Embarrassed

January 27, 2007 | AdamSmithWasRight

[AdamSmithWasRight]

As I read the news day in and day out from my perspective of being on the inside looking out, I look at my own home and couldn't be any more embarrassed than I currently am. It has been compounded from 9/11 by constant images and stories in the media about the actions of the Muslim community.

I must admit to myself if I was on the outside looking in I would probably look at myself in the same way so many others do. If all I saw were nihilistic thugs raping, robbing, murdering, and littering the streets of the world with the bodies of innocent people I wouldn't know what else to think of this group of people for religion.

As I now sit inside of the United States I find myself looking at this house in two perspectives. At times from the inside looking out and wanting to escape for this image that has haunts me day in and day out but also at times from the outside looking in. It is these proud patriotic times when religion takes the passenger seat or well I should say, isn't even in the car, that I look at that house and think, "Don't you people get it???"

At moments like this I realize and force myself to accept the reality that the real problem here is the Muslim community itself. It is no longer the fundamentalsits or Al-Qaeda alone, rather the very community itself that has failed to deliver or even show an attempt to remedy this nihilistic ideology within their ranks. As an American but also as a Muslim I would like to convey my most sincere apologies although I know to most this are just empty words in light of the death and injury of so many. For most we have reached a point where apologies and words will do nothing but further agitate the situation. Rather what is needed is action.

It is this which I do recognize and wish deliver, but I realize that I can only do this with help from others. I would hope that the American people, my brothers and sisters, would not so easily give up on the Bush doctrine of changing the face of the middle east where this dangerous threat to world civility and humanity is found. If we hope to find change I believe we can only find it in the overthrowing and or absolute destruction of the very regimes and elements that support this authoritarinism from within their midst. As long as we hold on to the Bush doctrine I honestly believe that we can one day watch the purple fingers of freedom wave from Morocco to Indonesia.

Until that day, if it comes, I apologize my friends and ask you to stick with the President and his vision for a new middle east.

[Ditto]

The framework of the US government was designed by people with a Christian worldview to govern people with a Christian worldview.

No, it was an Enlightenment philosophy that was pretty much limited to Northwestern Europe and North America. That philosophy grew more from the horrors of 250 years of inter-Christian bloodletting than it did from scriptural teachings.

The men who developed it were not "anti-Religion" (most were deeply religious) but they understood from history and often from their own experience, that mixing religion and state was a recipe for oppression.

In the 18th Century, the "Christians" of Berlin, Moscow, Madrid, Budapest or Rome could not have produced the Constitution any more than the Saudis could do it today.

The Constitution was based upon philosophy, not dogma.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

I agree with you...to a point.
Without getting into a HUGE theological discussion here, I will simply say that as a Christian, I do my best to live by the lessons given us in the Bible.
However, though I do believe what it has to say about Life, the Universe and Everything, I do not wish to conduct my life in accordance with a great many of the "laws" laid down in the Bible. The Ten Commandments are one thing but a careful reading of the rest of the Bible will show that much of it does not translate well to our times.
Much is the same with the Quran. The Islam we see clearest from day to day is Radical Islamofascism and it must be rooted out and destroyed. Period.
It is incumbent upon moderate Muslims like the author of the above article to see the light and come forth and denounce radical Islam and join us in the fight to eradicate it. If they do, victory will be ours. Without them, our struggle will be more than difficult. We must help them to help us rather than continually condemning them. Just my personal opinion.

[anglian]

John Quincy Adams:

"In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant… While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and goodwill towards men.

[anglian]

John Quincy Adams, 1829:

"The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force".

[anglian]

Winston Churchill, 1899:

“The religion of Islam above all others was founded upon the sword … Moreover it provides incentives to slaughter, and in three continents has produced fighting breeds of men - filled with a wild and merciless fanaticism”.

[anglian]

John Wesley 1703-91:

"Ever since the religion of Islam appeared in the world, the espousers of it...have been as wolves and tigers to all other nations, rending and tearing all that fell into their merciless paws, and grinding them with their iron teeth; that numberless cities are raised from the foundation, and only their name remaining; that many countries, which were once as the garden of God, are now a desolate wilderness; and that so many once numerous and powerful nations are vanished from the earth! Such was, and is at this day, the rage, the fury, the revenge, of these destroyers of human kind".

[AdamSmithWasRight]

Well isn't that your own interpretation and personal opinion about Islam? You have your freedom of speech but your first ammendment right can not infringe upon mine in freely exercising my Constitutional right as an American.

[anglian]

William Eaton, US Consul to Tunis, 1799:

"Considered as a nation, they are deplorably wretched, because they have no property in the soil to inspire an ambition to cultivate it. They are abject slaves to the despotism of their government, and they are humiliated by tyranny, the worst of all tyrannies, the despotism of priestcraft. They live in more solemn fear of the frowns of a bigot who has been dead and rotten above a thousand years, than of the living despot whose frown would cost them their lives…The ignorance, superstitious tradition and civil and religious tyranny, which depress the human mind here, exclude improvement of every kind…"

[StructuredChaos]

"Christianity, not a word of it - has been changed."
99.99 percent in the literal sense has not been changed. But, to nit pick and thereby avoid your point. It has changed literally, additions here, redactions there, exclusions yonder and variations hither.. King James, NIV ......council of Nic....

In any event, to fairly address your point, the underlying texts are amazingly accurate, unchanged, and preserved. But please lets not go into this type of discussion because it is a subject unto itself. Nonetheless, while literally unchanged, point conceded here, kinda, the interpretation and teaching and focus have changed.

"It BROUGHT democracy to the western world....". The process was a bit more dynamic than this. Certainly, the protestants, Lutheranism, and other influences had much to do with the creation of democracy. But so to did philosophy, competition among political structures .... Increased middle class of merchants... Advances in technology allowing for dissemination of information and the like.

Japan has a democracy. It is the product of an A bomb though and not the kind word of Christianity. Of course you could propose that because Christian America nuked em and forced democracy upon them that Japan's democracy is the function of Christianity. But, I'm not sure I'd like this characterization of Christianity as a nukem and convertem to democracy religion of peace. Further, in fairness, I think your point was that the idea and precepts of Democracy find their roots in Christianity and then the idea of Democracy was spread.

Funny thing here though is that you refer to different a brand of Christianity, protestantism. And this is but one of many that emerged over time. Ironically, such brands are factual testament to the fact that Christianity, its interpretation, focus and observance, have indeed changed over time.

In any event, I way over simplified matters. But I just didn't have it in me to write another 1000 words and so I compromised on just trying to get the thrust of my point across albeit at the expense of accuracy. And now I'm here on Friday, after 5, when I could be half way home. Blast you!

So cut me some slack, Zach :). And, may your cows not produce milk. And yes, I know you can debate most everything I wrote above..... But I won't be here to hear you :)... TGIF

[anglian]

The Koran demands perpetual war against all who deny Mahomet as the prophet of God - John Quincy Adams

Only by force can Muhammad's false doctrines be dispelled and his power annihilated - John Quincy Adams

Muhammad's doctrine was violence and lust: to exalt the brutal over the spritual - John Quincy Adams

While the merciless dogmas of Muhammad remain there can never be peace upon earth - John Quincy Adams

Treachery and violence are taught as principles of Mohamet's religion - John Quincy Adams

Open proclamation of hatred is the foundation of a Mahometen's discourse - John Quincy Adams

The sword of extermination is instinct with the spirit of the Koran - John Quincy Adams

[I got the rope]

We can spend all day going over the circular language of the Koran. The Koran never states "The Law" specifically, but it does mention each one individually in it's own way.

The Koran tells you that the Bible is the true revelation from God, but then rejects Christ. Circular. The Koran tells you to believe in the teaching of the Bible, but the Bible teaches it is the final revelation for man. Circular again. I could go on and on.

Incidently...the Koran teaches that Mohammed was the Master Planner (Deceiver), but the Bible teaches that the Master Deceiver is Satan.

[gogeo]

Welcome.

[I got the rope]

Whoops...I meant allah was the Master Planner (deceiver) not mohammed.

[edcoil]

You read through 206 post for this --

[gcruse]

Freedom from want sounds socialistic to me. On googling the four freedoms, I was unsurprised to find this to be from Franklin Roosevelt and even less surprising, a liberal pillar. Freedom of speech, yes, but it's not the function of government to keep one from want.

[I got the rope]

Sura 8:12: ....I will throw terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved. You may strike them above the necks, and you may strike even every finger.

I'm not infringing on any of your rights...even though your religion would infringe upon mine.

[gogeo]

It is incumbent upon moderate Muslims like the author of the above article to see the light and come forth and denounce radical Islam and join us in the fight to eradicate it. If they do, victory will be ours. Without them, our struggle will be more than difficult. We must help them to help us rather than continually condemning them. Just my personal opinion...

I agree.

I think our differences with radical Islam will come to a shooting war. If there are those Muslims who don't buy the program, then it's in everyone's interest that they separate themselves. If ASWR is one, then I wish him well and success. It's something that, ultimately, he and like minded Muslims will have to do for themselves. I'm persuadable.

Sept 10, 2001 was a milestone. I remember writing on a blog, "Muslims are making a bad impression, at a time when we are impressionable indeed." My skepticism was born of 1,000 interviews and articles about Islam and terrorism by any number of dissembling, duplicitous hacks. Like it or not, CAIR is the voice of Muslims in America. I have read any number of articles which explained that my ignorance of Islam was the problem.

Without getting into a HUGE theological discussion here, I will simply say that as a Christian, I do my best to live by the lessons given us in the Bible...

Oh, yeah. I'm a Christian also. When someone says that Hitler was carrying out a Christian program, I throw the BS flag. When David Duke or David Koresh or the alien spaceship people are described as Christian, I disagree. There's a consensus about what Christian is and isn't, not based upon Biblical passages, but upon a social pact. There's no confusion in the minds of people of good will about whether Duke and I believe the same things, because I say we don't, I explain why, and I criticize him. Muslims have a pretty high burden there. They would do well to start drawing distinctions between so-called moderates and radicals. That would include unequivocal condemnation of radicals. We're not seeing that.

I explain that we don't follow Old Testament admonitions in many cases. No one has to rely upon their own interpretation of the Bible to understand what I believe.

Unfortunately, that's all we've been given to work with in regard to Islam...the Koran. The intemperate words are underlined by every terrorist who yells, "Allahu Akbar!" pre-detonation. Whether they are the proximate cause of their image, they are the only ones who can change it.

Why do you suppose they haven't, to any large degree?

It could be that they don't understand the importance of the court of public opinion in the US...it could be that they genuinely fear the radicals...it could be that they agree. Ultimately, we'll decide based upon their words and actions. They will define "Muslim" for us, which may mean something different than what Ahmanutjob says.

[fr_freak]

The Constitution was based upon philosophy, not dogma.

When I say that the Constitution outlined a government designed to govern a people with a Christian worldview, I do not mean that it employed religious dogma to do so. What I do mean is that it provided a framework to provide for governance in those areas where Christian morality was insufficient, and left out provisions for governance in areas where it was assumed unnecessary because the Christian worldview would provide the necessary restraint (or motivation). This is not the same as dogma. This is a government set up on the assumption that its people would be livign within a certain set of principles and needed governance only where those principles were insufficient to prevent conflict.

As an example, the First Amendment, without question, was never intended to protect the rights of people to engage in public pornography. It was designed to protect political speech from government oppression. However, that amendment did not explicitly state that not every kind of speech was to be considered sacred, because it would not have occurred to the founders at the time that such a stipulation was necessary, as most communities at that time would even considered allowing such a thing, much less promoting it.

Two hundred plus years later, this country has become far more secularized and therefore those assumed moral restraints have largely been lifted, resulting in interpretations of the First Amendment which would have been unimaginable at the inception. As a result, we find that the Constitution is wholly insufficient to address this question. Of course, activist judges are more than happy to fill in that gap by pretending that the Constitution does address that very specific issue (just as they did with Roe V. Wade), at which point they effectively create new law by judicial fiat.

The mutilation of our Constitution that we see all to often these days is as much a result of the change in prevailing worldview among US citizens as it is corrupt government officials. In fact, it is the abandonment of the societal Christian foundation that has permitted the wholesale abandonment of Constitutional principles, as many people are not even able to understand the context in which the Constitution was written.

[I got the rope]

Well isn't that your own interpretation and personal opinion about Islam?

Which part? I'm giving you a historical interpretation based on biblical exegesis and my study of American History. You can't do the same with the Koran.

Personally...I think Mohammed was a filthy animal(rapist and pedophile) and Islam a filthy religion that is leading you straight to hell. You are very lucky to be able to worship in a free country.

By the way...how many Churches or Jewish Temples are there in Mecca or Medina?

[Lexinom]

I know a handful of Muslims who share your sentiments exactly. I do not know a single one who has tried to soft-pedal the acts of al-Qaeda - they are ashamed of these and condemn them strongly, making every effort to disassociate themselves.

FWIW