In Islam all prayers and religious dialogue is done in Arabic. Seems to me that Africans would want to worship God in Swahili, or whatever their own tongue is Of course, the Christian ones in fact DO.
RE : Your defense of Islam:
Strip away all the B.S. from the differant Islamic and Christian religions, and take a look at the men who founded each: One is a barbaric murderer, who killed hundreds of people, the other, a Man who healed hundreds of people. One Man never harmed a single hair on anyones head; while the other beheaded his enemies. The deeds of both are recorded in their respective books, and in their own words.
"You don't mention the fact that Amir Taheri was the editor-in-chief of Iran's leading daily newspaper, and Iran has been an enemy of the United States for a long time. You don't think there might be a teensy bit of political influence in his interpretation of Islam, do you?"
Read Taheris words again,(below) and think about what he is TRYING to say; the same thing I have been trying to convey to you although not nearly as elequently.
His position is the same as mine, so stop trying to use the Hitler comparisons on me, ok?
I have said REPEATEDLY to you: I don't know that Byrd ever burned a cross or lynched any blacks; whom he called: "...race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds." But then again...I don't know that he DIDN'T... Do you???
So you're asking me to prove a negative? You should know that's logically impossible. That would be like me saying "I can't prove that FBD murdered anyone, but he can't prove that he didn't murder anyone, can he?"
So; Robert Byrd needs to answer one simple question to us all: - Were you, Robert K. Byrd, ever involved in a Cross-burning or a Lynching, while in the Ku Klux Klan, or did you have knowledge of aforementioned Klan activities? If Byrd burned even ONE cross on even ONE lawn of even ONE fellow American, he has nothing left to offer. He is discredited, disgraced, and has no other option other than to tender his resignation from the Senate.
As an aside, some Googling on this subject brought me to this NewsMax article, excerpted below:
Conservatives need to force Byrd to answer one simple question: Were you ever involved in a cross-burning or a lynching?
...Until these matters are addressed, what Byrd has to say on other matters is irrelevant. If he burned a cross on the lawn of a fellow American, his opinions should be disregarded. He is discredited, disgraced and has no option other than resignation.
Do you plaigarize other articles in your response to me? Are these your words I'm responding to, or someone else's?
Regardless, I don't see how you can expect an answer to a question that, apparently, has never been asked of him. The article also states that the question was asked of his press secretary, who responded that "his boss had assured him privately that he never participated in terrorizing African-Americans using the Klan's trademark tactics. But then again, Gavin said Byrd also insisted that he wasn't a racist even while wore the hood and sheets of the anti-black hate group." So, is there any reason why his press secretary's answer wasn't good enough, in light of the fact that others apparently don't have the courage to ask the same questions of Senator Byrd himself?
Further, I don't see why he even has the need to respond to lynching allegations, lying allegations, etc. that appears to be baseless. If you had some sort of evidence that Byrd lynched somebody, that Byrd lied about something, etc., and that evidence were presented to him, then sure, I would expect a response just as you would. But you have nothing. As I said before, this is just a smear campaign -- not that I expect anything less from Republicans.
So, tell ya what Sam: Provide us all a link, show us where Robert Byrd has apologized PUBLICLY for being in the Klan, and where he has completely denounced the Klan, OK?
I couldn't find anything, but why should he apologize? He was what he was in the 40's and 60's, and he is who he is today. People's beliefs change as they grow older and wiser -- I know mine have -- and that doesn't mean we should apologize for what we believed before. Actions are far different from beliefs.
You can be outraged and expect some kind of apology from him if you want, but I don't.
RE:Oh, yeth we muth rethpect multi-cultural diverthity: The lisp was my mocking smarmy intellectuals who think they are so much superior than anyone else. Some cultures ARE superior to others, especially in the areas of freedom of thought, and equality for people, regardless of race, sex, or religion. My MAIN critisism of Islam is that it does in fact infringe on every area of these, including race. In Christianity, all races are allowed to pray and speak to God in their native tongue. In Islam all prayers and religious dialogue is done in Arabic. Seems to me that Africans would want to worship God in Swahili, or whatever their own tongue is Of course, the Christian ones in fact DO.
In this, you have to separate the religion itself from the men who govern the religion, and the political ramifications that surround the state-sanctioned religions (which Taheri also fails to do in the excerpt below). I agree that there is huge difference in, say, women's rights in America and women's rights in Pakistan. But this difference isn't imposed by Christianity and Islam itself; it is imposed by readings of each religion, some of which are demonstrably false, used as tools to exert power on states and regions. It's not Islam that suppresses women's rights in Pakistan; it's how the leaders of Pakistan, and the leaders that came before, chose to interpret Islam and apply it to their theocracies that made the difference. You could go even further and say the root cause is that they are theocracies to begin with, rather than true democracies.
But imagine how different America might be if, for instance, it were governed by a long succession of Quakers, a fringe interpretation of Christianity. We'd likely have our own set of social issues with women's rights today, but that wouldn't indicate a flaw with women's rights in Christianity. You can take any "radical" interpretation of any religion you want as an example, but the point is to make the key distinction between beliefs and politics.
RE : Your defense of Islam: Strip away all the B.S. from the differant Islamic and Christian religions, and take a look at the men who founded each: One is a barbaric murderer, who killed hundreds of people, the other, a Man who healed hundreds of people. One Man never harmed a single hair on anyones head; while the other beheaded his enemies. The deeds of both are recorded in their respective books, and in their own words.
Again, you're making the mistake of projection: you're comparing Jesus and Muhammed when you should be comparing Christianity and Islam. Of course, the two religions are different and were borne out of different environments, but there is much, much more overlap between the religions that you fail to recognize.
His position is the same as mine, so stop trying to use the Hitler comparisons on me, ok?
Nah, you're no Hitler. Even if you really believed the racist stuff you've posted, you'd be small potatoes compared to him. But there's similarities between Nazi propaganda and the stuff you've posted, which you failed to recognize or respond to from my response to your first "socialism equals Hitler equals the loony left" post above.