This has all the makings of a Mel Brooks movie...
"Hey, where the white ones at?"
Posted on 03/01/2002 10:53:11 PM PST by JohnHuang2
Not much different than the new testament.
Mohammad Atta dies at WTC and goes to his heaven as martyrs and only get 72 "white raisins" ! He is conned by Mullahs. The life in heaven is so cruel. No virgins, just god-d*mm trees, and raisins.
In real world practice today, there is a big difference. Christians seem to have largely become folks who seek peaceful, just, civil, secular, modern and lawful societies. Muslims seem to have largely become folks who accept dictators (military, religious), reject freedom of religion, and reject modernism.
This difference is born out, with statistics showing Muslims as being involved in most current world conflicts, having little democracy, and grossly inferior economic progress.
I submit there is a correlation with the religion, and with the lack of democracy, freedom (press, religion), and poor economic performance. The difference is between societies of the year 2002, versus societies of the year 1300.
I'd believe you if I didn't see so many calling for the U.S. to nuke several Muslim dominated 3rd world countries.
This has all the makings of a Mel Brooks movie...
Don't worry. It is all talk. All bark, no bite. I doubt that they will even throw a single grenade at them even if they are given a chance.
Again, the truth is in facts. There have been no nukes used to attack, since 1945. However Islam has attacked with war and with terrorism, unbroken since the 1970s, and in many places.
It is argued that only a minority of Muslims support violence. I will grant that to be so. But this minority is a great danger.
Unless the majority moderate Muslims can reign in the violent minority, the name of Islam will increasingly be associated with violence, and justifiably so.
Today, Christianity and the Bible are NOT a risk to world peace. Today, Islam and the Koran are a risk to world peace. It is that simple. The ball rests in the hands of Muslims to solve their own internal problem, or to continue to be a problem for the rest of the world.
Islam would be better of with a Pope-equivalent, to tell them all to live in peace, with secular, democratic nations, with religious, economic, academic and press freedoms. (Like in Christian majority nations).
So has the U.S. including installing dictators in several countries and training those dictators on "best practices" such as torture for instance.
Now. I would like to be clear about something important. Frankly I don't think the majority of Christians in this country condone those actions by any stretch of the imagination. But.....there are many who refuse to acknowledge that those things have occurred and would rather remain ignorant about them. I understand this too. I really do. But the fact remains that these things did occur and I wish we would stop it.
well, if the different religions had evinced the same levels of those things througout all time, I might go along with that. But there were certainly times when the Moslem world, while never democratic and free, was more advanced ecnomically/technologically than christian europe.
Also, given that any one religion can take a multitude of forms- Amish farmers vs. espicopalian bankers for example, I'm skeptical of claims that we can predict the nature of a society based on their sacred texts.
People have an uncanny ability to derive whatever meaning they choose from scripture- both the Aryan nation types, and lefty anti-death penalty groups both claim to be christian.
Let the word go forth from this day forward: THEY'RE RAISINS, YOU IDIOTS!
Let the word go forth from this day forward: THEY'RE RAISINS, YOU IDIOTS!
Raisin, maid, maiden, virgin ... same thing, really.
I'm defending my thesis next week and parts of it are based on a number of the works listed below. My thesis is called "The Odyssey of Theodicy in Islamic Theology," and one of its primarly conclusions I make is that Islam is a system of thought that is "two faced" (I know this term sounds pejorative, but it is a straight translation from a 13th c. Muslim theologian describing a defense he was using for an earlier theologian). It has allowed two opposite theologies to co-exist because the Muslim theologians couldn't decide from the Qur'an which was scriptural (i.e. which was right). The same could be said about modern day Islam's approach to the elements of radical Islam represented by bin Laden and others: It is a two faced response, one which condemns him on one hand and on the other glorifies him. Both "faces" drawing from the same "legitimate" Qur'anic textual and tradition sources. Often the same person can be viewed, in the same discussion, to be defending/holding to both "faces" because he sees both as legitimate.
If one holds to the definiton provided by the article, then my thesis is a "new" and "radical" view...but I doubt it will make much of a splash...which might be a good thing right now :). I'm a radical!
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.
