Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SedVictaCatoni

There is, for your information, a great deal of difference between what one would call "Islamic" and what is "Islamist".

Perhaps labelling certain Christians as "Christianist" might be in order here. Unless of course, Christianity has no faults, and Christianity has nothing negative to own up to.


8 posted on 01/24/2005 10:21:44 AM PST by StottNikk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: StottNikk
There is, for your information, a great deal of difference between what one would call "Islamic" and what is "Islamist".

Yes. I agree completely. That is precisely what I said in the post you responded to.

9 posted on 01/24/2005 10:22:59 AM PST by SedVictaCatoni (<><)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: StottNikk

Name one difference, please, I would really like to know. Been searching for a difference for years, and nobody has been able to point one out, yet.


15 posted on 01/24/2005 10:36:29 AM PST by thoughtomator (Meet the new Abbas, same as the old Abbas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: StottNikk

Guilt by complicity. If a radical branch of Christianity went rogue and started blowing up stuff and beheading people in the name of Christianity, it would be incumbent upon those who professed the faith to reject utterly and loudly the acts of those acting blasphemously in Christ's Name.

If a radical branch of Judaism went haywire and began strangling people in their sleep, or burning churches and mosques, it would be incumbent upon the faithful to condemn these acts without caveat or condition.

I could repeat this vis-a-vis each other major religion of the world ad nauseum, but the point is made:

Islamism is a cancer. There's more than irony in the rhetorical question, "If not all muslims are terrorists, why does it seem all terrorists are muslim?"

There are obvious exceptions, but they are comparatively rare. IRA, (Christian,) and Basques come to mind. But again, look at the scope! Local issues versus global ones. Look at the numbers involved. Look at the absolute and total disregard for casualties, civilian, Muslim, or non-muslim.

I would never deny somebody their religious freedom, but I'd damn sure hold the mainstream Muslim accountable for their comparative silence on the acts of those who worship at the same altar.


17 posted on 01/24/2005 10:40:32 AM PST by Heavyrunner (Socialize this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: StottNikk
"Unless of course, Christianity has no faults. .

No, Christianity has no faults; some of the people who practice Christianity do.

31 posted on 01/24/2005 10:58:33 AM PST by jackibutterfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: StottNikk
"Perhaps labelling certain Christians as "Christianist" might be in order here. Unless of course, Christianity has no faults, and Christianity has nothing negative to own up to."

Let's put it this way:

On a scale of 1-10 -- from good-worse -- Christianity comes in at around "2", while the "Religion of Peace Death" comes in at about "11".

32 posted on 01/24/2005 10:58:51 AM PST by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: StottNikk
"Perhaps labelling certain Christians as "Christianist" might be in order here. Unless of course, Christianity has no faults, and Christianity has nothing negative to own up to."

Sure, some in the 'name of Christ' haven't done the right thing, but the point is that when they have done so it was in direct contradiction of scripture. Condemning Christianity for some crime committed in its name by a person not true to it is like condemning all Doctors because Jack Kevorkian is a Doctor (well a Pathologist anyway).

Christianity, i.e., the New Testament, prescribes how one is to love God, and how to love (you know, the brotherly type) their fellow man. It is significant that one of the temptations of Christ was to refuse political dominion. Political dominion was precisely what Mohammad gained. Search high and low, forwards and backwards through the New Testament and find me one single passage even suggesting some sort of political involvement. Now try the Koran. There were no attempts to overthrow the Romans and establish a Christian state with 'Christian law'. Islam was born of political conquest. No where can you or will you find any suggestion in the New Testament that a Christian is to physically or politically coerce the behavior of another. Christianity is essentially about people of free will freely choosing to follow Him. To force others to follow Him would be meaningless. Tell that to the religion police of Saudi Arabia.

Sorry for the distasteful analogy: but where violence and coercion have been involved by zealots in history, the name of Christianity has been the unwilling victim of rape while Islam has been a whore.
45 posted on 01/24/2005 11:05:56 AM PST by WmDonovan (http://www.geocities.com/thelawndaletimes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson