Posted on 09/03/2006 10:56:41 PM PDT by Tamar1973
As the war on terror heads into its sixth year, a new racial stereotype is emerging in America. Brown-skinned men with beards and women with head scarves are seen as "Muslims" -- regardless of their actual faith or nationality.
Law enforcement measures, politicians, religious leaders and the media have contributed to stereotyping Muslims as a race -- echoing the painful history of another faith.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Terrorists do. Muslims don't.
Eric Rudolph confused his terrorism with Christianity. Decent Christians understood there was a difference.
Turkey is on its way towards being a poorer Saudi Arabia. At this point it is only a matter of time, the trend is clear.
Name a "Muslim" country that is becoming less Muslim in its practices?
Again, they are all drifting towards the same result.
So it is really only a matter of time on which "choice" I would be tolerated in before it would come to a head.
Your guess is as good as mine. But your guess will be an uninformed one.
I mean the real Inquisition, but the article makes a good point that mob rule and state courts in Christian countries were at many times even harder on Europe's (and the Americas') Jews and Muslims. Thanks for pointing that out.
That's been the case for quite some time. The media (especially the Jihad Media) doesn't cover it so well, and you're probably not combing the papers and the internet looking for examples. Expect to see quite a few in the next week as we approach the anniversary of 9-11.
If a Muslim country becomes increasingly "less Muslim", it will cease to be a Muslim country, no? That then renders the question moot.
I think what you meant to ask for is a Muslims country that is not Islamist. Turkey for now, although I don't expect the Turks will slide towards theocracy. Morocco is one, although the monarchy's pace of democratic reform is glacial. Albania, I believe. Senegal and Mali are becoming more Muslim (in that the percentage of citizens who are Muslims has been steadily increasing over the last century) and also more democratic. Albania is the same way, coming out from a long Maoist shadow of official atheism. Bangladesh, although I'm not too sure about that one. And for all their problems, the Lebanese will rebuild their country again.
Again, they are all drifting towards the same result.
You seem to believe that a Muslim majority makes for an inevitable theocracy. That's your opinion, but the facts are against you.
No, it's simple logic: Giving up your freedom makes you less secure, not more. We won't lock ourselves away know and we shouldn't have locked Americans of Japanese ancestry away in the 1940s.
So criticizing the Spanish Inquisition and criticizing the terrorist Eric Rudolph is "Christian-bashing"? Come on...
Apion was an Egyptian.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1641&letter=A
Please understand that I'm not saying Christianity is inherently anti-Semetic (or pro-terrorist, etc.). Nor am I saying that all Christians are anti-Semites, terrorists, etc. I am saying that Christians (self-proclaimed Christians at least) have been terrorizing Jews since before the crusades and some (David Duke, for example) continue to do so today. That's not Chritian bashing.
Thanks for bringing that to my attention. (As much as you can "thank" anyone for bringing anit-Semitism to your attention...) I only skimmed it, but it seems that Apion was not a Christian.
You can try to dodge it, but the thematic undertones of your posts are clear. Eric Rudolph's name is typically invoked by people who want to equate the scourge of thousands of Muslim terrorists with the relatively insignificant non-threat of the one Christian terrorist they can think of. It's one of those "b-b-but Christians are just as likely to commit violence as Muslims" things.
This is rich.
Frankly, it's anti-Semitic to deny that there was a great deal of anti-Semitism in Christian Europe for over 1000 years.
Eric Rudolph was a terrorist and Jews were persecuted in Europe for over a thousand years. That's an undeniable truth. That these people claimed to be good Christians is neither my doing. Nor is the fact that they weren't good Christians my fault. If you want to criticize me for reminding your that terrorists can claim to be Christians, that's your choice. If you want to accuse me of bashing Christians based on my criticism of Rudolph et al, then you are using the reputations of over a billion innocent and God-fearing Christians in order to defend anti-Semites, murderers and terrorists.
Eric Rudolph's name is typically invoked by people who want to equate the scourge of thousands of Muslim terrorists with the relatively insignificant non-threat of the one Christian terrorist they can think of.
I mentioned Eric Rudolph's name because you seem to think that "Muslim" means "terrorist" and vice-versa. Erick Rudolph was clearly a terrorist and he was not a Muslim. Nor was he a "relatively insignificant non-threat" during his reigh of terror. He did, after all, bomb the Olympic games.
It's one of those "b-b-but Christians are just as likely to commit violence as Muslims" things.
If that's how you want to see it, that's your error. I think the numbers prove you wrong.
Nothing makes me thin that David Duke is a Christian. What worries me is that he thinks that he's a Christian and so do his followers -- and the more uninformed among his critics.
Similarly, what makes you think that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was a Muslim?
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.