in this country. That's why shariah doesn't bother me. It has no secular authority.


Yet someone here actually tried to argue that the concepts you stated above, and agreed upon by the majority of rational people, is wrong because it interferes with their "freedom of religion."


Well... that freedom of religion MUST be within the secular law. If a religion decides that virgin sacrifices are the thing to do, they certainly cannot do such a thing under the law. Obviously one has the freedom of religion as long as it harms no one else. Religious law cannot trump secular law in the USA. That's the law. Those that don't like that, can move to Saudi Arabia where religion IS the law. They wouldn't like it there.

Flag farragut August 30, 2012 9:04 AM EDT

" Religious law cannot trump secular law in the USA. That's the law. "


 


We have an interesting case ongoing in a nearby state, Ohio, I think, where an Amish leader and a few of his henchmen are charged with forcibly cutting the hair and beards of other Amish with whom they were enjoying a dispute. The defendants claim religious freedom.


Seems to me that it is clearly assault and battery. We'll see how it progresses.

Flag TRUECHRISTIAN September 4, 2012 8:17 PM EDT

Aug 30, 2012 -- 9:04AM, farragut wrote:


" Religious law cannot trump secular law in the USA. That's the law. "


 


We have an interesting case ongoing in a nearby state, Ohio, I think, where an Amish leader and a few of his henchmen are charged with forcibly cutting the hair and beards of other Amish with whom they were enjoying a dispute. The defendants claim religious freedom.


Seems to me that it is clearly assault and battery. We'll see how it progresses.





Was the reason that the Amish leader and a few of his henchmen cut the hair and beards of other Amish men based on Christian Law?  Or Amish Law?  


Is that their defense?  


It is a clear case of assualt and battery which has so far as I know has nothing whatsoever to do with "Christian" Law.  


Is there an outbreak of Amishophobia in Ohio? 

Flag Estacia September 6, 2012 1:49 AM EDT

mytmouse57,


I do not want to even quote what you first said refering to Muslims on the 1st page.


I believe you have the right to feel that way. I can only imagine there are others who do.


However. What you said is highly offensive. Especially for a person like myself in which it takes a lot to offend, also for a site like this.


I looked on your profile on your comment box you were giving advise to one about which fourms would be best to go and best to stay away due to constrovesal conversations.


Yet you get on this one and make such a statement?


 


Flag farragut September 6, 2012 9:38 AM EDT

Estacia, Mmouse was making an observation, reporting it with tongue in cheek. It was the farthest thing from a dictum of what is right and wrong.

Flag Miraj September 6, 2012 10:49 AM EDT

With all due respect, honey, I think he was right.

Flag Estacia September 6, 2012 11:26 AM EDT

He was calling Muslims the N Word.


 

Flag mytmouse57 September 6, 2012 11:29 AM EDT

Sep 6, 2012 -- 1:49AM, Estacia wrote:


mytmouse57,


I do not want to even quote what you first said refering to Muslims on the 1st page.


I believe you have the right to feel that way. I can only imagine there are others who do.


However. What you said is highly offensive. Especially for a person like myself in which it takes a lot to offend, also for a site like this.


I looked on your profile on your comment box you were giving advise to one about which fourms would be best to go and best to stay away due to constrovesal conversations.


Yet you get on this one and make such a statement?


 





Did you understand the gist of what I was saying? 


I was not calling Muslims the "N" word. I was using that word to illustrate a point.


Muslims today are often and widely regarded in the same manner that blacks used to be, particularly in the South.


Hence, it's "okay" to hate Muslims. As in, it's socially acceptable.


I never said I think it's okay to hate them. I don't give a damn about what is socially acceptable. I care about what is right and wrong.

Flag TRUECHRISTIAN September 6, 2012 1:15 PM EDT

 


Sep 6, 2012 -- 1:49AM, Estacia wrote:


mytmouse57,


I do not want to even quote what you first said refering to Muslims on the 1st page.


I believe you have the right to feel that way. I can only imagine there are others who do.


However. What you said is highly offensive. Especially for a person like myself in which it takes a lot to offend, also for a site like this.


I looked on your profile on your comment box you were giving advise to one about which fourms would be best to go and best to stay away due to constrovesal conversations.


Yet you get on this one and make such a statement?


 





Sep 6, 2012 -- 11:29AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Did you understand the gist of what I was saying? 


I was not calling Muslims the "N" word. I was using that word to illustrate a point.


Muslims today are often and widely regarded in the same manner that blacks used to be, particularly in the South.


Hence, it's "okay" to hate Muslims. As in, it's socially acceptable.


I never said I think it's okay to hate them. I don't give a damn about what is socially acceptable. I care about what is right and wrong.




I don't see what is the big deal in calling a person a nagger(South Park)Wink


The difference between being a Muslim and being a "black" person is that a Muslim has a choice on wether to be a Muslim or not, a "black" person does not have such a choice(unless they are very, very pale). 


A long, long time ago when I was a young Jedi in a galaxy far away the "socially acceptable" terms for a person of relatively recent African decent was either "Negro" or "Colored Person". 


If I had called such a person "black"  I would have gotten my little "white" and therefore "black" was "socially acceptable"  among those relatively recent immigrants(forced or otherwise) from Africa.   In those days I would have gotten my ass whipped if I called those people "negro" or "colored".  


I was in a discussion with a Jewish(ethnically not religously)about the Yiddish word "goy".   


I was under the impression that this word was a perjoritive slur used be Jews to refer to Non-Jews.    


He told me that I was mistaken.  That the word is not neccessarily a perjoritive slur. It can be used in a non-perjoritive way to refer to gentile.  


Most people that I know find it socially unacceptable to use the the nigger.   I avoid using the word as much as possible.   Just as I try to avoid the use of other "socially unacceptable" words like bitch, spic, wop, mick, yid, faggot, raghead, sandmonkey etc etc etc.  


I think it would be more accurate to compare the J-Word, with the M-word.  


 


 




 

Flag mytmouse57 September 6, 2012 1:32 PM EDT

Sep 6, 2012 -- 1:15PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


 


Sep 6, 2012 -- 1:49AM, Estacia wrote:


mytmouse57,


I do not want to even quote what you first said refering to Muslims on the 1st page.


I believe you have the right to feel that way. I can only imagine there are others who do.


However. What you said is highly offensive. Especially for a person like myself in which it takes a lot to offend, also for a site like this.


I looked on your profile on your comment box you were giving advise to one about which fourms would be best to go and best to stay away due to constrovesal conversations.


Yet you get on this one and make such a statement?


 





Sep 6, 2012 -- 11:29AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Did you understand the gist of what I was saying? 


I was not calling Muslims the "N" word. I was using that word to illustrate a point.


Muslims today are often and widely regarded in the same manner that blacks used to be, particularly in the South.


Hence, it's "okay" to hate Muslims. As in, it's socially acceptable.


I never said I think it's okay to hate them. I don't give a damn about what is socially acceptable. I care about what is right and wrong.




I don't see what is the big deal in calling a person a nagger(South Park)Wink


The difference between being a Muslim and being a "black" person is that a Muslim has a choice on wether to be a Muslim or not, a "black" person does not have such a choice(unless they are very, very pale). 


A long, long time ago when I was a young Jedi in a galaxy far away the "socially acceptable" terms for a person of relatively recent African decent was either "Negro" or "Colored Person". 


If I had called such a person "black"  I would have gotten my little "white" and therefore "black" was "socially acceptable"  among those relatively recent immigrants(forced or otherwise) from Africa.   In those days I would have gotten my ass whipped if I called those people "negro" or "colored".  


I was in a discussion with a Jewish(ethnically not religously)about the Yiddish word "goy".   


I was under the impression that this word was a perjoritive slur used be Jews to refer to Non-Jews.    


He told me that I was mistaken.  That the word is not neccessarily a perjoritive slur. It can be used in a non-perjoritive way to refer to gentile.  


Most people that I know find it socially unacceptable to use the the nigger.   I avoid using the word as much as possible.   Just as I try to avoid the use of other "socially unacceptable" words like bitch, spic, wop, mick, yid, faggot, raghead, sandmonkey etc etc etc.  


I think it would be more accurate to compare the J-Word, with the M-word.  


 


 




 




I've heard many blacks themselves use "black" in reference to themselves, or blacks in general. I don't consider it offensive. 


"Negro" or "colored" generally became to be regarded as patronizing. My mother -- who is from the 1930s/1940s generation, would say "darkies" -- but that strikes me as offensive, as common as it might have been to say it back in her day.


I dislike the term "African American." It's too P.C., and not really accurate anyway.


For a couple of reasons. First, most blacks now in the U.S. are as far removed from African culture as I am from the Germanic/Celtic/Norse cultures of my ancestors. Hence, I don't call myself a "German" American, or an "Irish" American. (Although I have to admit, being a "Viking American" might be cool.Wink)


Secondly, a significant number of Africans (such as Egyptians, South Africans) have light skin. But if a recent light-skinned African immigrant to the States called himself an "African American," Al Sharpton would probably crap his pants... LOL!


The "N" word became a slur, because it's derived from "Niggardly," which means cowardly, or weak in character.


Flag farragut September 6, 2012 2:06 PM EDT

"


The "N" word became a slur, because it's derived from "Niggardly," which means cowardly, or weak in character."


 


No, that is wrong. Entirely different etymologies.

Flag Sigmund September 6, 2012 2:51 PM EDT

Sep 6, 2012 -- 2:06PM, farragut wrote:


"


The "N" word became a slur, because it's derived from "Niggardly," which means cowardly, or weak in character."


No, that is wrong. Entirely different etymologies.



Not to mention that is not what the word "niggardly" means. According to Merriam-Webster, dictionary.com, and the Free Dictionary, it means stingy or miserly. Where did you get that definition?

Flag TRUECHRISTIAN September 6, 2012 3:11 PM EDT

 


 


 


Sep 6, 2012 -- 1:49AM, Estacia wrote:


mytmouse57,


I do not want to even quote what you first said refering to Muslims on the 1st page.


I believe you have the right to feel that way. I can only imagine there are others who do.


However. What you said is highly offensive. Especially for a person like myself in which it takes a lot to offend, also for a site like this.


I looked on your profile on your comment box you were giving advise to one about which fourms would be best to go and best to stay away due to constrovesal conversations.


Yet you get on this one and make such a statement?


 





Sep 6, 2012 -- 11:29AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Did you understand the gist of what I was saying? 


I was not calling Muslims the "N" word. I was using that word to illustrate a point.


Muslims today are often and widely regarded in the same manner that blacks used to be, particularly in the South.


Hence, it's "okay" to hate Muslims. As in, it's socially acceptable.


I never said I think it's okay to hate them. I don't give a damn about what is socially acceptable. I care about what is right and wrong.




I don't see what is the big deal in calling a person a nagger(South Park)Wink


The difference between being a Muslim and being a "black" person is that a Muslim has a choice on wether to be a Muslim or not, a "black" person does not have such a choice(unless they are very, very pale). 


A long, long time ago when I was a young Jedi in a galaxy far away the "socially acceptable" terms for a person of relatively recent African decent was either "Negro" or "Colored Person". 


If I had called such a person "black"  I would have gotten my little "white" and therefore "black" was "socially acceptable"  among those relatively recent immigrants(forced or otherwise) from Africa.   In those days I would have gotten my ass whipped if I called those people "negro" or "colored".  


I was in a discussion with a Jewish(ethnically not religously)about the Yiddish word "goy".   


I was under the impression that this word was a perjoritive slur used be Jews to refer to Non-Jews.    


He told me that I was mistaken.  That the word is not neccessarily a perjoritive slur. It can be used in a non-perjoritive way to refer to gentile.  


Most people that I know find it socially unacceptable to use the the nigger.   I avoid using the word as much as possible.   Just as I try to avoid the use of other "socially unacceptable" words like bitch, spic, wop, mick, yid, faggot, raghead, sandmonkey etc etc etc.  


I think it would be more accurate to compare the J-Word, with the M-word.  


 


 




 




Sep 6, 2012 -- 1:32PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


I've heard many blacks themselves use "black" in reference to themselves, or blacks in general. I don't consider it offensive. 



That is true "now" because it is "socially correct".  


But back in the good ol days(?) before"black is beautiful"  it was "socially" incorrect.  


Sep 6, 2012 -- 1:32PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

 


"Negro" or "colored" generally became to be regarded as patronizing



I would agree that is the the case "now".   However the NAACP, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People  one of the primary civil rights groups of African-Americans-Negroes. 


Sep 6, 2012 -- 1:32PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


. My mother -- who is from the 1930s/1940s generation, would say "darkies" -- but that strikes me as offensive, as common as it might have been to say it back in her day.



That was then and this is now.  However I suspect that even then "darkies" would be considered offensive and socially incorrect by "darkies".  


Sep 6, 2012 -- 1:32PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

 


I dislike the term "African American." It's too P.C., and not really accurate anyway.



What term would "you" prefer? 


I think it is accurate for them to call themselves African Americans not because they share the "African Culture" but because that is where there decendants were originated from.  


The problem is that according to "politcally correct(?)" Western science all humans originated-immigrated from Africa.  


I have a T-Shirt I got from The Richard Dawkins Foundation that says "WE ARE ALL AFRICANS".  


Sep 6, 2012 -- 1:32PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


For a couple of reasons. First, most blacks now in the U.S. are as far removed from African culture as I am from the Germanic/Celtic/Norse cultures of my ancestors.



Here is another problem, there are MANY African Culture S.  


Just as there are many European Cultures and Asian Cultures.   


 


Sep 6, 2012 -- 1:32PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


 Hence, I don't call myself a "German" American, or an "Irish" American. (Although I have to admit, being a "Viking American" might be cool.Wink)



While "you" don't like to call yourself there are German Americans and Irish Americans who do like to call themselves German Americans or Irish Americans.


Sep 6, 2012 -- 1:32PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Secondly, a significant number of Africans (such as Egyptians, South Africans) have light skin. But if a recent light-skinned African immigrant to the States called himself an "African American," Al Sharpton would probably crap his pants... LOL!



Third the majoirty of Sub-Saharan Africans are generally darker than the North Africans, like Egyptians, or Libyians.  


I've seen Italians darker than light skinned Egyptians.  


Sep 6, 2012 -- 1:32PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


The "N" word became a slur, because it's derived from "Niggardly," which means cowardly, or weak in character.





Actually that is not the case.   The word nigger is devrive from the Spanish word negroe which means black.   It could be used as a term of affection or as a term of derision. 


The word niggardly is derived from 1325–75; Middle English nyggard, equivalent to nig niggard (< Scandinavian; compare dialectal Swedish nygg;(Viking?Wink) akin to Old English hnēaw stingy) + -ard


There have been occassion when people were fired for using the word niggardly



Have A Thinking Day May Reason Guide You

 

Flag mytmouse57 September 6, 2012 4:44 PM EDT

Sep 6, 2012 -- 2:51PM, Sigmund wrote:


Sep 6, 2012 -- 2:06PM, farragut wrote:


"


The "N" word became a slur, because it's derived from "Niggardly," which means cowardly, or weak in character."


No, that is wrong. Entirely different etymologies.



Not to mention that is not what the word "niggardly" means. According to Merriam-Webster, dictionary.com, and the Free Dictionary, it means stingy or miserly. Where did you get that definition?





You guys are right on that one.. my bad

Flag mytmouse57 September 6, 2012 4:57 PM EDT

Sep 6, 2012 -- 3:11PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


 


 


 


Sep 6, 2012 -- 1:49AM, Estacia wrote:


mytmouse57,


I do not want to even quote what you first said refering to Muslims on the 1st page.


I believe you have the right to feel that way. I can only imagine there are others who do.


However. What you said is highly offensive. Especially for a person like myself in which it takes a lot to offend, also for a site like this.


I looked on your profile on your comment box you were giving advise to one about which fourms would be best to go and best to stay away due to constrovesal conversations.


Yet you get on this one and make such a statement?


 





Sep 6, 2012 -- 11:29AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Did you understand the gist of what I was saying? 


I was not calling Muslims the "N" word. I was using that word to illustrate a point.


Muslims today are often and widely regarded in the same manner that blacks used to be, particularly in the South.


Hence, it's "okay" to hate Muslims. As in, it's socially acceptable.


I never said I think it's okay to hate them. I don't give a damn about what is socially acceptable. I care about what is right and wrong.




I don't see what is the big deal in calling a person a nagger(South Park)Wink


The difference between being a Muslim and being a "black" person is that a Muslim has a choice on wether to be a Muslim or not, a "black" person does not have such a choice(unless they are very, very pale). 


A long, long time ago when I was a young Jedi in a galaxy far away the "socially acceptable" terms for a person of relatively recent African decent was either "Negro" or "Colored Person". 


If I had called such a person "black"  I would have gotten my little "white" and therefore "black" was "socially acceptable"  among those relatively recent immigrants(forced or otherwise) from Africa.   In those days I would have gotten my ass whipped if I called those people "negro" or "colored".  


I was in a discussion with a Jewish(ethnically not religously)about the Yiddish word "goy".   


I was under the impression that this word was a perjoritive slur used be Jews to refer to Non-Jews.    


He told me that I was mistaken.  That the word is not neccessarily a perjoritive slur. It can be used in a non-perjoritive way to refer to gentile.  


Most people that I know find it socially unacceptable to use the the nigger.   I avoid using the word as much as possible.   Just as I try to avoid the use of other "socially unacceptable" words like bitch, spic, wop, mick, yid, faggot, raghead, sandmonkey etc etc etc.  


I think it would be more accurate to compare the J-Word, with the M-word.  


 


 




 




Sep 6, 2012 -- 1:32PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


I've heard many blacks themselves use "black" in reference to themselves, or blacks in general. I don't consider it offensive. 



That is true "now" because it is "socially correct".  


But back in the good ol days(?) before"black is beautiful"  it was "socially" incorrect.  


Sep 6, 2012 -- 1:32PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

 


"Negro" or "colored" generally became to be regarded as patronizing



I would agree that is the the case "now".   However the NAACP, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People  one of the primary civil rights groups of African-Americans-Negroes. 


Sep 6, 2012 -- 1:32PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


. My mother -- who is from the 1930s/1940s generation, would say "darkies" -- but that strikes me as offensive, as common as it might have been to say it back in her day.



That was then and this is now.  However I suspect that even then "darkies" would be considered offensive and socially incorrect by "darkies".  


Sep 6, 2012 -- 1:32PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

 


I dislike the term "African American." It's too P.C., and not really accurate anyway.



What term would "you" prefer? 


I think it is accurate for them to call themselves African Americans not because they share the "African Culture" but because that is where there decendants were originated from.  


The problem is that according to "politcally correct(?)" Western science all humans originated-immigrated from Africa.  


I have a T-Shirt I got from The Richard Dawkins Foundation that says "WE ARE ALL AFRICANS".  


Sep 6, 2012 -- 1:32PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


For a couple of reasons. First, most blacks now in the U.S. are as far removed from African culture as I am from the Germanic/Celtic/Norse cultures of my ancestors.



Here is another problem, there are MANY African Culture S.  


Just as there are many European Cultures and Asian Cultures.   


 


Sep 6, 2012 -- 1:32PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


 Hence, I don't call myself a "German" American, or an "Irish" American. (Although I have to admit, being a "Viking American" might be cool.Wink)



While "you" don't like to call yourself there are German Americans and Irish Americans who do like to call themselves German Americans or Irish Americans.


Sep 6, 2012 -- 1:32PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Secondly, a significant number of Africans (such as Egyptians, South Africans) have light skin. But if a recent light-skinned African immigrant to the States called himself an "African American," Al Sharpton would probably crap his pants... LOL!



Third the majoirty of Sub-Saharan Africans are generally darker than the North Africans, like Egyptians, or Libyians.  


I've seen Italians darker than light skinned Egyptians.  


Sep 6, 2012 -- 1:32PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


The "N" word became a slur, because it's derived from "Niggardly," which means cowardly, or weak in character.





Actually that is not the case.   The word nigger is devrive from the Spanish word negroe which means black.   It could be used as a term of affection or as a term of derision. 


The word niggardly is derived from 1325–75; Middle English nyggard, equivalent to nig niggard (< Scandinavian; compare dialectal Swedish nygg;(Viking?Wink) akin to Old English hnēaw stingy) + -ard


There have been occassion when people were fired for using the word niggardly



Have A Thinking Day May Reason Guide You

 




Oh, I've been using the term, "We're all Africans" for years. I didn't need an obnoxious British atheist to tell me that. Wink


Near as I can tell, about as many blacks call themselve "black" as do call themselves "African American."


I'm well aware there a many African Cultures. Which raises yet another problem with the term "African American." It makes "African" seem more like a singular term. Which it is not. 


Usually, people don't call themselves "German" or "Irish" of whatever-else Americans, unless they are themselves immigrants, or at most about the third generation in. Since it's been -- oh, let me think -- about five generations at least since my German/Irish anscestors came over here, I would feel rather silly calling myself a German or Irish American. And as far as the smattering of Norse in our family... I have no idea how long it's been.


So, no, I'm not trying to tell anybody what they should call themselves. I'm just saying, it seems rather silly to me to include "African" in your title, when you or any member of your family hasn't set foot in Africa for several generations.


And likewise, a lilly white Afrikaner could immigrate to the U.S., and have more reason -- technically, at least -- to call himself an "African American." But again, I'll bet Al Shaprton would have to change his shorts after that one.


In sum, I fully admit, it might be nit-picky on my part. But I, personally, would use "black" before I would say "African American." However, I also realize, in the objective sense, that's their call, not mine.


It's fascinating how language usage changes over the years. Thanks for sharing your own observations on the terms  such as "Negro."


Thanks, also, for clearing up my misconceptions about the "N" word. 




Flag mountain_man September 6, 2012 10:01 PM EDT

Sep 6, 2012 -- 11:26AM, Estacia wrote:

He was calling Muslims the N Word.


That's not what he was doing. You must live a very sheltered life. Around here it is common to hear Muslims, Arabs, and mistakenly Sikhs, called "Sand N....rs." I take note of who says that and usually have no further contact with that person. I don't say anything since it is of no use to try and communicate with such a bigot. And you know what.... every last one of them is a christian.


He was right, for once; it is popular and in many circles OK and proper to say such nasty things about those of another culture.


Another thing; why make yourself upset over what you believe MM was saying? What you are seeing is nothing but dots on a computer screen. I cannot make myself upset over a bunch of little dots.


Your little note about negativity was interesting since your post was so negative itself.

Flag Paravani September 6, 2012 11:51 PM EDT

Sep 6, 2012 -- 11:29AM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Sep 6, 2012 -- 1:49AM, Estacia wrote:

mytmouse57,


I do not want to even quote what you first said refering to Muslims on the 1st page.


I believe you have the right to feel that way. I can only imagine there are others who do.


However. What you said is highly offensive. Especially for a person like myself in which it takes a lot to offend, also for a site like this.


Did you understand the gist of what I was saying? 


I was not calling Muslims the "N" word. I was using that word to illustrate a point.


Muslims today are often and widely regarded in the same manner that blacks used to be, particularly in the South.



Hi, All!


The "N" word?  Blacks?  The South????


Ohhhh...  !


Gee whiz!  I thought "n----r" was short for "nutter"!


;-D


Love,


Claudia

Flag Estacia September 7, 2012 2:13 AM EDT


MM


I Would LOVE to hear you shout that word in S. Phx!!


Then see your a$$ run from the bullets that would be flying your way.


That word does not fly where I come from.


We obvouisly come from different places that's for sure.


I grew up around racisim. You have the right to say I'm wrong as so do I for you.


I was not angry nor mad about his statement.


Just sad that he had to go to the lengths to make his point.


Anyways your angry is towards me because of my faith, not my statement. ( You made that clear)


Like Cartman says in South Park....


" Screw this, I'm goin home! "


Rant all you want, I won't give you the time or the day.


 


 


 

Flag mytmouse57 September 7, 2012 10:50 AM EDT

Sep 7, 2012 -- 2:13AM, Estacia wrote:



MM


I Would LOVE to hear you shout that word in S. Phx!!


Then see your a$$ run from the bullets that would be flying your way.


That word does not fly where I come from.


We obvouisly come from different places that's for sure.


I grew up around racisim. You have the right to say I'm wrong as so do I for you.


I was not angry nor mad about his statement.


Just sad that he had to go to the lengths to make his point.


Anyways your angry is towards me because of my faith, not my statement. ( You made that clear)


Like Cartman says in South Park....


" Screw this, I'm goin home! "


Rant all you want, I won't give you the time or the day.


 


 


 




First, I love that picture you posted.


Secondly, I just don't get why you're so upset with me. I despise the "N" word, and would never speak it. Again, I was just using it to make a point.


And you think I don't know about racism? Sure, there might not be many black people where I live -- but there are many Hispanics and Native American Indians. So, yes, sadly, I've seen plenty of racism. Some whites hating Hispanics -- some Hispanics hating the Indians, and vise versa.. and so on and so forth.


As I related in another post, I once had a girlfriend who was half Hispanic, half Native American, and some Natives and some of the Hispanics shunned her for being a "half breed," while some whites hated her, just for having dark skin, and being "different." 


Please note, I said some, in every instance. Plenty of people here, of all the different ethic groups, are perfectly decent, accepting, tolerant human beings -- who don't care what color your skin is.


So, anyway, I hate racism just as much as you do. 

Flag mountain_man September 7, 2012 11:00 AM EDT

Sep 7, 2012 -- 2:13AM, Estacia wrote:

MM


I Would LOVE to hear you shout that word in S. Phx!!


Try going over to Texas and other parts in the South. Shouting those words will make you an instant hero.

Flag mytmouse57 September 7, 2012 11:24 AM EDT

Sep 7, 2012 -- 11:00AM, mountain_man wrote:


Sep 7, 2012 -- 2:13AM, Estacia wrote:

MM


I Would LOVE to hear you shout that word in S. Phx!!


Try going over to Texas and other parts in the South. Shouting those words will make you an instant hero.




WTF is with the South anyway?

Flag mountain_man September 7, 2012 12:50 PM EDT

Sep 7, 2012 -- 11:24AM, mytmouse57 wrote:

WTF is with the South anyway?


Herd mentality gone bad? You either conform to the local biases and hatreds or you are ostracized.

Flag mytmouse57 September 7, 2012 12:56 PM EDT

Sep 7, 2012 -- 12:50PM, mountain_man wrote:


Sep 7, 2012 -- 11:24AM, mytmouse57 wrote:

WTF is with the South anyway?


Herd mentality gone bad? You either conform to the local biases and hatreds or you are ostracized.




I've never been there.


My wife and I have kicked around perhaps relocating to Florida. I don't know if I could handle the racism.

Flag mountain_man September 7, 2012 1:06 PM EDT

Sep 7, 2012 -- 12:56PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

I've never been there.


My wife and I have kicked around perhaps relocating to Florida. I don't know if I could handle the racism.


I've spent 6 months in the "Arm Pit of Florida" Pensacola. I've been in some pretty bad places, this was the worst. And example, the local grocery store. In 8 foot tall letters on one side of the building were the words; "Jesus Loves You." Blacks knew not to go into that store because they knew they would not be served. If one did go in that store the owner didn't say anything, he just laid his shotgun on the counter - pointed at the person.


This was in the early 1970's and the locals spat out the "N word" as if it left a bad taste in their mouths. I've not been back since, but I seriously doubt anything has changed.

Flag singspraise September 25, 2012 4:37 AM EDT

reading all of this ignorance is making my stomach hurt....Frown why dont you all do some research on these muslims before you go making you comments mkay?

Flag TRUECHRISTIAN September 25, 2012 11:40 AM EDT

Sep 25, 2012 -- 4:37AM, singspraise wrote:


reading all of this ignorance is making my stomach hurt....Frown why dont you all do some research on these muslims before you go making you comments mkay?





Why don't "we(?)" do reasearch on which of "these"  Muslims? 


 


American Atheists



For Immediate Release: September 25, 2012
For more information contact: David Silverman, President, American Atheists, 908-276-7300 ext. 5, dsilverman@atheists.org Teresa MacBain, Public Relations Director, American Atheists, 908-276-7300 ext. 7, tmacbain@atheists.org


ATHEISTS ASSERT RIGHT TO BLASPHEME

American Atheists President, David Silverman, announced today plans to present a special lecture about defaming Islam at the upcoming Kansas City Regional Atheist Meeting held at the Sheraton Overland Park Hotel and Convention Center on October 6-7, 2012, in Kansas City, KS. The intent of the lecture is to affirm the right of free speech in America, including blasphemy.
"We have seen recently that most of the Islamic world is demanding that all people avoid defaming their prophet, and suddenly across America our citizens are obeying out of fear or political correctness.  We are losing our right to criticize, via our own submission," said Mr. Silverman.
The riots across the Muslim world, resulting in death and destruction in reaction to the Innocence of Muslims movie, are just the latest events that threaten, quite intentionally, individuals' right to say what we think.  Islam is ironically portrayed as a victim, but the real victims are those of us who value free speech. These riots inspired Mr. Silverman to post pictures on his social networks of himself holding signs that proclaimed "Islam Is Barbaric."
"Criticizing any religion is often equated to racism or hate, when really it's just honest expression that must be protected," said Mr. Silverman.
American Atheists was a target of this kind of intimidation from Christians in August when billboards criticizing Christianity and Mormonism had to be taken down early due to violent threats against the billboard company.
AMERICAN ATHEISTS is a national 501(c)(3) organization that defends civil rights for atheists, freethinkers, and other nonbelievers; works for the total separation of religion and government; and addresses issues of First Amendment public policy.
American Atheists, Inc. P.O. Box 158 Cranford, N.J. 07016 Tel: (908) 276-7300 Fax: (908) 276-7402


While it is against the...."true" American ideals to use intimidation and threats of violence against the billboard company that criticizes-blasphemes-defames Christianity and Moronismat least they have not been rioting or murdering anyone(yet?)over this blasphemous-defamation of "their" religion.  


I am sure that there will be the usual blah, blah, blah from American Christians and American Morons that will either deny outright any Chrisitan or Mormon would ever use threats of violence to repress blasphemy against their religion. 


That just because such a person or persons who uses threats of violence either against property or people "call themselves" Mormons or Christians doesn't mean that they "really are" Christian or Mormons.  


These people who "call themselves" Mormons and Christian do not "truly" understand Christianity or Moronism. 


 

Flag catboxer January 3, 2013 12:15 PM EST

Well, this was predictable.


God is visiting seven plagues on Kansass, the land of my ancestors.


First there was the ear-wits.


Then came them co-wern boh-wers.


Then they took away pray-er in our skew-els.


Now comes Sharia, or rather the fear of it.


Somebody remind me again how terrorism works.


So that makes about four. What's next? Frogs? Spiders and snakes? Or maybe hippie anarchist potheads standing in your driveway waving their genitals at you.


I guess there are people still living in Kansass, which only proves to me that everybody has to be somewhere.

Flag BDboy March 13, 2013 2:17 PM EDT

Jan 3, 2013 -- 12:15PM, catboxer wrote:


Well, this was predictable.


God is visiting seven plagues on Kansass, the land of my ancestors.


First there was the ear-wits.


Then came them co-wern boh-wers.


Then they took away pray-er in our skew-els.


Now comes Sharia, or rather the fear of it.


Somebody remind me again how terrorism works.


So that makes about four. What's next? Frogs? Spiders and snakes? Or maybe hippie anarchist potheads standing in your driveway waving their genitals at you.


I guess there are people still living in Kansass, which only proves to me that everybody has to be somewhere.




 


>>>>>>>>> I am not sure if you READ this thread or not.


Actually NO one proposed fictional "Sharia" in Kansas but the "Smart folks in Kansas" decided to introduce a law against Sharia albeit no one asked for it.


I know quite a few Muslims who lives in Kansas and no one know a thing about it.


Guess they have nothing better to do rather than chasing fiction. ;-)

Flag BDboy April 2, 2013 11:12 AM EDT

Want to share a positive development in Kansas.


Immigrants who live in Wichita, KS (Most of them are Muslims) founded a non-profit clinic and the governor himself was there to support their effort to "Give back to their adopted country".


One of the founders said, “This started because of first generation immigrants who wanted to give back to this country,” said Abdul Arif, founding board member and bankruptcy lawyer. “This is our way to say ‘Thank you, U.S.A.’ 


Click on the link below for an article discussing this initiative.


Clinic founded by immigrants opens at new location

  • The Wichita Eagle
  • Published Saturday, Jan. 26, 2013, at 8:05 a.m.

There is an Islamic saying, the best way to counter evil is to offer something good in return. It is nice to see some of the Wichita Muslims acted on that wisdom.


An American success story .....

Flag catboxer April 2, 2013 12:07 PM EDT

Mar 13, 2013 -- 2:17PM, BDboy wrote:



>>>>>>>>> I am not sure if you READ this thread or not.


Actually NO one proposed fictional "Sharia" in Kansas but the "Smart folks in Kansas" decided to introduce a law against Sharia albeit no one asked for it.


I know quite a few Muslims who lives in Kansas and no one know a thing about it.


Guess they have nothing better to do rather than chasing fiction. ;-)




Actually, I didn't read the thread. But I read the first post.


I've been to Kansas many times. Both my parents grew up there. And I really am geniuinely surprised there are still people liviing there.

Flag BDboy April 2, 2013 3:52 PM EDT

Apr 2, 2013 -- 12:07PM, catboxer wrote:


Mar 13, 2013 -- 2:17PM, BDboy wrote:



>>>>>>>>> I am not sure if you READ this thread or not.


Actually NO one proposed fictional "Sharia" in Kansas but the "Smart folks in Kansas" decided to introduce a law against Sharia albeit no one asked for it.


I know quite a few Muslims who lives in Kansas and no one know a thing about it.


Guess they have nothing better to do rather than chasing fiction. ;-)




Actually, I didn't read the thread. But I read the first post.


I've been to Kansas many times. Both my parents grew up there. And I really am geniuinely surprised there are still people liviing there.




>>>>>>>>>> The way the whole nation was fooled with the fictional "Ground Zero mosque", you cannot blame average Kansans too much. They are good people, just little less informed. Unfortunately politicians take advantage of it and use religion for their own personal goals. Kansans are pretty devout Christians (With little knowledge of Islam), so it was easy to manipulate them.


I am glad Kansan Muslims gave an dignified response to ugly politics of Gov Brownback.

Flag catboxer April 2, 2013 4:21 PM EDT

Kansans are weird. They're one of the poorest states, yet people there can be counted on to vote against their own self-interest.


See Frank, Thomas: "What's the Matter with Kansas."

Flag BDboy April 6, 2013 12:10 PM EDT

Apr 2, 2013 -- 4:21PM, catboxer wrote:


Kansans are weird. They're one of the poorest states, yet people there can be counted on to vote against their own self-interest.


See Frank, Thomas: "What's the Matter with Kansas."




 


>>>>>>>> Smile


As I said, I spent some time over therre. So I know background of the current governor and how he uses religion in politics.


Again if "Dubya" could get elected twice (Without a functioning brain!), how can I blame Kansans?


Also the previous governor was a democrat. So if there is good leadership, people of Kansas is ready to follow. They are devout but not fanatics.


 


As I said, these are good people with poor knowledge of outside world. But they have good hearts.


We live in a connected world. so faster Kansans get hooked up with modern fast changing world, it would be better.

Flag TRUECHRISTIAN May 4, 2013 9:45 AM EDT

 


Apr 2, 2013 -- 4:21PM, catboxer wrote:


Kansans are weird. They're one of the poorest states, yet people there can be counted on to vote against their own self-interest.


See Frank, Thomas: "What's the Matter with Kansas."




 

Apr 6, 2013 -- 12:10PM, BDboy wrote:


>>>>>>>> Smile


As I said, I spent some time over therre. So I know background of the current governor and how he uses religion in politics.



Most politicans use religion to varying degrees.  Even Muslim polticans. 


Apr 6, 2013 -- 12:10PM, BDboy wrote:


Again if "Dubya" could get elected twice (Without a functioning brain!), how can I blame Kansans?



The Socket Puppets brain was functioning well enough to get him elected president twice.


I am sure that no Muslim, or no Muslim with a functioning brain voted for Dubya.


I am also sure that enoiugh Christians  oted for the Sock Puppet to get him elected twice, wether their brains were functioning, how well they were functioning or if their brains were functioning at alls I don't  know. 


I would speculate that the one or two Christians who did not vote for the Socket Puppet had either brains that were functioning or functioned better than those that did vote for the Sock Puppet.   t


Apr 6, 2013 -- 12:10PM, BDboy wrote:


Also the previous governor was a democrat. So if there is good leadership, people of Kansas is ready to follow. They are devout but not fanatics.



Of course since he was a Democrat he had a functioning brain, or at least one that functioned better than the current Republican govenor.


 

Apr 6, 2013 -- 12:10PM, BDboy wrote:


As I said, these are good people with poor knowledge of outside world. But they have good hearts.



They may have good hearts but they did elect a Christian Republican govenor who doesn't have a functioning brain.


Apr 6, 2013 -- 12:10PM, BDboy wrote:


We live in a connected world. so faster Kansans get hooked up with modern fast changing world, it would be better. 



It would be better if they had functioning brains or at least brains that fuctioned better.


Then they would learn about true Islam and revert to the true and peaceful religion of Islam.


The Islamophobic Industry got a boost recently when two not real, so-called Muslims mixed poltics with religion and caused death and destrucition in Boston.  


It was probably due to their brains not "functioning" as well as your brain.  Wink

Flag catboxer May 4, 2013 11:59 AM EDT

TC, my own personal observation on this is that lack of intelligence is not as big a factor in the decline of America as dishonesty and misperception.


Public misperception is natural because the public is bombarded with corporate and military propaganda like 24/7.


Said propaganda promotes a cultural paradigm that has no future, an unsustainable way of life, and a predatory dogeatdog worldview. Anyone who might remedy any of these ills is a troublemaker, discredited, "mocked, and spat upon."


Take a look at our country. I don't know what you see; perhaps a desperate struggle to preserve all those things that were best about our old way of life.


I see a ruin.

Flag GodlessSkeptic July 20, 2013 1:49 AM EDT

Jun 8, 2012 -- 8:51PM, wohali wrote:

"What is interesting is that the article sited is anti-semitic, blaming the entire "Islamaphobia" crisis not on people's legitimate concerns about a small minority of Muslims on a dead Jew. Congratulations BDboy, you have done it again, but then again, you always do."


If there is no Islamophobia there how can there be anti-semitism? 


If there is no Islamophobia there how can there be anti-semitism?




What Rocketsquirrel is saying is that this silly new term specifically, "Islamophobia" is nonsense, and he is right. We are not saying that there are not people who are irrationally opposed to Islam in all it's forms (to the extent of trying to legislate against "Sharia Law" and such) but this term "islamophobia" is nothing but an attempts to silence ALL critics of Islam in ANY form. If I dare say that it takes a pretty savage religious movement to encourage beheading people, blowing up children, raping children, torturing and butchering women etc. then I will be written off as an "Islamophobe" whose 'irrational fear' leads him to conclude that the extremist terrorists somehow represent Islam, when everyone knows Islam is actually just a peaceful religion being misrepresented by such savages right?


It is bull**** in the extreme. "Anti-semitism" is a legitimate term because it only accurately describes persons who are AGAINST Jews (not persons who are just afraid of Jews and so acting to cover their own insecurities, which may well be the case for many anti-Semitics).


I am an unapologetic Liberal but terms like "Homophobia" and "Islamophobia" are no better than Creationists who straw man science advocates as just being 'afraid of God' or afraid to be saddled with morality.



ALL religion is irrational to be sure and I dislike all of them for the same reasons. But Islam is a particularly brutal case and the reason why goes back to 12th century when a single 'evangelical' Muslim embarked on a campaign to demonize science, tolerance, philosophy, art and even math.



Islam never recovered.  Today a much larger portion of Muslims than anyone wants to admit engage in these "extremist" practices of raping and murdering women and children, sawing through people's necks with dull knives, etc. When Christians (whose religious beliefs I hate dearly) starting sawing through necks with dull knives and blowing up children then they too will earn the same degree of concern that Islam earns.


It would be a LOT easier to sympathize with alleged "moderate Muslims" if they would speak out against the "extremists" and fight back, but they do not. They are strangely silent on this front. I understand that some cannot speak up because of fear for their lives and the lives of their own children and spouses, but right now there are gangs of Muslims patrolling the streets of England enforcing Sharia Law on British citizens and Britain is so paralyzed by the "Islamophobia" nonsense that they cannot do anything about it for fear of being called "Islamophobic".

Flag GodlessSkeptic July 20, 2013 2:00 AM EDT

Sep 7, 2012 -- 1:06PM, mountain_man wrote:


Sep 7, 2012 -- 12:56PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

I've never been there.


My wife and I have kicked around perhaps relocating to Florida. I don't know if I could handle the racism.


I've spent 6 months in the "Arm Pit of Florida" Pensacola. I've been in some pretty bad places, this was the worst. And example, the local grocery store. In 8 foot tall letters on one side of the building were the words; "Jesus Loves You." Blacks knew not to go into that store because they knew they would not be served. If one did go in that store the owner didn't say anything, he just laid his shotgun on the counter - pointed at the person.


This was in the early 1970's and the locals spat out the "N word" as if it left a bad taste in their mouths. I've not been back since, but I seriously doubt anything has changed.





I lived in Mulberry, FLA when I was 15. My stepdad and his family were there so me and my mom packed up and drove down to live for about a year.  My stepddad, brother and most of my family are black. My mom and I are white. So a mixed family moved first into the black half of town (yes, the town was divided between blacks and whites back in 1984), then we moved into a trailer on the white side of town.



My first meeting with neighbors down the road I will never forget.



Guy I met in school: "hey this is Tony. He just moved into the trailer over there (*pointing)."


Other guy: " Wha? I thought a bunch a coloreds moved in there?"


Guy I met...: "Yeah that's his dad and brother."


Other Guy: " Oh...well that ain't yer fault I guess..."



Could not wait to escape that place.



Edit: Man this quote function is weird & not smart. Why doesn't it just display the quoted portions while you are typing your post?!


Flag Idbc July 20, 2013 12:07 PM EDT

 Howdy


Jul 20, 2013 -- 1:49AM, GodlessSkeptic wrote:


ALL religion is irrational to be sure and I dislike all of them for the same reasons.



I would agree with you that ALL religions that are based on "faith" are irrational.


But that is not suprising because I am both and Atheist and a Skeptic.


Jul 20, 2013 -- 1:49AM, GodlessSkeptic wrote:


 But Islam is a particularly brutal case and the reason why goes back to 12th century when a single 'evangelical' Muslim embarked on a campaign to demonize science, tolerance, philosophy, art and even math.



What is the name of the  'single 'evangelical' Muslim embarked on a campaign to demonize science, tolerance, philosophy, art and even math?


I am very certain that BDboy would agree that whoever this person is, that he was a "real-true" Muslim.


 


Jul 20, 2013 -- 1:49AM, GodlessSkeptic wrote:


Islam never recovered.



Dar al Islam at one time was a leading center of both philosophy and the sciences.


Christendom was the follower.  Christians went to Dar al Islam to study both philosophy and the sciences. 


Starting around 1200 AD this reversed.  


 


 


 


 


Jul 20, 2013 -- 1:49AM, GodlessSkeptic wrote:


 


  Today a much larger portion of Muslims than anyone wants to admit engage in these "extremist" practices of raping and murdering women and children, sawing through people's necks with dull knives, etc.



IF this is true moderate Muslim apologist would argue that this has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with "true-moderate" Islam. 


Only a teeny-tiny percentage of people who "claim" to be Muslims enage in  practices of raping and murdering women and children, sawing through people's necks with dull knives."


These so-called radical-fundamentalist Muslims have hijacked true Islam, which everybody knows is the most tolerant and rational of the Abrahamic Religions. 


It is the "culture" that is to blame. 


It is the Islamophobic-Oreintalist Western coporate media that is the cause of Islamophobia.


Jul 20, 2013 -- 1:49AM, GodlessSkeptic wrote:


 When Christians (whose religious beliefs I hate dearly) starting sawing through necks with dull knives and blowing up children then they too will earn the same degree of concern that Islam earns.



"In 2009 Mehdi Hasan in the New Statesman criticized Western media for over-reporting a few Islamist terrorist incidents but under-reporting the much larger number of non-Islamist terrorist attacks carried out by non-Muslim white extremists.[75] A Europol report showed that, contrary to media representation, more than 99% of terrorist attacks in Europe from 2006 to 2009 were, in fact, carried out by non-Muslims.[76][77] A 2012 study indicates that Muslims across different European countries, such as France, Germany and the United Kingdom, experience the highest degree of Islamophobia in the media.[27] The media also has been criticized for under-reporting hate crimes against Muslims."


Jul 20, 2013 -- 1:49AM, GodlessSkeptic wrote:


It would be a LOT easier to sympathize with alleged "moderate Muslims" if they would speak out against the "extremists" and fight back, but they do not.They are strangely silent on this front.




But Muslims and their....dhimmi(?)sympathizers will make the claim that moderate Muslims have spoken out against Islamist extremists but the Western-Zionist-Corporate-Capitialist media does not report it or "under reports" their speaking out. 


"Everybody" knows the "real" reason behind Islamophobic Propaganda is so that racist, imperialist West can delude that stupid, ignorant Western masses. This is so that they can justify stealing oil and other natural resources of Dar al Islam. 


 


 


Jul 20, 2013 -- 1:49AM, GodlessSkeptic wrote:

I understand that some cannot speak up because of fear for their lives and the lives of their own children and spouses, but right now there are gangs of Muslims patrolling the streets of England enforcing Sharia Law on British citizens and Britain is so paralyzed by the "Islamophobia" nonsense that they cannot do anything about it for fear of being called "Islamophobic".




I would agree that there are a teeny-tiny, itsy-bitsy minority of psuedo-quasi Muslims gangs who are patrolling the streets of England and enforcing their version of Sharia Law. 


But everybody should know that infidels-non-muslims are not subject to Sharia Law.


Everbody should know that Muslim are bound to obey the laws of Dar al Harib". 



 

Flag GodlessSkeptic July 21, 2013 10:34 PM EDT

Jul 20, 2013 -- 12:07PM, Idbc wrote:


 What is the name of the  'single 'evangelical' Muslim embarked on a campaign to demonize science, tolerance, philosophy, art and even math?




Al Ghazali.


 



Dar al Islam at one time was a leading center of both philosophy and the sciences.



Correct. Islam went from science-friendly, tolerant/accepting and peaceful to basically what it is today and Al Ghazali was the initiator of this catastrophe.


Christendom was the follower.  Christians went to Dar al Islam to study both philosophy and the sciences. 


Starting around 1200 AD this reversed. 



Yes, but it really started about 90 years earlier when Al Ghazali was still alive and had already converted to his own, then new fundamentalist version of Islam that rejected materialism and philosophy in favor of a sort of 'all is God's will' brand.


 


 


 


 


  Today a much larger portion of Muslims than anyone wants to admit engage in these "extremist" practices of raping and murdering women and children, sawing through people's necks with dull knives, etc.



IF this is true moderate Muslim apologist would argue that this has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with "true-moderate" Islam.



Yes but I am not interested in their 'No True Scotsman' dodgery anymore than I am interested in Christians who say the anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-science Christians are 'not true Christians'.


Only a teeny-tiny percentage of people who "claim" to be Muslims enage in  practices of raping and murdering women and children, sawing through people's necks with dull knives."



We don't know what the exact percentage is who agree with this sort of barbarism but we do know it is much higher than many will acknowledge and what we DON'T see is these alleged 'moderate' and 'Progressive' Muslims speaking out against the literal armies of savages who supposedly give them a bad name.


These so-called radical-fundamentalist Muslims have hijacked true Islam, which everybody knows is the most tolerant and rational of the Abrahamic Religions. 


It is the "culture" that is to blame. 


It is the Islamophobic-Oreintalist Western coporate media that is the cause of Islamophobia.



A bunch iof politically correct nonsense. There is no such thing as "Islamophobia", except in the very loosest sense that everyone fears being killed by savages.



 When Christians (whose religious beliefs I hate dearly) starting sawing through necks with dull knives and blowing up children then they too will earn the same degree of concern that Islam earns.



"In 2009 Mehdi Hasan in the New Statesman criticized Western media for over-reporting a few Islamist terrorist incidents but under-reporting the much larger number of non-Islamist terrorist attacks carried out by non-Muslim white extremists.[75] A Europol report showed that, contrary to media representation, more than 99% of terrorist attacks in Europe from 2006 to 2009 were, in fact, carried out by non-Muslims.[76][77] A 2012 study indicates that Muslims across different European countries, such as France, Germany and the United Kingdom, experience the highest degree of Islamophobia in the media.[27] The media also has been criticized for under-reporting hate crimes against Muslims."


 




And where are these alleged massive numbers of savage Christians commiting acts of blowing up marketplaces, beheading people etc.? Are they somehow operating in secret from the rest of the world while framing Muslims who for whatever reason are claiming responsibility for such acts?





It would be a LOT easier to sympathize with alleged "moderate Muslims" if they would speak out against the "extremists" and fight back, but they do not.They are strangely silent on this front.




But Muslims and their....dhimmi(?)sympathizers will make the claim that moderate Muslims have spoken out against Islamist extremists but the Western-Zionist-Corporate-Capitialist media does not report it or "under reports" their speaking out.



Bull****. This is not the 1920s-60s where the media could get away with such a cover up.


"Everybody" knows the "real" reason behind Islamophobic Propaganda is so that racist, imperialist West can delude that stupid, ignorant Western masses. This is so that they can justify stealing oil and other natural resources of Dar al Islam.




More nonsense.


 


 


I understand that some cannot speak up because of fear for their lives and the lives of their own children and spouses, but right now there are gangs of Muslims patrolling the streets of England enforcing Sharia Law on British citizens and Britain is so paralyzed by the "Islamophobia" nonsense that they cannot do anything about it for fear of being called "Islamophobic".




I would agree that there are a teeny-tiny, itsy-bitsy minority of psuedo-quasi Muslims gangs who are patrolling the streets of England and enforcing their version of Sharia Law.




Gangs big enough that police cannot stop them evidentally.


But everybody should know that infidels-non-muslims are not subject to Sharia Law.


Everbody should know that Muslim are bound to obey the laws of Dar al Harib".




The thing about religious dogma is that it can be interpreted any damn way someone wants to. It is never clear cut and these 'radical Muslims' are no more 'misguided' than the moderate Muslims in their interpretations. Just like how Christians can read the Bible and cite it in support of Pro-choice/anti-choice, acceptance of gays/opposition to gays, pro-capital punishment/anti-capital punishment, etc. etc.



 







Flag Idbc July 31, 2013 1:18 PM EDT

 Howdy


Jul 20, 2013 -- 12:07PM, Idbc wrote:


 What is the name of the  'single 'evangelical' Muslim embarked on a campaign to demonize science, tolerance, philosophy, art and even math?



Jul 21, 2013 -- 10:34PM, GodlessSkeptic wrote:


Al Ghazali.



en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali


Incoherence of the Philosophers[edit]


His 11th century book titled The Incoherence of the Philosophers marks a major turn in Islamic epistemology. The encounter with skepticism led al-Ghazali to embrace a form of theological occasionalism, or the belief that all causal events and interactions are not the product of material conjunctions but rather the immediate and present Will of God."


 



Dar al Islam at one time was a leading center of both philosophy and the sciences.



 


Jul 21, 2013 -- 10:34PM, GodlessSkeptic wrote:


Correct. Islam went from science-friendly, tolerant/accepting and peaceful to basically what it is today and Al Ghazali was the initiator of this catastrophe. [e/quote]


I would agree with you that "today" Islalm is "less" tolerant, peaceful, and science friendly than it was before al Ghazali.  


It is clear to me that Ghazali was a "mystic" and that "mysticism"  is not good for the sciences.


This is true wether the "mystic-mysticism" are Jewish, Christian or Muslim.


It is my firm conviction that "science is secular".


 


 


Christendom was the follower.  Christians went to Dar al Islam to study both philosophy and the sciences. 


Starting around 1200 AD this reversed. 


Jul 21, 2013 -- 10:34PM, GodlessSkeptic wrote:


Yes, but it really started about 90 years earlier when Al Ghazali was still alive and had already converted to his own, then new fundamentalist version of Islam that rejected materialism and philosophy in favor of a sort of 'all is God C-59 ADe)


 


 


 

Jul 21, 2013 -- 10:34PM, GodlessSkeptic wrote:


   Today a much larger portion of Muslims than anyone wants to admit engage in these "extremist" practices of raping and murdering women and children, sawing through people's necks with dull knives, etc.



 


So my question is "how much of a larger portion of Muslims in the U.S. and the rest of the world  are extremists who engage in the practices of raping and murdering women and children, and sawing off necks with dull hknives?


The problem is that "tiny minority" is a rather vague phrase.


 


IF this is true moderate Muslim apologist would argue that this has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with "true-moderate" Islam.



Yes but I am not interested in their 'No True Scotsman' dodgery anymore than I am interested in Christians who say the anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-science Christians are 'not true Christians'.


Only a teeny-tiny percentage of people who "claim" to be Muslims enage in  practices of raping and murdering women and children, sawing through people's necks with dull knives."



We don't know what the exact percentage is who agree with this sort of barbarism but we do know it is much higher than many will acknowledge and what we DON'T see is these alleged 'moderate' and 'Progressive' Muslims speaking out against the literal armies of savages who supposedly give them a bad name.


These so-called radical-fundamentalist Muslims have hijacked true Islam, which everybody knows is the most tolerant and rational of the Abrahamic Religions. 


It is the "culture" that is to blame. 


It is the Islamophobic-Oreintalist Western coporate media that is the cause of Islamophobia.



A bunch iof politically correct nonsense. There is no such thing as "Islamophobia", except in the very loosest sense that everyone fears being killed by savages.



 When Christians (whose religious beliefs I hate dearly) starting sawing through necks with dull knives and blowing up children then they too will earn the same degree of concern that Islam earns.



"In 2009 Mehdi Hasan in the New Statesman criticized Western media for over-reporting a few Islamist terrorist incidents but under-reporting the much larger number of non-Islamist terrorist attacks carried out by non-Muslim white extremists.[75] A Europol report showed that, contrary to media representation, more than 99% of terrorist attacks in Europe from 2006 to 2009 were, in fact, carried out by non-Muslims.[76][77] A 2012 study indicates that Muslims across different European countries, such as France, Germany and the United Kingdom, experience the highest degree of Islamophobia in the media.[27] The media also has been criticized for under-reporting hate crimes against Muslims."


 



Jul 21, 2013 -- 10:34PM, GodlessSkeptic wrote:


And where are these alleged massive numbers of savage Christians commiting acts of blowing up marketplaces, beheading people etc.? Are they somehow operating in secret from the rest of the world while framing Muslims who for whatever reason are claiming responsibility for such acts?



 A Europol report showed that, contrary to media representation, more than 99% of terrorist attacks in Europe from 2006 to 2009 were, in fact, carried out by non-Muslims


 




Jul 21, 2013 -- 10:34PM, GodlessSkeptic wrote:

 


It would be a LOT easier to sympathize with alleged "moderate Muslims" if they would speak out against the "extremists" and fight back, but they  not.They are strangely silent on this front.]


I repeat, they do speak out. 


If I understand you correctly, you are implying that the Muslim who claim to be moderate are not "really" moderate.  That they are.....stealth extemist, stealth Islamist, stealth Jihadist.


 


Jul 21, 2013 -- 10:34PM, GodlessSkeptic wrote:


But Muslims and their....dhimmi(?)sympathizers will make the claim that moderate Muslims have spoken out against Islamist extremists but the Western-Zionist-Corporate-Capitialist media does .not report it or "under reports" their speaking out.



Jul 21, 2013 -- 10:34PM, GodlessSkeptic wrote:


Bull****. This is not the 1920s-60s where the media could get away with such a cover up.



I would tend to agree with you.  I am not a believer in such conspiracy of the media theories.


Jul 21, 2013 -- 10:34PM, GodlessSkeptic wrote:


"Everybody" knows the "real" reason behind Islamophobic Propaganda is so that racist, imperialist West can delude that stupid, ignorant Western masses. This is so that they can justify stealing oil and other natural resources of Dar al Islam.



Jul 21, 2013 -- 10:34PM, GodlessSkeptic wrote:


More nonsense.



Not if you are a left wing


 


 


I understand that some cannot speak up because of fear for their lives and the lives of their own children and spouses, but right now there are gangs of Muslims patrolling the streets of England enforcing Sharia Law on British citizens and Britain is so paralyzed by the "Islamophobia" nonsense that they cannot do anything about it for fear of being called "Islamophobic".




I would agree that there are a teeny-tiny, itsy-bitsy minority of psuedo-quasi Muslims gangs who are patrolling the streets of England and enforcing their version of Sharia Law.




Gangs big enough that police cannot stop them evidentally.


But everybody should know that infidels-non-muslims are not subject to Sharia Law.


Everbody should know that Muslim are bound to obey the laws of Dar al Harib".




The thing about religious dogma is that it can be interpreted any damn way someone wants to. It is never clear cut and these 'radical Muslims' are no more 'misguided' than the moderate Muslims in their interpretations. Just like how Christians can read the Bible and cite it in support of Pro-choice/anti-choice, acceptance of gays/opposition to gays, pro-capital punishment/anti-capital punishment, etc. etc.



 











Flag Idbc August 5, 2013 10:05 AM EDT

Howdy


Islamophia again raises its ugly head?


www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-securi...


 


 

Flag clear_reality August 14, 2013 1:33 PM EDT

Islamophobia


The New Antisemitism


 


www.thestar.com/news/insight/2011/09/16/...


 


 



One byproduct of 9/11 has been Islamophobia — fear of Islam and its adherents, Muslims. Rather than recede with time, it has been growing in the United States and Europe, while Canada has not been immune to it.




Hardly a month goes by without some controversy over hijab, niqab, “honour killings,” polygamy, “forced marriages,” “sharia,” prayers in public places, such as at Valley Park Middle School in Toronto, or over how far free speech may be invoked to disproportionately demonize Muslims and Islam without running afoul of Canadian and European anti-hate laws.




There are arguments, for sure, over:




  What constitutes Islamophobia. A critical study of Islam and Muslims obviously does not.


 How we got to this stage of what Prof. John Esposito of Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. — the most prolific author on the subject — calls “the new anti-Semitism,” a “spreading social cancer.”



“In the past 10 years, we’ve seen an exponential increase in hostility towards Muslim fellow-citizens,” he tells me.




“This hatred threatens the democratic fabric of North American and European societies and impacts not only the civil liberties and safety of Muslims but also, as Norway shows, the safety of all citizens.”




Anders Breivik’s murder of 77 people in July to protest what he perceived as the Islamization of Europe was the most extreme example of Islamophobia. But there’s no shortage of incendiary anti-Muslim rhetoric. And there’s also little doubt that anti-Muslim demagoguery has moved from the margins to the mainstream.



Across Europe, far-right parties have made record political gains and are partners in some coalition governments. In the U.S., four Republican presidential candidates are openly on a warpath against Islam and Muslims. Twenty-three states are in various stages of banning sharia, Muslim religious law, as though its imposition was imminent.




It was not supposed to come to this.




In 2001, George W. Bush said that his war was on terrorists, not Muslims or Islam.




But he went on to claim, just as had Osama bin Laden, that his crusade was guided by God. His wars in Afghanistan and Iraq turned into disastrous occupations. Tens of thousands of civilians were killed. There was Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, torture and indefinite detentions.




Wars, especially long ones, need propaganda that, inevitably, produce narrow nationalism and cultural warfare.




If the jihadists were on a holy mission against the evil American empire, the U.S. and its NATO partners were targeting peoples and nations in need of our democracy, even if by force, and whose women needed liberating.




Just as the Muslim world turned against the U.S. and Europe, Americans and Europeans turned against Muslims, including their own minorities, nearly half of whom were born in Europe and North America. Fellow citizens were cast as strangers and potential fifth columnists.




Thousands were arrested. There was religious and ethnic profiling, mosque surveillance and warrantless wiretapping.




Canadian Muslims avoided crossing the border into the U.S., unless they absolutely had to, and stopped flying overseas through the U.S.




As collective guilt was spread, former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher and others said all Muslims were responsible for terrorism.




Conflating Muslim terrorists with all Muslims was just the beginning.




If Muslims over “there” were our enemies, Muslims “here” must be as well. If the Taliban and others in far-off lands mistreated their women, Muslim men in the West must be doing the same. Hijabi women here had to be rescued as well, even if we couldn’t make up our mind whether that piece of cloth represented oppression or rebellion.





 


 


Flag TRUECHRISTIAN August 17, 2013 10:31 AM EDT

Aug 14, 2013 -- 1:33PM, clear_reality wrote:


Islamophobia


The New Antisemitism


 


www.thestar.com/news/insight/2011/09/16/...


 


 



One byproduct of 9/11 has been Islamophobia — fear of Islam and its adherents, Muslims. Rather than recede with time, it has been growing in the United States and Europe, while Canada has not been immune to it.



Which was committed by radical, extremist Muslims "in the name of Islam".


It was commited in response to a variety of greviences that OLB and other Muslims had against the U.S. 


Wether or not those griences were valid and justified is debatable. 


Moderate Muslims in the U.S. would disagree with the response, but not with the validity of the greviences. 


Of course their are left-wing(extremist ?) non-muslims who would agree with those moderate muslims.


 


 

Aug 14, 2013 -- 1:33PM, clear_reality wrote:




Hardly a month goes by without some controversy over hijab, niqab, “honour killings,” polygamy, “forced marriages,” “sharia,” prayers in public places, such as at Valley Park Middle School in Toronto, or over how far free speech may be invoked to disproportionately demonize Muslims and Islam without running afoul of Canadian and European anti-hate laws.



I don't know much about what is going on in......America Lite. 


It is my understanding that Canada has moved a tich to the right.  It is my understanding the Conservative(extremist ?) party has made gains.  That the prime minister is a Conservative and that they are behind


Burqa ban: Canada prohibits Muslim veil in citizenship ceremonies 


www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2011/12...


I understand that there are "controversies" over "hijab", "niqab,"burquas" etc etec and “honour killings,” polygamy, “forced marriages,” “sharia"


Such controversies are due to semantics and the ambiguities of languages. s a


Such controversies are not confined to countires in which Muslims are a minority.


I am quite sure that "moderate" Muslims, especially in countries in which they are a minority are not in favor of "forced marriages, or "honor killings". 


I am equally sure that "moderate" Muslims, especially in countries in which they are a minority are in favor of wearing "hijab" in all its varities. 


In Canada there are even Muslims(extremist liberal)who support laws which either ban or restrict hijab.


"Supporters of restrictions such as the Muslim Canadian Congress identify them as oppressive to women as well as interfering with communication and presenting a safety issue".


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab_by_country


Now I think it is pretty stupid to prevent Muslim women from wearing a veil during swearing in ceremonies for citizenship.


I also think it is pretty stupid to eject:


" In February 2007, soccer player Asmahan Mansour, part of the team Nepean U12 Hotspurs, was expelled from a Quebec tournament for wearing her headscarf."


 


 

Aug 14, 2013 -- 1:33PM, clear_reality wrote:




There are arguments, for sure, over:




  What constitutes Islamophobia.



 A critical study of Islam and Muslims obviously does not.



How about a "critical" study of the "Quran".  


I don't think it is "obvious" that any criticism of either Islam or the Quran is not "Islamophobic".


Muslims yes, how the practice Islam(incorrectly), yes. 


It is my perhaps incorrect understanding that any criticism of Islam, the Quran or Muhammad is naughty. 


  

Aug 14, 2013 -- 1:33PM, clear_reality wrote:


 How we got to this stage of what Prof. John Esposito of Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. — the most prolific author on the subject — calls “the new anti-Semitism,” a “spreading social cancer.”



“In the past 10 years, we’ve seen an exponential increase in hostility towards Muslim fellow-citizens,” he tells me.



In the past 10 years there has been an exponetial increase in hostilty of Muslims towards their fellow Muslims. 


 

Aug 14, 2013 -- 1:33PM, clear_reality wrote:




“This hatred threatens the democratic fabric of North American and European societies and impacts not only the civil liberties and safety of Muslims but also, as Norway shows, the safety of all citizens.”



"This hatred of Muslims towards there fellow Muslims threaten the fabric and socieities of the Middle East."


 

Aug 14, 2013 -- 1:33PM, clear_reality wrote:




Anders Breivik’s murder of 77 people in July to protest what he perceived as the Islamization of Europe was the most extreme example of Islamophobia. But there’s no shortage of incendiary anti-Muslim rhetoric. And there’s also little doubt that anti-Muslim demagoguery has moved from the margins to the mainstream.



The hatred of Egyptians towards their follow Egyptians has increased exponentially, resulting in the deaths of over 500 Egyptians.


 

Aug 14, 2013 -- 1:33PM, clear_reality wrote:

 



Across Europe, far-right parties have made record political gains and are partners in some coalition governments. In the U.S., four Republican presidential candidates are openly on a warpath against Islam and Muslims. Twenty-three states are in various stages of banning sharia, Muslim religious law, as though its imposition was imminent.



Across the Middle East things are doing so well either.  


As for the U.S.  which four Republican(extremist ?) candidates ARE currently against Islam and ALL Muslims? 


If the anti-sharia laws are passed in those states I would be willing to bet that those laws would be declared un-constitional in either the federal or supreme courts. 


I would think that if there are bans on sharia law then there "should" be bans on halachic law.


 




It was not supposed to come to this.




In 2001, George W. Bush said that his war was on terrorists, not Muslims or Islam.




But he went on to claim, just as had Osama bin Laden, that his crusade was guided by God. His wars in Afghanistan and Iraq turned into disastrous occupations. Tens of thousands of civilians were killed. There was Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, torture and indefinite detentions.




Wars, especially long ones, need propaganda that, inevitably, produce narrow nationalism and cultural warfare.




If the jihadists were on a holy mission against the evil American empire, the U.S. and its NATO partners were targeting peoples and nations in need of our democracy, even if by force, and whose women needed liberating.




Just as the Muslim world turned against the U.S. and Europe, Americans and Europeans turned against Muslims, including their own minorities, nearly half of whom were born in Europe and North America. Fellow citizens were cast as strangers and potential fifth columnists.




Thousands were arrested. There was religious and ethnic profiling, mosque surveillance and warrantless wiretapping.




Canadian Muslims avoided crossing the border into the U.S., unless they absolutely had to, and stopped flying overseas through the U.S.




As collective guilt was spread, former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher and others said all Muslims were responsible for terrorism.




Conflating Muslim terrorists with all Muslims was just the beginning.




If Muslims over “there” were our enemies, Muslims “here” must be as well. If the Taliban and others in far-off lands mistreated their women, Muslim men in the West must be doing the same. Hijabi women here had to be rescued as well, even if we couldn’t make up our mind whether that piece of cloth represented oppression or rebellion.





 


 






Flag Ricky August 17, 2013 11:37 AM EDT

Aug 17, 2013 -- 10:31AM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


Aug 14, 2013 -- 1:33PM, clear_reality wrote:


Islamophobia


The New Antisemitism


 


www.thestar.com/news/insight/2011/09/16/...


 


 



One byproduct of 9/11 has been Islamophobia — fear of Islam and its adherents, Muslims. Rather than recede with time, it has been growing in the United States and Europe, while Canada has not been immune to it.



Which was committed by radical, extremist Muslims "in the name of Islam".


 




Hardly a month goes by without some controversy over hijab, niqab, “honour killings,” polygamy, “forced marriages,” “sharia,” prayers in public places, such as at Valley Park Middle School in Toronto, or over how far free speech may be invoked to disproportionately demonize Muslims and Islam without running afoul of Canadian and European anti-hate laws.




There are arguments, for sure, over:




  What constitutes Islamophobia. A critical study of Islam and Muslims obviously does not.


 How we got to this stage of what Prof. John Esposito of Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. — the most prolific author on the subject — calls “the new anti-Semitism,” a “spreading social cancer.”



“In the past 10 years, we’ve seen an exponential increase in hostility towards Muslim fellow-citizens,” he tells me.




“This hatred threatens the democratic fabric of North American and European societies and impacts not only the civil liberties and safety of Muslims but also, as Norway shows, the safety of all citizens.”




Anders Breivik’s murder of 77 people in July to protest what he perceived as the Islamization of Europe was the most extreme example of Islamophobia. But there’s no shortage of incendiary anti-Muslim rhetoric. And there’s also little doubt that anti-Muslim demagoguery has moved from the margins to the mainstream.



Across Europe, far-right parties have made record political gains and are partners in some coalition governments. In the U.S., four Republican presidential candidates are openly on a warpath against Islam and Muslims. Twenty-three states are in various stages of banning sharia, Muslim religious law, as though its imposition was imminent.




It was not supposed to come to this.




In 2001, George W. Bush said that his war was on terrorists, not Muslims or Islam.




But he went on to claim, just as had Osama bin Laden, that his crusade was guided by God. His wars in Afghanistan and Iraq turned into disastrous occupations. Tens of thousands of civilians were killed. There was Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, torture and indefinite detentions.




Wars, especially long ones, need propaganda that, inevitably, produce narrow nationalism and cultural warfare.




If the jihadists were on a holy mission against the evil American empire, the U.S. and its NATO partners were targeting peoples and nations in need of our democracy, even if by force, and whose women needed liberating.




Just as the Muslim world turned against the U.S. and Europe, Americans and Europeans turned against Muslims, including their own minorities, nearly half of whom were born in Europe and North America. Fellow citizens were cast as strangers and potential fifth columnists.




Thousands were arrested. There was religious and ethnic profiling, mosque surveillance and warrantless wiretapping.




Canadian Muslims avoided crossing the border into the U.S., unless they absolutely had to, and stopped flying overseas through the U.S.




As collective guilt was spread, former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher and others said all Muslims were responsible for terrorism.




Conflating Muslim terrorists with all Muslims was just the beginning.




If Muslims over “there” were our enemies, Muslims “here” must be as well. If the Taliban and others in far-off lands mistreated their women, Muslim men in the West must be doing the same. Hijabi women here had to be rescued as well, even if we couldn’t make up our mind whether that piece of cloth represented oppression or rebellion.







Flag TRUECHRISTIAN August 17, 2013 9:29 PM EDT

 Ricky


Aug 14, 2013 -- 1:33PM, clear_reality wrote:


Islamophobia


The New Antisemitism


 


www.thestar.com/news/insight/2011/09/16/...


 


 



One byproduct of 9/11 has been Islamophobia — fear of Islam and its adherents, Muslims. Rather than recede with time, it has been growing in the United States and Europe, while Canada has not been immune to it.



Which was committed by radical, extremist Muslims "in the name of Islam".


 




Hardly a month goes by without some controversy over hijab, niqab, “honour killings,” polygamy, “forced marriages,” “sharia,” prayers in public places, such as at Valley Park Middle School in Toronto, or over how far free speech may be invoked to disproportionately demonize Muslims and Islam without running afoul of Canadian and European anti-hate laws.




There are arguments, for sure, over:




  What constitutes Islamophobia. A critical study of Islam and Muslims obviously does not.


 How we got to this stage of what Prof. John Esposito of Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. — the most prolific author on the subject — calls “the new anti-Semitism,” a “spreading social cancer.”



“In the past 10 years, we’ve seen an exponential increase in hostility towards Muslim fellow-citizens,” he tells me.




“This hatred threatens the democratic fabric of North American and European societies and impacts not only the civil liberties and safety of Muslims but also, as Norway shows, the safety of all citizens.”




Anders Breivik’s murder of 77 people in July to protest what he perceived as the Islamization of Europe was the most extreme example of Islamophobia. But there’s no shortage of incendiary anti-Muslim rhetoric. And there’s also little doubt that anti-Muslim demagoguery has moved from the margins to the mainstream.



Across Europe, far-right parties have made record political gains and are partners in some coalition governments. In the U.S., four Republican presidential candidates are openly on a warpath against Islam and Muslims. Twenty-three states are in various stages of banning sharia, Muslim religious law, as though its imposition was imminent.




It was not supposed to come to this.




In 2001, George W. Bush said that his war was on terrorists, not Muslims or Islam.




But he went on to claim, just as had Osama bin Laden, that his crusade was guided by God. His wars in Afghanistan and Iraq turned into disastrous occupations. Tens of thousands of civilians were killed. There was Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, torture and indefinite detentions.




Wars, especially long ones, need propaganda that, inevitably, produce narrow nationalism and cultural warfare.




If the jihadists were on a holy mission against the evil American empire, the U.S. and its NATO partners were targeting peoples and nations in need of our democracy, even if by force, and whose women needed liberating.




Just as the Muslim world turned against the U.S. and Europe, Americans and Europeans turned against Muslims, including their own minorities, nearly half of whom were born in Europe and North America. Fellow citizens were cast as strangers and potential fifth columnists.




Thousands were arrested. There was religious and ethnic profiling, mosque surveillance and warrantless wiretapping.




Canadian Muslims avoided crossing the border into the U.S., unless they absolutely had to, and stopped flying overseas through the U.S.




As collective guilt was spread, former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher and others said all Muslims were responsible for terrorism.




Conflating Muslim terrorists with all Muslims was just the beginning.




If Muslims over “there” were our enemies, Muslims “here” must be as well. If the Taliban and others in far-off lands mistreated their women, Muslim men in the West must be doing the same. Hijabi women here had to be rescued as well, even if we couldn’t make up our mind whether that piece of cloth represented oppression or rebellion.



READ PREVIOUS POST 420


I would agree that conflating terrorism  comitted in the name of Islam is a mistake.


Because it is not Islam that commits acts of terror in "the name of Islam" but a.....teeny, tiny, itsy bitsy number of Muslims.


However it is also a mistake not to attribute ANY of terrorism to Islam is ALSO a mistake. 


It is a mistake to say that ALL Muslims engage in acts of terror.


It is also a mistake to say NO Muslims engage in acts of terror. 


Prejudice and stereotypes wether they are postive or negative are still predjuidce and stereotypes. 





Flag Ricky August 18, 2013 9:47 AM EDT

Aug 17, 2013 -- 9:29PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


 





READ PREVIOUS POST 420


I would agree that conflating terrorism  comitted in the name of Islam is a mistake.


Because it is not Islam that commits acts of terror in "the name of Islam" but a.....teeny, tiny, itsy bitsy number of Muslims.


However it is also a mistake not to attribute ANY of terrorism to Islam is ALSO a mistake. 


It is a mistake to say that ALL Muslims engage in acts of terror.


It is also a mistake to say NO Muslims engage in acts of terror. 


Prejudice and stereotypes wether they are postive or negative are still predjuidce and stereotypes. 




What I tried to do was to show that there is a double standard in the news media and the right wingers contiunally pointing to barbaric acts of Muslims but ignoring the far greater barbarity of Hindus who have killed far more in sexist violence against females and other acts of terrorism against Christians and Muslims.





Therefore, I'm not trying to say you or others here are wrong.  Only that your views are wrongly and unfairly shaped by media bias and other distortions engaged in by right wingers.

Flag TRUECHRISTIAN August 19, 2013 9:59 AM EDT

 


Aug 17, 2013 -- 9:29PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


 





READ PREVIOUS POST 420


I would agree that conflating terrorism  comitted in the name of Islam is a mistake.


Because it is not Islam that commits acts of terror in "the name of Islam" but a.....teeny, tiny, itsy bitsy number of Muslims.


However it is also a mistake not to attribute ANY of terrorism to Islam is ALSO a mistake. 


It is a mistake to say that ALL Muslims engage in acts of terror.


It is also a mistake to say NO Muslims engage in acts of terror. 


Prejudice and stereotypes wether they are postive or negative are still predjuidce and stereotypes. 





  aauthor=78681213 post=534823173] 


What I tried to do was to show that there is a double standard in the news media and the right wingers contiunally pointing to barbaric acts of Muslims but ignoring the far greater barbarity of Hindus who have killed far more in sexist violence against females and other acts of terrorism against Christians and Muslims.



I would agree that the right wing news media in the U.S.  has a double standard because the focus acts of barbarity committed by Muslims against Non-Muslims. 


The problem is that right wing news media is such a broad even monothilic  classifiitcation.


I would agree that a greater number of acts of barbarity-terrorism in India are committed by Hindus.


But then there greater numbers of Hindus in India. 


Wether the degree of barbarity is greater between is "greater" I don't know. 


But what goes on in India is what goes on in India.  


What I do know is that I have never heard of Hinudophobia in either the right-wing, left-wing, or moderate media in the U.S. 


Both Hindus and Muslims commit "honor-killings-acts of barbarity-in the name of their religion".


Both Hindus and Muslims will say it is "culture" and not religion. 


I have not heard of any acts of terrorism-barbarity comitted by Hindus in the U.S. 


 


Confining to discussion to the U.S. 


Why is there no Hinduophobia in the U.S  ?


Is it because the right wing media doesn't report any acts of barbarism that are comitted by Hindus in the U.S.?


 


 


 


 


 


 





Therefore, I'm not trying to say you or others here are wrong.  Only that your views are wrongly and unfairly shaped by media bias and other distortions engaged in by right wingers.





Flag TRUECHRISTIAN August 19, 2013 1:28 PM EDT

Now I may be mistaken, it has happened once or twice in my life, and I have no statitics to back up my hypothesi  but it appears to me that most acts of barbarity, most human rights abuses for whatever "reason(?)" have been comitted BY MEN, against BOTH other men AND women. 


ANDROPHOBIA ANYONE ? Laughing


 

Flag Ricky August 20, 2013 8:02 AM EDT

Aug 19, 2013 -- 9:59AM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


   aauthor=78681213 post=534823173] 





What I tried to do was to show that there is a double standard in the news media and the right wingers contiunally pointing to barbaric acts of Muslims but ignoring the far greater barbarity of Hindus who have killed far more in sexist violence against females and other acts of terrorism against Christians and Muslims.



Therefore, I'm not trying to say you or others here are wrong.  Only that your views are wrongly and unfairly shaped by media bias and other distortions engaged in by right wingers.





I would agree that the right wing news media in the U.S.  has a double standard because the focus acts of barbarity committed by Muslims against Non-Muslims. 


The problem is that right wing news media is such a broad even monothilic  classifiitcation.


I would agree that a greater number of acts of barbarity-terrorism in India are committed by Hindus.


But then there greater numbers of Hindus in India. 


Wether the degree of barbarity is greater between is "greater" I don't know. 


But what goes on in India is what goes on in India.  


What I do know is that I have never heard of Hinudophobia in either the right-wing, left-wing, or moderate media in the U.S. 


Both Hindus and Muslims commit "honor-killings-acts of barbarity-in the name of their religion".


Both Hindus and Muslims will say it is "culture" and not religion. 


I have not heard of any acts of terrorism-barbarity comitted by Hindus in the U.S. 


 


Confining to discussion to the U.S. 


Why is there no Hinduophobia in the U.S  ?


Is it because the right wing media doesn't report any acts of barbarism that are comitted by Hindus in the U.S.?


 
















There have been acts committed by Hindus in the USA, Canada, and England.  I post on a Canadian website and twice in the past we came across cases where an "honour" killing (British/Canadian spelling) occurred. In both instances Hindus were mistaken for Muslims. Honor killings also take place in Yugoslavia and in Italy (if you are an opera buff you know the famous aria "Vendetta" which deals with that.  And surely you remember Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet") so it is something that occurs in other cultures.


The USA has not invaded India but Hindus have committed terrorist acts against American Christian missionaries. But it has invaded Muslim countries and killed thousands. It also invaded Iran in 1952 thereby imposing a repressive government that killed thousands and stole billions in resources.  So who are the real barbarians?


More people in India?  True.  But  barbaric acts in which MILLIONS die as oppose to a handful deserves far more attention than it gets.


The Islamophobia industry insures that a barbarity (and this definitely is the appropriate term) committed by Muslims gets top headlines.  But when committed by Hindus (whether the killing of females or the killing of Christians or Sikhs or Muslims)  is muted by that same industry.  This is why there is so much hate against Muslims.




Flag TRUECHRISTIAN August 20, 2013 10:29 AM EDT

 





Aug 20, 2013 -- 8:02AM, Ricky wrote:


There have been acts committed by Hindus in the USA, Canada, and England.  I post on a Canadian website and twice in the past we came across cases where an "honour" killing (British/Canadian spelling) occurred.



So,  in Canada there have been two examples in which Hindus have murdered women-girls over "honour"? 


Do you know how many act of honor killings, in Canada have been committed by Muslim or Christians?


Aug 20, 2013 -- 8:02AM, Ricky wrote:


 In both instances Hindus were mistaken for Muslims.



If they were both killed because they were mistaken for Muslims then they were not killed for "honour".


I am sure that they were not killed by barbaric Hindus!


I would speculate that they were killed by barbric, Canadian Christians.


Aug 20, 2013 -- 8:02AM, Ricky wrote:


 Honor killings also take place in Yugoslavia and in Italy e]


Honor killings by regions:


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing#Hono...


Aug 20, 2013 -- 8:02AM, Ricky wrote:


 (if you are an opera buff you know the famous aria "Vendetta" which deals with that.  And surely you remember Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet") so it is something that occurs in other cultures.



I am not an opera buff.  I think you are referring to the opera Rigoletto?


I am familar with Romeo and Julliet. 


If I am not mistaken neither Romeo nor Juliet were killed over vendetta-honor killing.


I am not disputing that vendettas or honor killings occur in other cultures.


 


 

Aug 20, 2013 -- 8:02AM, Ricky wrote:


The USA has not invaded India but Hindus have committed terrorist acts against American Christian missionaries.



Christian Missionaries have "invaded" Hindu India as well as many Muslim countries. 


For this reason(?) they have been killed by barbaric Hindu and Muslim men. 


Aug 20, 2013 -- 8:02AM, Ricky wrote:


 But it has invaded Muslim countries and killed thousands. It also invaded Iran in 1952 thereby imposing a repressive government that killed thousands and stole billions in resources.



Iran is also a  Muslim country.  IT  did not invade Iran in 1952.  IT did help stage a.....change in democratically elected regime.


IT did establish a gov't that was almost as repressive as the one that followed it. 


 


Aug 20, 2013 -- 8:02AM, Ricky wrote:


  So who are the real barbarians?



Men?


Aug 20, 2013 -- 8:02AM, Ricky wrote:


More people in India?  True.  But  barbaric acts in which MILLIONS die as oppose to a handful deserves far more attention than it gets.



Are you referring just to the barbaric acts comitted by Hindu men against, Hindu women,  Christian and Muslim missionaries-invaders? 


Aug 20, 2013 -- 8:02AM, Ricky wrote:

 


The Islamophobia industry insures that a barbarity (and this definitely is the appropriate term) committed by Muslims gets top headlines.



And the Islamophilla industry denies or esplains that those Muslims reported in the headlines are Not-Real, So-Called-Muslims who have hijacked true Islam which everyone should know is the most peaceful and tolerant of all the other religions. 


Especially Hinduism and Christianity. 


 


 


Aug 20, 2013 -- 8:02AM, Ricky wrote:


But when committed by Hindus (whether the killing of females or the killing of Christians or Sikhs or Muslims)  is muted by that same industry.  This is why there is so much hate against Muslims.



Again, I think that in the U.S. there are less killings of Hindu females, and killing of Christians by Hindus, than there is by Muslims. 


 


 




 





Flag Ricky August 20, 2013 6:10 PM EDT

1)  there have been "honor" killings in both the USA & Canada.


2)  Sikhs have been murdered in both countries because they were mistaken for Muslims by "barbaric Christians"


3)  "honor" killings have a long standing tradition in Europe which remain to this day


4)  "did help stage a.....change in democratically elected regime" - that is the phoniest answer I have ever seen on beliefnet.  The USA's barbaric actions resulted in the imposition of a tyrant who killed thousands and stole billions in resources.  To call that democracy is tantamount to invading the USA and imposing a Hitler here.


5)  "Are you referring just to the barbaric acts comitted"  You will have to see the links.


Flag TRUECHRISTIAN August 20, 2013 7:31 PM EDT

Aug 20, 2013 -- 6:10PM, Ricky wrote:


1)  there haove been "honor" killings in both the USA & Canada.



First, what do you mean by "honor killings"?


Second who has been committing the honor killings and in what numbers?


Aug 20, 2013 -- 6:10PM, Ricky wrote:


2)  Sikhs have been murdered in both countries because they were mistaken for Muslims by "barbaric Christians"



I know that one Skih was murdered in the U.S. shortly after 9/11 because he was mistaken for a Muslim. 


I would think it very probable that the ones who mistakenly murdered him were barbaric and stupid Christians.


But I do not believe that a barbaric christians killed a Skih in America Lite.


I do believe that a barbaric Skih in America Lite committed an "honor killing" on his wife.


www.ndtv.com/article/world/sikh-woman-in...


 

Aug 20, 2013 -- 6:10PM, Ricky wrote:


3)  "honor" killings have a long standing tradition in Europe which remain to this day



Who are the ones who are NOW carrying on this long standing European tradition?


And in what numbers?


Aug 20, 2013 -- 6:10PM, Ricky wrote:

he


4)  "did help stage a.....change in democratically elected regime" - that is the phoniest answer I have ever seen on beliefnet. 



How long have you been looking on Bnet?


There was a coup, in Iran against the democratically elected gov't:


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran 


"In 1951 Mohammad Mosaddegh was elected prime minister. He became enormously popular in Iran after he nationalized Iran's petroleum industry and oil reserves. He was deposed in an Anglo-American coup in 1953, the firist time the US had overthrown a foreign government during the Cold War"


The Great Satan did NOT invade Iran. The Great Satan did not kill any Iranians.


The Great Satan DID support the Shah of Iran. 


It was this barbaric Iranian who killed thousands of his own people.


"After the coup, the Shah became increasingly autocratic. Arbitrary arrests and torture by his secret police, SAVAK, were used to crush all forms of political opposition."


The Shah of Iran was eventually deposed and replaced due to the glorious Islamic Revolution.


 

Aug 20, 2013 -- 6:10PM, Ricky wrote:


 The USA's barbaric actions resulted in the imposition of a tyrant who killed thousands and stole billions in resources.



It was the tyrant who comitted the barbaric actions and stole billions in resourses. 


Aug 20, 2013 -- 6:10PM, Ricky wrote:


  To call that democracy is tantamount to invading the USA and imposing a Hitler here.



A "tantamount" action would be if Iran helped stage a coup in the U.S. and imposed an Islamic dictatorship. 


 



 


Flag Idbc August 20, 2013 9:45 PM EDT

Howdy


The Islamophillia Industry is alive and well in the U.S. 


I am currently watching completly uncritical documentary(?)on PBS called "The Life of Muhammad" on PBS.


www.pbs.org/muhammad/timeline_html.shtml


You can get a DVD for only $29.95.  


If I wasn't such a skeptical kufar infidel I would revert to the true religion.

Flag Ricky August 21, 2013 10:06 AM EDT

Islamophobia attacks on Iran:



www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-237...



The CIA has released documents which for the first time formally acknowledge its key role in the 1953 coup which ousted Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadeq.


The documents were published on the independent National Security Archive on the 60th anniversary of the coup.


They come from the CIA's internal history of Iran from the mid-1970s.


"The military coup... was carried out under CIA direction as an act of US foreign policy," says one excerpt.


Mohammad Mossadeq, Iranian prime minister until being overthrown in a  CIA-orchestrated coup in 1953 Prime Minister Mossadeq was overthrown after a bid to renationalise Iran's oil industry

The US role in the coup was openly referred to by then US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in 2000, and by President Barack Obama in a 2009 speech in Cairo.


But until now the intelligence agencies have issued "blanket denials" of their role, says the editor of the trove of documents, Malcolm Byrne.


This is believed to be the first time the CIA has itself admitted the part it played in concert with the British intelligence agency, MI6.


Mr Byrne says the documents are important not only for providing "new specifics as well as insights into the intelligence agency's actions before and after the operation", but because "political partisans on all sides, including the Iranian government, regularly invoke the coup".


The documents were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the National Security Archive, a non-governmental research institution based at George Washington University.



"By the end of 1952, it had become clear that the Mossadeq government in Iran was incapable of reaching an oil settlement with interested Western countries... was motivated mainly by Mossadeq's desire for personal power; was governed by irresponsible policies based on emotion; had weakened the Shah and the Iranian Army to a dangerous degree; and had cooperated closely with the Tudeh (Communist) Party of Iran.


In view of these factors, it was estimated that Iran was in real danger of falling behind the Iron Curtain; if that happened it would mean a victory for the Soviets in the Cold War and a major setback for the West in the Middle East. No remedial action other than the covert action plan set forth below could be found to improve the existing state of affairs"


Donald Wilber, coup planner, summary, Document 1



Iranians elected Mossadeq in 1951 and he quickly moved to renationalise the country's oil production, which had been under British control through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company - which later became British Petroleum or BP.


That was a source of serious concern to the US and the UK, which saw Iranian oil as key to its post-war economic rebuilding.


The Cold War was also a factor in the calculations.


"[i]t was estimated that Iran was in real danger of falling behind the Iron Curtain; if that happened it would mean a victory for the Soviets in the Cold War and a major setback for the West in the Middle East," says coup planner Donald Wilber in one document written within months of the overthrow.


"No remedial action other than the covert action plan set forth below could be found to improve the existing state of affairs."


The documents show how the CIA prepared for the coup by placing anti-Mossadeq stories in both the Iranian and US media.


The coup strengthened the rule of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi - who had just fled Iran following a power struggle with Mossadeq and returned following the coup, becoming a close ally of the US.


The US and UK intelligence agencies bolstered pro-Shah forces and helped organise anti-Mossadeq protests.


"The Army very soon joined the pro-Shah movement and by noon that day it was clear that Tehran, as well as certain provincial areas, were controlled by pro-Shah street groups and Army units," Wilber wrote.


"By the end of 19 August... members of the Mossadeq government were either in hiding or were incarcerated."


The Shah returned to Iran after the coup and only left power in 1979, when he was overthrown in the Islamic revolution.



----------------



Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran:


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invas...



... Though Iran was officially neutral ... to secure oil wells.



--------------



There are many other links to prove that Western powers invaded other Muslim nations. In each instance, Islamophbic excuses were used to "justify" these acts of imperialism.

Flag TRUECHRISTIAN August 21, 2013 10:35 AM EDT

Rick


I have been quite clear that the Great Satan helped stage a coup, in Iran in 1952. 


It was however not due to "Islamophobia".  


The Great Satan did not invade Iran.   Nor did the Great Satan kill thousands of innocent Iranians.


Nor did the Great Satan invade Iran in 1941.


That invasion was done by the lackeys and puppets regimes of the Great Satan, Great Britian and the Soviet Union. 


In both examples the reasons were due to both natural resources-oil and politics.


In neither example was Islamophobia the cause.


 

Flag Ricky August 22, 2013 10:22 AM EDT

Aug 21, 2013 -- 10:35AM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


Rick


I have been quite clear that the Great Satan helped stage a coup, in Iran in 1952. 


It was however not due to "Islamophobia".  


The Great Satan did not invade Iran.   Nor did the Great Satan kill thousands of innocent Iranians.


Nor did the Great Satan invade Iran in 1941.


That invasion was done by the lackeys and puppets regimes of the Great Satan, Great Britian and the Soviet Union. 


In both examples the reasons were due to both natural resources-oil and politics.


In neither example was Islamophobia the cause.


 





So say you.


But history may say something quite different.  An Iranian that I know told me that when the shah was imposed by the British and American imperialists he employed Bahai body guards and that SAVAK was largely composed of people from that religion.  I do not know if this is true.  But history does show that Bahai's or Babs (the earlier form of that religion) were involved in political assassinations in Qatar and Iran starting in the 1850s.


Invading a country, stealing their resources, imposing a sectarian puppet regime, and using secret police comprised of a minority religion that is reputed to be of a treasonous intent bespeaks of Islamophobia to me. 

Flag rangerken August 22, 2013 11:42 AM EDT

A phobia is a fear without justification, baseless, not having factual events to support it.


The problem with 'islamaphobia' is that the term is too broad. It should be 'radical islamist phobia' which is entirely justified.


And the actions by the US in Iran in the 1950's had nothing to do with Islam. We just didn't much give a damn about that religion then. And it's really too bad that state of affairs did not continue.


Ken

Flag Ricky August 23, 2013 9:46 AM EDT

Aug 22, 2013 -- 11:42AM, rangerken wrote:


A phobia is a fear without justification, baseless, not having factual events to support it.


The problem with 'islamaphobia' is that the term is too broad. It should be 'radical islamist phobia' which is entirely justified.


And the actions by the US in Iran in the 1950's had nothing to do with Islam. We just didn't much give a damn about that religion then. And it's really too bad that state of affairs did not continue.


Ken





Too broad?


People say the same thing when the "antisemitic" card is played by Israel's apologists but you don't seem to have a problem with that.


If religion had nothing to do with the imperialistic invasion conducted by Republican in 1953 then why was a puppet of the Bahais imposed along with SAVAK which was composed of members of that cult?

Flag world citizen August 23, 2013 4:16 PM EDT

Aug 22, 2013 -- 10:22AM, Ricky wrote:

Aug 21, 2013 -- 10:35AM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


Rick


I have been quite clear that the Great Satan helped stage a coup, in Iran in 1952. 


It was however not due to "Islamophobia".  


The Great Satan did not invade Iran.   Nor did the Great Satan kill thousands of innocent Iranians.


Nor did the Great Satan invade Iran in 1941.


That invasion was done by the lackeys and puppets regimes of the Great Satan, Great Britian and the Soviet Union. 


In both examples the reasons were due to both natural resources-oil and politics.


In neither example was Islamophobia the cause.


 





So say you.


But history may say something quite different.  An Iranian that I know told me that when the shah was imposed by the British and American imperialists he employed Bahai body guards and that SAVAK was largely composed of people from that religion.  I do not know if this is true.  But history does show that Bahai's or Babs (the earlier form of that religion) were involved in political assassinations in Qatar and Iran starting in the 1850s.


Invading a country, stealing their resources, imposing a sectarian puppet regime, and using secret police comprised of a minority religion that is reputed to be of a treasonous intent bespeaks of Islamophobia to me. 


Ricky,


You say "I do not know if this is true," yet you are willing to malign, even stigmatize, members of a religion with which you apparently have little to no knowledge.  While it is true that any number of Baha'is were, in fact, employed within the Iranian government during the reign of Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavī, it is factually incorrect to say that any Baha'i was either a bodyguard of the Shah or worked in any capacity for or with the SAVAK secret police.


Those having knowledge of the basic tenets of the Baha'i Faith would be aware that weaponry is anathema to Baha'is, and they are also forbidden by their Scriptures to engage in anything even hinting at political involvement (let alone intrigues).  When Pahlavï was in power, he was familiar with the integrity of the Baha'is, which is why they were trusted to work in certain departments of the government, especially those having to do with finances:


"Those souls who are employed in government should approach their duties with entire detachment, integrity and independence of spirit... Content with the wages they are receiving, they should see that they do not stain their fair character through acts of bribery and fraud. Were one of the friends in this day to misappropriate so much as a single penny, the scattered mantle of God's Cause would become sullied by his action and the shame of it would attach to the whole community...  rather, the government and people should come to repose such trust in the Bahá'ís as to wish to commit all affairs of state throughout the provinces into the chaste, pure hands of God's well-beloved."  (Baha'i Compilation: Lights of Guidance, p.454)

Flag rangerken August 23, 2013 10:19 PM EDT

During the thirty years I spent in the US Army, from 1962 through 1992, until 1979 Islam simply was not remotely an issue or a concern or anything other than a religion most of us knew little about and cared less. the Iranian hostage thing brought it to our attention, obviously, and the later Iraq-Iran war was something we studied (and I'll add that the predominating opinion was that we hoped both sides would lose and lose badly). However, we looked at it from the point of view of how things affected the US. We just didn't much care about Sunni vs. Shia nor in fact knew much about it. When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan we still didn't much care about the religious component. It was a case of what we could do to hurt the Soviets...which by our assistance to the mujahadin we indeed did do. We became more aware of Islam during the Gulf war in 1990 and 1991 but mainly because so many of us were inside Saudi Arabia or many months, and the majority opinion about that country was... to be blunt... they're a bunch of medieval religious fanatics who really don't much like us even if we are defending them. When I retired in 1992 Islam still just wasn't much of an issue. That didn't change when we defended Myuslims in Bosnia. What changed things wasn't the embassy bombing or even the attack on the Cole. 9/11 changed everything. And since then it has become obvious that a large numbe of Muslims... not all of course... based on their undestanding of Islam, want to kill us because we don't share their faith.


So whereas accusing Amerricans in general of Islamaphobia is incorrect, accusing us of radical islamist phobia is accurate. It is also completely justified. My son had several opportunities to directly confront radical islamists in Aghanistan, and he thinks they are totally nuts... which I think they are. So he, along with his peers now in the VFW along with us elderly types, shares a well justified case of extreme radical islamist phobia.


We do need to be specific with our terms... in my opinion.


Ken

Flag Dostojevsky August 23, 2013 11:27 PM EDT

"


So whereas accusing Amerricans in general of Islamaphobia is incorrect, accusing us of radical islamist phobia is accurate. It is also completely justified."


So Ken, what is the difference?

Flag rangerken August 24, 2013 1:08 AM EDT

Aug 23, 2013 -- 11:27PM, Dostojevsky wrote:


"


So whereas accusing Amerricans in general of Islamaphobia is incorrect, accusing us of radical islamist phobia is accurate. It is also completely justified."


So Ken, what is the difference?




There's a huge difference. For example we can look at Christianity and say that those Christians who conducted the inquisition, or burned witches, were total fanatics, vile, evil, and worthy of disdain and eradication while at the same time excusing the majority of Christians from responsibility with complete accuracy. Well, it's the same with a portion of Muslims. Certainly, and obviously, all Muslims are NOT terrorists. BUT, some are, and these, accurately called radical islamists, by their actions, deserve condemnation, and do engender fear. One may call for the seeking out, targeting, and elimination of any and all radical islamist terrorists without being the least bit opposed to Islam, the religion.


That's why I don't like the mis-use of the term Islamaphobia when applied to those who despise and wish to destroy radical islamist terrorists. Desiring that completely sensible objective does not mean, nor even suggests, any antipathy toward the huge, majority of Muslims, many of whom are our countrymen and women. Americans who happen to be Muslims are, and should be viewed exactly the same as Americans who happen to be Christians or Jews or Hindus or Budhists or Atheists, etc. They are simply Americans who happen to believe in a certain religion. However, those Muslims who happen to live in the US who support radical islamist actions, and/or Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, any radical jihadist group, al Queda, and so forth, besides defaming their religion, make themselves legitimate targets for law enforcement to include Homeland Security.


And by the way, I have writtern the above many, many times over the years on various threads and forums on Beliefnet. And I think the explanation is, and has been, very clear, as well as accurate.


Ken

Flag Dostojevsky August 24, 2013 4:51 AM EDT

Ken thank you, that was long answer.


I just ask for the short answer of  these two terms...


think of y/self as a dictionary...:)

Flag Ricky August 24, 2013 9:59 AM EDT

Aug 23, 2013 -- 4:16PM, world citizen wrote:

Aug 22, 2013 -- 10:22AM, Ricky wrote:


Aug 21, 2013 -- 10:35AM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


Rick


I have been quite clear that the Great Satan helped stage a coup, in Iran in 1952. 


It was however not due to "Islamophobia".  


The Great Satan did not invade Iran.   Nor did the Great Satan kill thousands of innocent Iranians.


Nor did the Great Satan invade Iran in 1941.


That invasion was done by the lackeys and puppets regimes of the Great Satan, Great Britian and the Soviet Union. 


In both examples the reasons were due to both natural resources-oil and politics.


In neither example was Islamophobia the cause.


 





So say you.


But history may say something quite different.  An Iranian that I know told me that when the shah was imposed by the British and American imperialists he employed Bahai body guards and that SAVAK was largely composed of people from that religion.  I do not know if this is true.  But history does show that Bahai's or Babs (the earlier form of that religion) were involved in political assassinations in Qatar and Iran starting in the 1850s.


Invading a country, stealing their resources, imposing a sectarian puppet regime, and using secret police comprised of a minority religion that is reputed to be of a treasonous intent bespeaks of Islamophobia to me. 




Ricky,


You say "I do not know if this is true," yet you are willing to malign, even stigmatize, members of a religion with which you apparently have little to no knowledge.  While it is true that any number of Baha'is were, in fact, employed within the Iranian government during the reign of Mohammad RezÄ� ShÄ�h PahlavÄ«, it is factually incorrect to say that any Baha'i was either a bodyguard of the Shah or worked in any capacity for or with the SAVAK secret police.


Those having knowledge of the basic tenets of the Baha'i Faith would be aware that weaponry is anathema to Baha'is, and they are also forbidden by their Scriptures to engage in anything even hinting at political involvement (let alone intrigues).  When Pahlavï was in power, he was familiar with the integrity of the Baha'is, which is why they were trusted to work in certain departments of the government, especially those having to do with finances:


"Those souls who are employed in government should approach their duties with entire detachment, integrity and independence of spirit... Content with the wages they are receiving, they should see that they do not stain their fair character through acts of bribery and fraud. Were one of the friends in this day to misappropriate so much as a single penny, the scattered mantle of God's Cause would become sullied by his action and the shame of it would attach to the whole community...  rather, the government and people should come to repose such trust in the Bahá'ís as to wish to commit all affairs of state throughout the provinces into the chaste, pure hands of God's well-beloved."  (Baha'i Compilation: Lights of Guidance, p.454)







~ While it is true that any number of Baha'is were, in fact, employed within the Iranian government during the reign of Mohammad Rez� Sh�h Pahlavī, it is factually incorrect to say that any Baha'i was either a bodyguard of the Shah or worked in any capacity for or with the SAVAK secret police. ~



Some progress at last.


It is good to see someone here who actually has some knowledge of the subject .


Thank you for acknowledging that indeed there were Bahais in the shah's circle as this is something often denied by many.


Now, as for the bodyguards, I have no specific knowledge of that fact.  But an Iranian friend of mine (his now deceased father having been a professor of religion) is well acquainted with his country's history.  He has previously indicated to me that the shah also had body guards from that cult.


As for Bahais, no I am NOT ignorant of that religion having been a regular watcher of the local Bahai tv show (it is not broadcasted anymore), having attended 4 Bahai meetings at the homes of locals, and havng read several books by scholars of that religion.  I have also had public debates with these scholars and defeated them as easily as I defeat the deluded pundits here who think they know the Bible better than I do.  That isn't boasting, it's fact.

Flag TRUECHRISTIAN August 24, 2013 8:34 PM EDT

 


 


Rick


I have been quite clear that the Great Satan helped stage a coup, in Iran in 1952. 


It was however not due to "Islamophobia".  


The Great Satan did not invade Iran.   Nor did the Great Satan kill thousands of innocent Iranians.


Nor did the Great Satan invade Iran in 1941.


That invasion was done by the lackeys and puppets regimes of the Great Satan, Great Britian and the Soviet Union. 


In both examples the reasons were due to both natural resources-oil and politics.


In neither example was Islamophobia the cause.


 




Aug 22, 2013 -- 10:22AM, Ricky wrote:


So say you.


But history may say something quite different.



Or history might not say something quite different!


Aug 22, 2013 -- 10:22AM, Ricky wrote:


 


  An Iranian that I know told me that when the shah was imposed by the British and American imperialists



So say you.


But history may say something quite different! 



Aug 22, 2013 -- 10:22AM, Ricky wrote:


he employed Bahai body guards and that SAVAK was largely composed of people from that religion.  I do not know if this 'is true. ]


So said your Iranian friend.


You don't know if it is true but you did repeat it.  


 


Aug 22, 2013 -- 10:22AM, Ricky wrote:


 But history does show that Bahai's or Babs (the earlier form of that religion) were involved in political assassinations in Qatar and Iran starting in the 1850s.



So say you. 


But can you prove it? 


Show me the history!!!!! 


Aug 22, 2013 -- 10:22AM, Ricky wrote:


Invading a country, stealing their resources, imposing a sectarian puppet regime, and using secret police comprised of a minority religion that is reputed to be of a treasonous intent bespeaks of Islamophobia to me. 




The U.S. never invaded Iran.  


If you are claiming that the secret police was comprised of Bahia then you should have the balls to say it.  


If you are saying that the Bahia composed the Savak, then PROVE IT.


Flag world citizen August 25, 2013 12:14 PM EDT

Rick,


Thank you for acknowledging that indeed there were Bahais in the shah's circle as this is something often denied by many.


That was NOT what I indicated.  You can count me as being among those Baha'is who also deny that "... there were Bahais [sic] in the shah's circle."  There are many thousands of Americans working in departments of the federal government but a very, very select and miniscule few can be said to be in any given president's "circle".  Please try not to paint scenarios with such a broad brush.


Now, as for the bodyguards, I have no specific knowledge of that fact.  But an Iranian friend of mine (his now deceased father having been a professor of religion) is well acquainted with his country's history...


Again, if you have "no specific knowledge of that [as] fact," why do you continue spreading a false rumor?  While I'm sure your Iranian friend IS probably familiar with that country's history, you might wish to consider the biases of those writing the history.


... He has previously indicated to me that the shah also had body guards from that cult.


That shouldn't be a surprise considering the fact the ayatollahs and recent regimes in Iran have been doing their best to suppress the Baha'i Faith in that country for years by all means possible.  I think it was probably a good maneuver on their part. What better way to defame the Baha'is among the locals than to have the populace believe they were part and parcel of anything so intimately related to the shah, such as bodyguards and/or the dreaded secret police?


This is not a religion board, so I will make this brief and trust it will end here.  I note you freely throw around the word "cult" re the Baha'i Faith.  I believe Christianity was also considered a cult for its first few centuries, but I know of no other "cult" today having its scriptures printed in 700+ languages, being second only to Christianity in the number of locations where Baha'is reside around the globe, or having consultation status/offices in the U.N.  All of this within a short 170 years of its inception.


As for Bahais, no I am NOT ignorant of that religion ... havng [sic] read several books by scholars of that religion.  I have also had public debates with these scholars and defeated them ...


My only reaction to this pompous claim is absolute skepticism.  Please cite the books, name the authors, and provide dates/places of such "public debates" in order to verify.


Respectfully, wc

Flag Idbc August 25, 2013 7:44 PM EDT

Howdy Rick


I would also add that the Bahia "cult" has.....problems with the Islam "cult" in Iran from its inception.  


Of course this as nothing, absolutely nothing to do with Islam. 


It is the followers of Islam in Iran that are the source of the problem.  


It is the ulema, that Bahia have to fear.  


The Bahia in Iran have no reason whatsover to be Islamophobic! Wink

Flag Ricky August 26, 2013 9:11 AM EDT

Aug 25, 2013 -- 12:14PM, world citizen wrote:


Rick,


Thank you for acknowledging that indeed there were Bahais in the shah's circle as this is something often denied by many.


That was NOT what I indicated.  You can count me as being among those Baha'is who also deny that "... there were Bahais [sic] in the shah's circle."  There are many thousands of Americans working in departments of the federal government but a very, very select and miniscule few can be said to be in any given president's "circle".  Please try not to paint scenarios with such a broad brush.


Now, as for the bodyguards, I have no specific knowledge of that fact.  But an Iranian friend of mine (his now deceased father having been a professor of religion) is well acquainted with his country's history...


Again, if you have "no specific knowledge of that [as] fact," why do you continue spreading a false rumor?  While I'm sure your Iranian friend IS probably familiar with that country's history, you might wish to consider the biases of those writing the history.


... He has previously indicated to me that the shah also had body guards from that cult.


That shouldn't be a surprise considering the fact the ayatollahs and recent regimes in Iran have been doing their best to suppress the Baha'i Faith in that country for years by all means possible.  I think it was probably a good maneuver on their part. What better way to defame the Baha'is among the locals than to have the populace believe they were part and parcel of anything so intimately related to the shah, such as bodyguards and/or the dreaded secret police?


This is not a religion board, so I will make this brief and trust it will end here.  I note you freely throw around the word "cult" re the Baha'i Faith.  I believe Christianity was also considered a cult for its first few centuries, but I know of no other "cult" today having its scriptures printed in 700+ languages, being second only to Christianity in the number of locations where Baha'is reside around the globe, or having consultation status/offices in the U.N.  All of this within a short 170 years of its inception.


As for Bahais, no I am NOT ignorant of that religion ... havng [sic] read several books by scholars of that religion.  I have also had public debates with these scholars and defeated them ...


My only reaction to this pompous claim is absolute skepticism.  Please cite the books, name the authors, and provide dates/places of such "public debates" in order to verify.


Respectfully, wc






You can count me as being among those Baha'is who also deny that "... there were Bahais [sic] in the shah's circle ... bodyguards ... SAVAK"




Very well. Others disagree. Wiki indicates that others have made that accusation:


Chehabi, H.E. (2008), "Anatomy of Prejudice", in Brookshaw, Dominic P.; Fazel, Seena B., The Baha'is of Iran: Socio-historical studies, New York, NY: Routledge, ISBN 0-203-00280-6



Bahá'ís as agents of the Shah's regime and its secret police


''Another criticism claims that the Bahá'ís, during the time of the Pahlavi dynasty, collaborated with the SAVAK, the Iranian secret police, and held positions of power in the government.[54] Even before the Iranian revolution, the Bahá'ís, viewed as the "other" in Iranian society, were held responsible by the rest of the Iranians for the abusive suppression by SAVAK and the Shah's unpopular policies.[55] After the revolution, the assertion that the Bahá'ís were agents of the Shah perhaps partly originates because Bahá'ís did not help the revolutionary groups, since one of the tenets of the Bahá'í Faith is to obey the government of one's country''




Again, I have no specific knowledge of this so I go by what others have written over the  years.  Perhaps you are one of those Bahais who denies it and this may explain why you do not agree.




Please cite the books, name the authors, and provide dates/places of such "public debates" in order to verify.




These took place in a private home about 25 years ago.  I remember reading a book written some time in the 1880s and another word "Gleanings" or something like that.  Sorry I cannot remember for sure.  If you don't want to believe it, that's fine with me.  One thing that does stand out for me is the claim that "miracles blunt the mind and dull the senses" - this was a teaching in one of the books.  I was astounded that this cult - OK, this religion - would teach that because miracles in the New Testament represent the divine forgiveness of sin.  Therefore, they are a necessary part of Christian reform and life correction.  Bahais, as taught in that book (again, sorry, I cannot remember the name after almost 25 years) miracles are not supposed to happen and it alleged that a group was challenged to convert if they experienced a miracle of some kind.  Afterwards, everyone in a group did so because one miracle was performed.  No pictures or audio were presented in the book but that's what it said.  Thus, no verification from them or from me.  ;)



Flag Ricky August 26, 2013 9:17 AM EDT

This book will explain in part why the Islamophobia is as wide spread as it is:



www.amazon.com/The-Islamophobia-Industry...



PRAISE FOR THE ISLAMOPHOBIA INDUSTRY:


"Nathan Lean's meticulous study of the Islamophobia industry is a convincing demonstration of the threat this form of extremism poses to a harmonious pluralistic society and democratic values. Rationalizing hatred of Muslims, well-funded ideologues have also negatively impacted civic discourse and pushed conservative politics into the orbit of right-wing extremism. Lean's book is an important resource for all people who wish to understand the forces that are manipulating our political process and discourse." - Ingrid Mattson, Chair in Islamic Studies, Huron University College





Small wonder why such hate is wide spread throughout the USA.



Flag Idbc August 26, 2013 11:04 AM EDT

 


Howdy Rick


Aug 26, 2013 -- 9:17AM, Ricky wrote:


This book will explain in part why the Islamophobia is as wide spread as it is:



www.amazon.com/The-Islamophobia-Industry...



PRAISE FOR THE ISLAMOPHOBIA INDUSTRY:


"Nathan Lean's meticulous study of the Islamophobia industry is a convincing demonstration of the threat this form of extremism poses to a harmonious pluralistic society and democratic values. Rationalizing hatred of Muslims, well-funded ideologues have also negatively impacted civic discourse and pushed conservative politics into the orbit of right-wing extremism. Lean's book is an important resource for all people who wish to understand the forces that are manipulating our political process and discourse." - Ingrid Mattson, Chair in Islamic Studies, Huron University College



Have you read this book, or just the reviews?


It doesnBt sound to me like this book is praising the Islamophobic Industry.


I read in somewhere in some  book, that  "funding"  for the "Chair in Islamic Studies, at Huron University College came from right wing conservative Islamic extremist.  


The  the well funded extreme right wing conservative christians have iclaimed that they are not "phobic" against ALL Muslims. 


They claim that they are ONLY against well funded extremist Muslim who are....Americanphobic. They will claim that the are defending the pluralistic, harmonius, and democratic America from the tiny minority of Muslims in America who seek to change America.  


By Any Means Neccessary.  Wether democractically or otherwise. 


I am not denying that there is a well funded  right wing conservative christian Islamophic industry.   


However there is also a well funded right wing conservative islamic industry. 


It is the extreme left-wing liberal Islamophillic industry who funded the publications of the book "The Islamophobic Industry?


Aug 26, 2013 -- 9:17AM, Ricky wrote:



Small wonder why such hate is wide spread throughs, out the USA.




What is a big wonder is that if Islamophobia is as "wide spread" in the USA as you claim, th at so many Islamophillic" books and other media are allowed. 


 If the Islamophobia is as widespread as you seem to imply it is a big wonder that tens of thousands of America are reverting to the true religion, Islam. 


Given the allegations about the Bahai it is a big wonder why there isn't a Bahiaophobic industry in the US like there is in the Islamic Republic of Iran. 


 



 

Flag rangerken August 26, 2013 11:10 AM EDT

Nathan Lean is Editor in Chief of aslanmedia 


His book linked to by Ricky is reviewed by both Huffington and Salon, and here is another, timely article by Nathan Lean.


atheisms_islamophobia_problem


I generally do NOT agree with Lean, BUT, his opinions and books certainly do dserve serious study and consideration. And they do fit well on this thread.


Ken


Flag Idbc August 26, 2013 12:30 PM EDT

Howdy


Aug 26, 2013 -- 11:10AM, rangerken wrote:


Nathan Lean is Editor in Chief of aslanmedia  



Is aslanmedia Islamophobic or Islamophillic?


His book linked to by Ricky is reviewed by both Huffington and Salon, and here is another, timely article by Nathan Lean.


Aug 26, 2013 -- 11:10AM, rangerken wrote:


atheisms_islamophobia_problem


I generally do NOT agree with Lean, BUT, his opinions and books certainly do dserve serious study and consideration. And they do fit well on this thread.


Ken





One thing I know for sure is that Atheists have absolutely no reason to be phobic about Islam or Muslims.


Muslims have as a deep and abiding respect for Atheists as they do for Zionist. 


One thing I am certain of is that Atheist have a lot less reason to fear Muslims in the US then those in the Homeland of the Prophet, the Birthplace of Islam.  


Or most other.....Islamic majority countries. 


If I recall correctlly the hoplessly damned Islamophobic New Atheist Richard Dawkins caused a....twitter because the twit tweetered THE FACT that there is a teeny tiny disparity between the number of scientist at Trinity College and Muslim scientists who have won Noble Prizes in Science. 



I seem  to recall that he has also made criticisms about christians and jews. 


Or at least those who are Allahophillic. 


It must be because he his Godophobic.  Wink
 

Flag Idbc August 26, 2013 1:45 PM EDT

 



Howdy Rick



Aug 26, 2013 -- 9:11AM, Ricky wrote:


Very well. Others disagree. Wiki indicates that others have made that accusation:


Chehabi, H.E. (2008), "Anatomy of Prejudice", in Brookshaw, Dominic P.; Fazel, Seena B., The Baha'is of Iran: Socio-historical studies, New York, NY: Routledge, ISBN 0-203-00280-6[/qu tote]


Do you think you would have the decency to post Wiki link that is your source?


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_accusations_against_the_Baha'i_Faith



Aug 26, 2013 -- 9:11AM, Ricky wrote:


Bahá'ís as ACCUSED agents of the Shah's regime and its secret police




Aug 26, 2013 -- 9:11AM, Ricky wrote:


''Another criticism claims that the Bahá'ís, during the time of the Pahlavi dynasty, collaborated with the SAVAK, the Iranian secret police, and held positions of power in the government.[54] Even before the Iranian revolution, the Bahá'ís, viewed as the "other" in Iranian society, were held responsible by the rest of the Iranians for the abusive suppression by SAVAK and the Shah's unpopular policies.[55] After the revolution, the assertion that the Bahá'ís were agents of the Shah perhaps partly originates because Bahá'ís did not help the revolutionary groups, since one of the tenets of the Bahá'í Faith is to obey the government of one's country''


Aug 26, 2013 -- 9:11AM, Ricky wrote:


Again, I have no specific knowledge of this so I go by what others have written over the the years.



What you are going by is rumors, assertions and claims.


What you are NOT going by is specific, historical facts.


Hmm who else goes on rumors, assertions and claims?


Who else goes by what has been written over the years about Muslims?



Aug 26, 2013 -- 9:11AM, Ricky wrote:


Perhaps you are one of Bahais who denies it and this may explain why you do not agree.




Or perhaps I am one of the hoplessly damned who denies there is sufficent evidence.y b


Perhaps I don't rely on rumors, claims and assertions, especially who have a theological-idealogical agenda.


I am one of those Atheist.


I don't know which one of "those" you are, but I am fairly certain that you are not one of "those" Bahia.


You might be one of "those" Iranian Shias.



Please cite the books, name the authors, and provide dates/places of such "public debates" in order to verify.


Aug 26, 2013 -- 9:11AM, Ricky wrote:


These took place in a private home about 25 years ago. I remember reading a book written some time in the 1880s and another word "Gleanings" or something like that. Sorry I cannot remember for sure. If you don't want to believe it, that's fine with me.



It is not a question of "wanting" to believe".


It is a question of why "should" it be believed?




Aug 26, 2013 -- 9:11AM, Ricky wrote:

One thing that does stand out for me is the claim that "miracles blunt the mind and dull the senses" - this was a teaching in one of the books.



Did you by any miracle do any "due diligience" and make a search of "miracles blunt the mind and dull the senses".





Aug 26, 2013 -- 9:11AM, Ricky wrote:


I was astounded that this cult - OK, this religion - would teach that because miracles in the New Testament represent the divine forgiveness of sin. Therefore, they are a necessary part of Christian reform and life correction. Bahais, as taught in that book (again, sorry, I cannot remember the name after almost 25 years) miracles are not supposed to happen and it alleged that a group was challenged to convert if they experienced a miracle of some kind.



Again your memory is un-reliable.


This is what Bahai say about miracles"


bahai-library.com/books/miracles/bahai.h...


Quoting in part:


"


The miracles of Bahá’u’lláh may not be mentioned for the above reasons. Also they may be described by some as traditions that are liable to both truth and error. Though if we wish to mention the supernatural acts of Bahá’u’lláh, they are numerous. Many Bahá’ís, after the way of Islam, have also related the great miracles that they had, with their own eyes, seen Bahá’u’lláh perform, and the marvels they had heard.2 They "…are acknowledged in the Orient, and even by some non-Bahá’ís. But these narratives are not decisive proofs and evidences to all; the hearer might perhaps say that this account may not be in accordance with what occurred, for it is known that other sects recount miracles performed by their founders. For instance, the followers of Brahmanism relate miracles. From what evidence may we know that those are false and that these are true? If these are fables, the others also are fables; if these are generally accepted, so also the others are generally accepted. Consequently, these accounts are not satisfactory proofs. Yes, miracles are proofs for the eyewitness only, and even he may regard them not as a miracle but as an enchantment."3 Further, extraordinary feats have also been related of some conjurers.



The purpose is not to deny such miracles; but to point out that they do not constitute decisive proofs, and that they have an inner significance. The miracles of Bahá’u’lláh will be acknowledged if there is fairness in the world; but there are some people who, even if all the proof in the world be adduced before them, still will not judge justly!



What the Bahia do say is that miracles are constituted as proof ONLY to those who were EYEWITNESSES. Wether it was Christians, Muslims or Bahai who SAW the miracles.


Otherwise it is taken as faith, a belieff.


What I would qualify as a miracle is if in the past, the Shia Muslim Clergy in Iran did NOT fuch with the Bahia. If there was NO Bahaiphobia.





 

Flag LeahOne August 26, 2013 3:32 PM EDT

"I was astounded that this .... religion - would teach that, because miracles in the New Testament represent the divine forgiveness of sin.  Therefore, they are a necessary part of Christian reform and life correction"


 


Why would any thinking person be 'astounded' that a religion which is NOT Christianity would teach something NOT a Christian concept ???????? 


 


And will someone please give me a NT referent for the idea in blue above?  It is not a doctrine of Christianity with which I was previously familiar:  I'm always glad to learn more.

Flag world citizen August 26, 2013 3:49 PM EDT

Aug 26, 2013 -- 9:11AM, Ricky wrote:

Aug 25, 2013 -- 12:14PM, world citizen wrote:


Rick,


Thank you for acknowledging that indeed there were Bahais in the shah's circle as this is something often denied by many.


That was NOT what I indicated. You can count me as being among those Baha'is who also deny that "... there were Bahais [sic] in the shah's circle." There are many thousands of Americans working in departments of the federal government but a very, very select and miniscule few can be said to be in any given president's "circle". Please try not to paint scenarios with such a broad brush.


Now, as for the bodyguards, I have no specific knowledge of that fact. But an Iranian friend of mine (his now deceased father having been a professor of religion) is well acquainted with his country's history...


Again, if you have "no specific knowledge of that [as] fact," why do you continue spreading a false rumor? While I'm sure your Iranian friend IS probably familiar with that country's history, you might wish to consider the biases of those writing the history.


... He has previously indicated to me that the shah also had body guards from that cult.


That shouldn't be a surprise considering the fact the ayatollahs and recent regimes in Iran have been doing their best to suppress the Baha'i Faith in that country for years by all means possible. I think it was probably a good maneuver on their part. What better way to defame the Baha'is among the locals than to have the populace believe they were part and parcel of anything so intimately related to the shah, such as bodyguards and/or the dreaded secret police?


This is not a religion board, so I will make this brief and trust it will end here. I note you freely throw around the word "cult" re the Baha'i Faith. I believe Christianity was also considered a cult for its first few centuries, but I know of no other "cult" today having its scriptures printed in 700+ languages, being second only to Christianity in the number of locations where Baha'is reside around the globe, or having consultation status/offices in the U.N. All of this within a short 170 years of its inception.


As for Bahais, no I am NOT ignorant of that religion ... havng [sic] read several books by scholars of that religion. I have also had public debates with these scholars and defeated them ...


My only reaction to this pompous claim is absolute skepticism. Please cite the books, name the authors, and provide dates/places of such "public debates" in order to verify.


Respectfully, wc



Aug 26, 2013 -- 9:11AM, Ricky wrote:

You can count me as being among those Baha'is who also deny that "... there were Bahais [sic] in the shah's circle ... bodyguards ... SAVAK"


Very well. Others disagree. Wiki indicates that others have made that accusation:


Chehabi, H.E. (2008), "Anatomy of Prejudice", in Brookshaw, Dominic P.; Fazel, Seena B., The Baha'is of Iran: Socio-historical studies, New York, NY: Routledge, ISBN 0-203-00280-6


Bahá'ís as agents of the Shah's regime and its secret police


''Another criticism claims that the Bahá'ís, during the time of the Pahlavi dynasty, collaborated with the SAVAK, the Iranian secret police, and held positions of power in the government.[54] Even before the Iranian revolution, the Bahá'ís, viewed as the "other" in Iranian society, were held responsible by the rest of the Iranians for the abusive suppression by SAVAK and the Shah's unpopular policies.[55] After the revolution, the assertion that the Bahá'ís were agents of the Shah perhaps partly originates because Bahá'ís did not help the revolutionary groups, since one of the tenets of the Bahá'í Faith is to obey the government of one's country''


It should be noted that only the first sentence of the above is attributed to Chehabi, but the obfuscation lies in the fact that all of the above are "criticisms" and not evidentiary facts.

Aug 26, 2013 -- 9:11AM, Ricky wrote:

Again, I have no specific knowledge of this so I go by what others have written over the years. Perhaps you are one of those Bahais who denies it and this may explain why you do not agree.


Sadly, however, you choose NOT to go by what others have also written on the topic from the same Wikepedia article (emphases are mine):


"... the Bahá'í community in Iran was the victim of the Shah's regime, and that SAVAK was one of the main ways of persecuting the Bahá'ís... SAVAK also had links to Hojjatieh, a radical anti-Baha'i group ... the Shah gave Hojjatiehy free rein for their activities toward the Baha'is."[34]


"With regards to the accusation that Bahá'ís held many prominent positions in the government of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, there is no empirical study that endeavours to determine the truth of such an accusation. There were a number of individuals who were part of the government and who had Bahá'í backgrounds, but were not Bahá'ís themselves... While Asadullah Sanii, another Bahá'í, was appointed Minister of Defence, the Bahá'í community of Iran revoked his administrative rights — as he had accepted a political position and Bahá'ís are prohibited from involvement in partisan politics — the public, however, still continued to associate him with his previous religion."[54]


"... under the Pahlavi dynasty, the Baha'is were actually more a "political pawn" than a collaborator, and that Reza Shah's government toleration of Baha'is in the early 20th-century was more a sign of secular rule and an attempt to weaken clerical influence than a signal of favour for the Baha'is."[58]


"Chehabi notes that the allegations that half of the Shah's cabinet were Bahá'ís are fanciful and, given the persecution the Bahá'ís have suffered, irresponsible exaggerations."[54]


Aug 26, 2013 -- 9:11AM, Ricky wrote:

Please cite the books, name the authors, and provide dates/places of such "public debates" in order to verify.


These took place in a private home about 25 years ago. I remember reading a book written some time in the 1880s and another word "Gleanings" or something like that. Sorry I cannot remember for sure. If you don't want to believe it, that's fine with me.



In other words, your claim can't be verified but you have confirmed that they weren't "public debates." Twenty-five years ago I had high tea with someone very important from England but I, like you, also can't remember her name, the date, or where it took place... but I can assure all that it was one heckuva tea party!

Aug 26, 2013 -- 9:11AM, Ricky wrote:

One thing that does stand out for me is the claim that "miracles blunt the mind and dull the senses" - this was a teaching in one of the books. I was astounded that this cult - OK, this religion - would teach that because miracles in the New Testament represent the divine forgiveness of sin. Therefore, they are a necessary part of Christian reform and life correction. Bahais, as taught in that book (again, sorry, I cannot remember the name after almost 25 years) miracles are not supposed to happen and it alleged that a group was challenged to convert if they experienced a miracle of some kind. Afterwards, everyone in a group did so because one miracle was performed. No pictures or audio were presented in the book but that's what it said. Thus, no verification from them or from me.


As another Beliefnet moderator, I remind you - again - that this isn't a religion discussion board. If you wish to discuss the Baha'i stance on miracles, or anything else pertaining to the Baha'i Faith (including these allegations), please visit the Baha'i Discussion/Debate board. You obviously, however, have Baha'i teachings on this subject confused with another religion (cult?) you might have been investigating at the time, since Baha'is DO believe in the existence of miracles.

Flag NATAS August 26, 2013 4:42 PM EDT

Aug 26, 2013 -- 3:32PM, LeahOne wrote:


"I was astounded that this .... religion - would teach that, because miracles in the New Testament represent the divine forgiveness of sin.  Therefore, they are a necessary part of Christian reform and life correction"


 


Why would any thinking person be 'astounded' that a religio n which is NOT Christianity would teach something NOT a Christian concept ???????? 


Hey young lady, watch your language.   


We'll have none of that thinking stuff. 


I HaShem wanted us to think He would have given us a brain.  


Or at least a better brain than I have. 


 


And will someone please give me a NT referent for the idea in blue above?  It is not a doctrine of Christianity with which I was previously familiar:  I'm always glad to learn more.




He read it in the NT somewhere at sometime in the past.  


I have dabbled in xianity and read the NT  because miracles in the New Testament represent the divine forgiveness of sin.  and this is new to me. 


Of course their are appox 4,000+ variations. 


I mean look at the Christian(?)Mormon cult.


I mean Jesus Christ on toast, or a potato chip.  If thinking people believe in that cult....I mean religion then anything is possible. 


I wonder if anyone has seen an image of Moses on a bagel or matozah.   

Flag Ricky August 27, 2013 11:42 AM EDT

Aug 26, 2013 -- 3:32PM, LeahOne wrote:


"I was astounded that this .... religion - would teach that, because miracles in the New Testament represent the divine forgiveness of sin.  Therefore, they are a necessary part of Christian reform and life correction"


 


Why would any thinking person be 'astounded' that a religion which is NOT Christianity would teach something NOT a Christian concept ???????? 


 


And will someone please give me a NT referent for the idea in blue above?  It is not a doctrine of Christianity with which I was previously familiar:  I'm always glad to learn more.






~ not Christianity ~



Bahai claims it fulfills biblical prophecy:


www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religion...


"Unlike Mormonism and Islam, however, they claim that Baha'u'llah was not just a prophet but the actual Messiah and a fulfillment of the prophesied Second Coming.  This belief alone reveals serious flaws in their interpretation of the Bible.  The prophecies of the Bible that are yet to be fulfilled before Christ returns are simply reinterpreted or ignored to support their belief that the Messiah has already returned."


The literature I was given said this. 


~ the idea in blue ~


When Jesus healed people he frequently  said "thy sins are forgiven":



"Jesus' authority to heal the body testifies to his authority to forgive" - see,


www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentar...





Flag Ricky August 27, 2013 11:56 AM EDT

Aug 26, 2013 -- 3:49PM, world citizen wrote:

In other words, your claim can't be verified but you have confirmed that they weren't " public debates ."  Twenty-five years ago I had high tea with someone very important from England but I, like you, also can't remember her name, the date, or where it took place... but I can assure all that it was one heckuva tea party!   As another Beliefnet moderator, I remind you - again - that this isn't a religion discussion board.  If you wish to discuss the Baha'i stance on miracles, or anything else pertaining to the Baha'i Faith (including these allegations), please visit the Baha'i Discussion/Debate board.  You obviously, however, have Baha'i teachings on this subject confused with another religion (cult?) you might have been investigating at the time, since Baha'is DO believe in the existence of miracles.


Oh, they were "public" insofar as it was with Bahai scholars in one of their homes.  So long ago they are probably dead by now. Mind you I am the same age as RangerKen and these folks were older than I am.  But you are free to believe as you wish. As for the merits of your religion, I'll leave that up to a religion board as you say.


Edit: to get forum back on bounds.

Flag LeahOne August 27, 2013 1:53 PM EDT

"~ not Christianity ~


Bahai claims it fulfills biblical prophecy:


www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religion..."


 


The link leaves me wondering:  What kind of reliable and accurate information on a religion can be found at a site where the URL includes the hate speech of "False%20Religion" ?


I absolutely do not understand the idea of going to an *aplogetics* site for one religion, to look for worthwhile information on another. 


 


Did you never learn about proper study methodology?  This would have gotten anyone an 'F' in the class I took........

Flag NATAS August 27, 2013 9:37 PM EDT

 


Aug 26, 2013 -- 3:32PM, LeahOne wrote:


"I was astounded that this .... religion - would teach that, because miracles in the New Testament represent the divine forgiveness of sin.  Therefore, they are a necessary part of Christian reform and life correction"


 


Why would any thinking person be 'astounded' that a religion which is NOT Christianity would teach something NOT a Christian concept ???????? 


 


And will someone please give me a NT referent for the idea in blue above?  It is not a doctrine of Christianity with which I was previously familiar:  I'm always glad to learn more.






~ not Christianity ~



Bahai claims it fulfills biblical prophecy:


www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religion...


"Unlike Mormonism and Islam, however, they claim that Baha'u'llah was not just a prophet but the actual Messiah and a fulfillment of the prophesied Second Coming.  This belief alone reveals serious flaws in their interpretation of the Bible.  The prophecies of the Bible that are yet to be fulfilled before Christ returns are simply reinterpreted or ignored to support their belief that the Messiah has already returned."


The literature I was given said this. 


~ the idea in blue ~


When Jesus healed people he frequently  said "thy sins are forgiven":



"Jesus' authority to heal the body testifies to his authority to forgive" - see,


www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentar...







l


What is the connection between what you have posted and Islamophobia?


 


 


 




 

Flag LeahOne August 27, 2013 11:05 PM EDT

NATAS, the only connection I can think of is that the first link ricky gave us was a perfect example of the kind of hate speech found in works by the 'islamophobia industry' - only the object of *that* cyber blob o' feces was the Baha'i faith......which is interesting because the Baha'i tend to stay OUT of politics and do not proselytize.


Whatever "church" put that filth out on the Net needs to lose its tax-free status, and fast!  It's not 'religion', it's a hate group.

Flag Stardove August 28, 2013 2:02 AM EDT

Moderator Note: As far as US News & Politics this thread has run it's course and become one of religious debate.  Therefore the thread is being locked. 


You may continue discussion at the Discuss Forums. 


Thanks,


Beliefnet Moderation Team

Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook