Posted on 02/20/2006 8:57:32 PM PST by markman46
Muslims ask the West to agree that mocking a religion is unacceptable By Sabiha Khan Khan is communications director for the Southern California chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, based in anaheim l on American-Islamic Relations, based in anaheim For the past few weeks, Muslims from all over the world, from Morocco to Indonesia, have been protesting a series of cartoons that depict Islam's Prophet Muhammad in a most insulting and disparaging manner. While some protesters have resorted to violence, which Muslims wholly condemn, the majority of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims feel deeply hurt by these cartoons, and many have engaged in peaceful protests. To characterize the maelstrom as a "pro- vs. anti-free speech" issue is to misunderstand it. Muslims believe in freedom of speech and Islam advocates it. Muslims also know that if freedom of speech or expression were ever curtailed, they, as a minority group, might be among the first to fall victim. However, freedom of speech is not a pretext to incitement and hate. With freedom of speech comes great responsibility. Many in the West, including Americans, are perplexed as to how cartoons could enrage so many Muslims. Basically, there are religious and political reasons for the reaction.
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
In name and practice. They say these terrorists are not following Islam correctly. Different interpretations, and lack of terrorist mullahs to fill their heads with BS.
Since in order to follow the koran you must be a terrorist
BS. Where do you get that? The wars against the "infidels" in the Quran were on the battlefield.
they sure have not done a lot to EARN any respect have they
They should not take the cartoons as my only sign of contempt.
It involves taking land from others without payment. Theft is anti-Christian.
4. Only a member of the race can be a citizen.
Anti-Christian. Christianity does not recognize races.
7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens.
Socialist, and anti-Christian. It is each person's responsibility to provide for themselves and the church's responsibility to provide for those who cannot (note, not will not but cannot. Those who can but don't are to starve).
8. Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans, who have immigrated to Germany since the 2 August 1914, be forced immediately to leave the Reich.
Not great, but there is Christian precedent.
While not anti-Christian it is also not Christian. There is no precedent in the bible for this one way or another. What are you interpreting as Christian precedent? Chapter and verse please.
12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
Anti-Christian. Christianity does give authority to steal someone else's profits. 13. We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
Okay, that's not good, but I don't see where Christianity bans it.
Thou shalt not steal.
14.
Ditto.
ditto.
15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
Very Christian.
Anti-Christian. Every welfare type program where funds are stolen from one group to support another is theft. Thou shalt not steal. Now Christianity does command us to provide for the widow and the orphan but that is as a voluntary offering, not as a result of theft.
16. immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms,
This particular clause is anti-Christian. Thou shalt not steal
17. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
Eminent domain, no property tax (yippie!), but there's the socialist bit on an end to speculation. Still, not anti-Christian.
Eminent domain is anti-Christian. Thou shalt not steal. (are you detecting the pattern here? One common to all leftist movements?)
18.
Pro death penalty. Many Christians wouldn't consider that Christian.
Christian. Romans 13:1-6. And an extensive body of old testament scripture giving civil authorities the power to execute criminals.
20. (state education)
We do it here, except for the monopoly part.
Haven't studied this one enough to be sure. My initial impression is anti-Christian as it removes the parents from being responsible for training the child
24. We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: common utility precedes individual utility.
Wow, for positive Christianity stated right there.
But also slams Judaism which all Christians must be. We are grafted into the Jews. Also note that just because something claims to be Christian doesn't make it so.
Some neutral points but far too many anti-Christian points to be considered Christian.
For the sake of argument however, lets assume that Joe German signs up without realizing the implications of all that. As soon as he realizes that the entire platform is built on theft or as soon as he learns of the German campaign against the Jewish people, or the eugenics work, or the annexation by force of various territories, he is required to quit the party. It comes down to a choice of Jesus or those German politics. They are mutually exclusive.
This is exactly like the dichotomy between Christianitya nd the democrat party. the democrats have all these nice sounding words that sound so Christian yet the party platform is pro-abortion (Thou shalt not murder), pro-homosexuality (Bible calls it an abomination), anti-family, and anti-Christian (ACLU are all democrats). You can't be Christian and democrat
That's not how the koran reads. It says to fight the unbeliever near to you etc. Read it and study a bit. all the applicable suras and this discussion have been posted multiple times before. I haven't the time right at the moment to take you by the hand and teach you what every one should know already.
nor mine, I just plain don't trust any of 'em, and for quite awhile in the Apt Complex we had many Paki's living there. it was quite an eye opening experence, especialy with the teens, got a lot of dirty looks from them.
Yep, you're playing "No True Scotsman." What gave you the right to define what Christianity is, and who is and isn't a Christian? Did God come down and anoint you?
and then do what he tells you not to do (Thou shalt not murder).
Exactly, murder. Once you believe that it isn't murder, like necessary deaths in a war to save unborn children, then you're free to kill. It's the same way our troops aren't murderers and capital punishment isn't murder.
Contrast this to the moslem terrorists that do exactly what their scriptures tell them to do (fight with the unbeliever wherever you find him. etc)
That's the interpretation. There are other passages they ignore that say to live in peace with others. It's the same way we can get the Christian minister Fred Phelps ("God Hates Fags") and other Christian churches that accept homosexuals.
The taliban was the purest form of islam we've seen.
The Taliban had a lot of local tribal influences. It was far from pure.
So, all early American settlers and our early American government was not Christian.
Anti-Christian. Christianity does not recognize races.
In the current view of most, but the Bible was used to support slavery and racism.
Socialist, and anti-Christian.
It said providing the opportunity, like our "pursuit" of happiness, not a guarantee.
While not anti-Christian it is also not Christian. There is no precedent in the bible for this one way or another. What are you interpreting as Christian precedent? Chapter and verse please.
Doesn't have to be chapter and verse. This was the thinking of your Christian forebears, done in the name of Christianity by those who defined what Christianity was.
Anti-Christian. Christianity does give authority to steal someone else's profits.
War profits, considered to be illegally gotten gains, certainly subject to forfeiture just as we make a criminal do restitution.
Thou shalt not steal.
Tell that to the IRS. What is stealing is defined by the government.
Anti-Christian. Every welfare type program where funds are stolen from one group to support another is theft.
Sort of like church tithes going to help the poor?
This particular clause is anti-Christian. Thou shalt not steal
See above.
Eminent domain is anti-Christian. Thou shalt not steal. (are you detecting the pattern here? One common to all leftist movements?)
Eminent domain (in concept) is not theft with compensation. It is a forced sale.
Christian. Romans 13:1-6. And an extensive body of old testament scripture giving civil authorities the power to execute criminals.
We're also told to shave the head of a woman who enters a church with her head uncovered. Do we still do that?
Haven't studied this one enough to be sure. My initial impression is anti-Christian as it removes the parents from being responsible for training the child
Possibly. I don't know enough either.
But also slams Judaism which all Christians must be. We are grafted into the Jews. Also note that just because something claims to be Christian doesn't make it so.
You don't remember Christian persecution of the Jews throughout the ages? And it didn't just state Christianity, it required it.
Some neutral points but far too many anti-Christian points to be considered Christian.
According to modern-day pansy Christian thinking among most. Come on, get back to your roots. Or, rather, don't, because that's where Islam is stuck.
As soon as he realizes that the entire platform is built on theft
Know the circumstances. Basically, theft had been done against these people after WWI, with mainly France setting up terms that destroyed their nation. They were desperate and wanted back what they had before.
or as soon as he learns of the German campaign against the Jewish people
Merely reviving an old Christian custom of Jewish persecution.
or the eugenics work
Few there knew about that work, which was based on our own.
or the annexation by force of various territories
Which were considered stolen German lands to be regained, then they were attacked for doing so, then they had to defend themselves.
It comes down to a choice of Jesus or those German politics. They are mutually exclusive.
According to you, one Christian among billions, 80 years later.
pro-homosexuality (Bible calls it an abomination),
Yet it says to love they neighbor and forgive the sinner.
and anti-Christian (ACLU are all democrats).
The ACLU has defended the rights of many Christians to practice their faith.
That is how some of it reads. It is internally contradictory. People who want violence will follow the violent parts, while people who want peace will follow the peaceful parts. The cause of terrorism isn't the book, it's what's in the hearts of those interpreting it.
No He gave us the bible which lays it out pretty clearly.
Once you believe that it isn't murder, like necessary deaths in a war to save unborn children, then you're free to kill.
Does that mean if you don't believe that gravity keeps you on the ground you can fly? Your beliefs cannot change the truth. According to the bible only those in civil authority are allowed to order executions. So if the abortion bomber etc is not executing the abortionist (and we know he is not because he has no authority to do so) then he is murdering the abortionist. Anti-Christian
It's the same way our troops aren't murderers and capital punishment isn't murder.
Both of these are performed under the authority given to rulers. The government is given biblical authority (See Romans 13:1-6 again) for executions. War is covered under several different scriptures.
That's the interpretation. There are other passages they ignore that say to live in peace with others.
Reading the whole of the koran and the whole of the hadith leads one to accept the chronologically later, more violent suras as the more correct ones. As mohammed (piss be upon him) gained strength and was able to be harsher to those around him, he became harsher. Islam is a sham religion but the more violent suras were the last word from mohammed (Piss buh). If they are going to follow him then they need to heed his last words.
It's the same way we can get the Christian minister Fred Phelps ("God Hates Fags") and other Christian churches that accept homosexuals.
phelps is definitely not a Christian. His actions again speak louder than his words. God doesn't hate fags. He hates what they do, but he loves them. (I've seen reported that phelps may even be a pro-homosexual front group intended to discredit Christianity. No evidence but it fits the homosexual agenda's methods)
The Taliban had a lot of local tribal influences. It was far from pure.
It was the closest practice of islam in accordance with the koran. As I said, the purest form of islam we've seen.
According to your interpretation, which is different from others. Please restrain yourself from using the "No True Scotsman" fallacy in debate.
According to the bible only those in civil authority are allowed to order executions.
Where do you get that? Okay, another one, you see a man about to slit a little girl's throat, so you shoot him in the head. Is that allowed? Our bomber merely stopped those who were killing people.
If they are going to follow him then they need to heed his last words.
Why? Christians still follow the 10 Commandments, some of the earliest words. In fact, they use it almost exclusively, rarely mentioning Christ's six commandments in Matthew.
phelps is definitely not a Christian.
According to your judgement (and, to be honest, mine too). But we are not the arbiters of who is and is not Christian because we cannot lay claim to the knowledge of God's thinking behind those passages.
It was the closest practice of islam in accordance with the koran.
Most of shari'a would be thrown out in a "pure" Islam, one that followed only the Quran, which itself stated it was the complete and perfect message of Allah, needing no addition (like Hadith, from which much of shari'a is derived). Allah actually chastized Mohammed for making up rules that were not Allah's and for those who would alter its message and make up rules beyond it, especially to prohibit what Allah has allowed, they are "agressors" ("Allah dislikes the agressors" 5:87).
Given that, Muslim women are ordered to cover their breasts and dress modestly, wear longer garments and not expose their bodies except that which they think is necessary. The hijab and Taliban ghost-costume are not required. The were, however, part of local custom.
Women in the Quran are also not prohibited from working or owning businesses (they are specifically allowed to make and spend their own money in the Quran), and the total segregation of men and women was completely fabricated. As far as education, the Quran encourages all Muslims to learn.
The Taliban were a bunch of backwoods barbarians who did what they wanted and called it Islam. A "pure" Muslim would have to consider Hadith and shari'a "man-made books" as opposed to the only book that matters, God's book, and therefore lacking authority.
A government cannot be Christian. Christian is defined as following Christ and having a personal relationship with him as Lord and Savior. People are Christians, organizations are not.
I'm not sure how the indians of that time looked on the land. I don't think they had the concept of owning the land. So if they didn't own it then no theft occured
me->Christianity does not recognize races.
you->In the current view of most, but the Bible was used to support slavery and racism.
Col 3:11. No races in Christ. Slavery is allowed under Christianity, that is, there is no biblical injunction against it that I'm aware of. Racism is not as there are no races. We are not to look at the outer appearance but at the inner person.
me-> What are you interpreting as Christian precedent? Chapter and verse please.
you->Doesn't have to be chapter and verse. This was the thinking of your Christian forebears, done in the name of Christianity by those who defined what Christianity was.
The Catholic Church at one time promoted the concept of indulgences. There is no biblical basis for these things. Just because someone says a practice is Christian doesn't make it so. The ONLY thing we have to rely on as to what is Christian or not is the bible. If it's not in the bible then there is no precedent. The Crusades were done in the name of Christianity also, but they were anti-Christian. No biblical support for them at all. Many atrocities were commited through the years in the name of Christianity, but all which were not supported by the bible were anti-Christian.
The key difference between Christianity and islam is that atrocities done in the name of Christianity violate the bible while atrocities done in the name of islam are commanded by the koran.
Thou shalt not steal.
Tell that to the IRS. What is stealing is defined by the government.
I agree. All income taxes are theft. property taxes are theft. I can see a sales tax but that's about it.
me->Anti-Christian. Every welfare type program where funds are stolen from one group to support another is theft.
you->Sort of like church tithes going to help the poor?
The tithe is paid voluntarily. taxes are paid by threat of force.
me->Christian. Romans 13:1-6. And an extensive body of old testament scripture giving civil authorities the power to execute criminals.
you->We're also told to shave the head of a woman who enters a church with her head uncovered. Do we still do that?
I'm not getting your point. Should civil authorities NOT have the power to execute? What does women praying with their heads covered have to do with that. (For those interested the rule that women should pray with their heads covered comes out of standrad practice in that day among the Jews and the early Christians. A woman with short hair was seen as lewd and shameful. What Paul is saying here is that the woman should adhere to local standards of decency in her appearance. (this based on John Gill expository, Matthew Henry Commentary and Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Commentary))
You don't remember Christian persecution of the Jews throughout the ages? And it didn't just state Christianity, it required it.
Persecution of the Jews was anti-Christian. Again, demanding Christian is not the same as being Christian.
According to modern-day pansy Christian thinking among most. Come on, get back to your roots.
I am back at my roots. The bible defines Christianity. Not what other 'Christians' have done, not what other people have said.
Know the circumstances. Basically, theft had been done against these people after WWI, with mainly France setting up terms that destroyed their nation. They were desperate and wanted back what they had before.
so? How does that excuse theft against those in Germany who were going to be stolen from.
Merely reviving an old Christian custom of Jewish persecution.
Which we've already seen is not Christian
Which were considered stolen German lands to be regained, then they were attacked for doing so, then they had to defend themselves.
France? Poland? Belgium? Hungary? etc
me->It comes down to a choice of Jesus or those German politics. They are mutually exclusive.
you->According to you, one Christian among billions, 80 years later.
No, According to biblical definition. If you can't see that then it's really no use carrying on. The Nazis were socialists. Socialism is anti-Christian.
The ACLU has defended the rights of many Christians to practice their faith.
I waded through the whole post for this one comment.
I'm unaware of any Christian that's been helped by the ACLU. I know of lots of times that they've attacked Christians but none that they've helped us. Now I know that even a blind pig finds an acorn sometimes so there may be one or two. Educate me. How has the ACLU helped Christians?
Typo. I meant those running our government. As far as weasling out of the definition of theft, settlers did buy Manhattan from the Indians, which would mean they had the concept that their land had value and could be sold.
there is no biblical injunction against it that I'm aware of. Racism is not as there are no races. The Bible merely regulated slavery. However, it was used to support racism under the interpretation that blacks are the descendants of Ham. It's not one I agree with, but it was popular for a time.
Many atrocities were commited through the years in the name of Christianity, but all which were not supported by the bible were anti-Christian.
That's the problem, they were supported in the Bible according to the interpretations of those in power at the time. Be glad you don't live back then, or you'd be executed as a heretic.
The key difference between Christianity and islam is that atrocities done in the name of Christianity violate the bible while atrocities done in the name of islam are commanded by the koran.
Under certain cherry-picking interpretations.
I'm not getting your point. Should civil authorities NOT have the power to execute? What does women praying with their heads covered have to do with that.
They should be able to execute. My point was that even Christians today disagree on what the Bible means. The heads-covered shows that Christians either don't follow rules today or interpret them out of effectiveness.
The bible defines Christianity. Not what other 'Christians' have done, not what other people have said.
That's a problem with the terrorist Muslims today, they don't read for themselves, only listen to those with a murderous agenda.
France? Poland? Belgium? Hungary? etc
Through the years, German territory and people comprised much of north and central Europe, including a good chunk of what is modern-day France and Poland and some Eastern countries.
Educate me. How has the ACLU helped Christians?
From the ACLU site:
September 20, 2005: ACLU of New Jersey joins lawsuit supporting second-grader's right to sing "Awesome God" at a talent show.
August 4, 2005: ACLU helps free a New Mexico street preacher from prison.
February 2005: ACLU of Pennsylvania successfully defends the right of an African American Evangelical church to occupy a church building purchased in a predominantly white parish.
December 22, 2004: ACLU of New Jersey successfully defends right of religious expression by jurors.
November 20, 2004: ACLU of Nevada supports free speech rights of evangelists to preach on the sidewalks of the strip in Las Vegas.
November 9, 2004: ACLU of Nevada defends a Mormon student who was suspended after wearing a T-shirt with a religious message to school.
August 11, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska defends church facing eviction by the city of Lincoln.
July 10, 2004: Indiana Civil Liberties Union defends the rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets.
June 3, 2004: Under pressure from the ACLU of Virginia, officials agree not to prohibit baptisms on public property in Falmouth Waterside Park in Stafford County.
May 11, 2004: After ACLU of Michigan intervened on behalf of a Christian Valedictorian, a public high school agrees to stop censoring religious yearbook entries.
March 25, 2004: ACLU of Washington defends an Evangelical minister's right to preach on sidewalks.
February 21, 2003: ACLU of Massachusetts defends students punished for distributing candy canes with religious messages.
October 28, 2002: ACLU of Pennsylvania files discrimination lawsuit over denial of zoning permit for African American Baptist church.
July 11, 2002: ACLU supports right of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at school.
April 17, 2002: In a victory for the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the ACLU of Virginia, a federal judge strikes down a provision of the Virginia Constitution that bans religious organizations from incorporating.
January 18, 2002: ACLU defends Christian church's right to run "anti-Santa" ads in Boston subways.
There are the pro-Christian ones listed just for the last few years. IIRC that juror case was with Christians, as were the candy canes.
Thanks for the info anyway. I wouldn't soil myself by going to their site. (In fact the thought never even crossed my mind)
In the last few years, and there are other recent ones not in that short list (like the Catholic guy who was put in jail for not wanting to complete a Pentacostal rehab program where part of the program was religious conversion). You probably don't like them going after ID, prayer in schools, vouchers (I don't like that one either), and protecting Muslims. You like that they defended the Christian valedictorian, but think it's anti-Christian of them to defend the Wiccan student.
You never hear of those because they don't make big news in the right-wing press. It doesn't fit with the view of the ACLU as anti-Christian in everything they do.
I just think they go overboard too often.
hated to post an run
Good job. Lots of interest in it.
yes I see that. I really didn't think at the time, this would take off 136 posts and counting WOW
It is interesting how frequently people bring up Christianity when discussing Islamists. It's really not a valid comparison.
If we look at the teachings of the central figures it becomes clear. Jesus taught to turn the other cheek. He taught to feed and pray for our enemies. He taught to not take our own revenge, but to leave justice to God. Muhammad taught and practiced the opposite of these traits. Muhammad taught strategies of war, division of loot, the taking of slaves.
So, when you have a handful of extremists that blow up an abortion clinic they are NOT acting in accordance with their professed faith. When you have islamists blowing things up, looting, threatening people's lives they ARE acting in accordance with the teachings of their religion.
So the few fringe "christians" you reference aren't acting AS "Christians". The much larger "fringe"...perhaps even a plurality of all muslims that act out or support acting out in a violent way IS acting in accordance with Islam.
Good graphic Phil!
JIHAD WATCH.org (AP): "CAIR, ACLU SUE TO STOP DOMESTIC SPYING PROGRAM" (ARTICLE SNIPPET: "The Detroit suit, which also names the NSA, was filed by the ACLU, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Greenpeace and several individuals.") (January 17, 2006)
CNS NEWS.com: "ISLAMIC GROUP CALLS FOR USE OF KORAN TO TAKE OATH" by Melanie Hunter (ARTICLE SNIPPET: "An Islamic civil rights and advocacy group is calling on North Carolina judges to allow people to use the Koran when taking an oath, saying the use of the Bible exclusively represents "an inappropriate state endorsement of religion." The request by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) comes after Guilford County judges said they would not allow use of Korans in their courtrooms.") (June 21, 2005)
CNS NEWS.com: "FREE KORANS FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE" by Susan Jones (ARTICLE SNIPPET: "Over the weekend, CAIR held a conference in the Washington area on the causes and remedies of "Islamophobia and anti-Americanism."") (May 17, 2005)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.