Posted on 11/20/2002 11:25:27 AM PST by Jael
Osama bin Laden uses the Islamic faith to justify his nationalist, anti-Western political agenda.
It is an old religious ploy, one that Muslims were on the receiving end of during the Crusades.
Pope Urban II used love of Jesus and hatred of Muslims to motivate his troops at the beginning of the Crusades. Urban actually called Muslims "infidels."
Political leaders often wear religious disguises and exploit hatred in pursuit of their goals.
This brings me to the leaders of the religious right in this country.
(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...
That sounds like an accurate description of most colleges campuses now and their attitudes towards conservatives.
And so we have Pat Robertson saying, "Adolf Hitler was bad, but what the Muslims want to do to the Jews is worse." Jerry Falwell calls Muhammad a "terrorist." Franklin Graham criticizes Muslim clerics for not apologizing for the 9-11 attacks, as if a billion Muslims are to blame for the actions of fanatics. And in the ultimate absurdity, Jimmy Swaggart calls Muhammad a "sex deviant."
I'm not sure what information backs up Swaggart's claim other than the distinct possibility of a relationship between Muhammad and Salvo. But I'm curious what is factually wrong with the other statements?
Dear Mr. Thomas,
I read your article in the Orlando Sentinel and found some problems with it.
You seem to equate Christianity with Islam based on the teachings from their respective holy books. You cited a reference in Deuteronomy, suggesting that Christians don’t actually believe or act upon everything the Bible commands us, else we’d still do as Deuteronomy commands. For whatever reason, this practice is no more. It’s from the Jewish Law. Christians have no such command.
But this seems to put Christians in a dilemma. Christians haven’t stopped holding to commands in the Old Testament, such as the immorality of homosexuality. But it’s also condemned in the New Testament. Maybe that’s not a good example.
Perhaps an OT-only command would do a better job of painting the Christian in a corner. Here’s one: Christians don’t take their incorrigible children to the city gates to be stoned as commanded by the Law of Moses. So are we being inconsistent?
Is the alternative for the Christian then to throw out the entire OT Law? That would make murder and robbery permissible. But nobody I know believes that murder and robbery should be tolerated. So apparently some points of the Law still apply while others are obsolete. Can the same be said of Islam?
Finally, this statement: “But when activists claim God is on their side, they paint their opponents as immoral and evil. The natural offshoot of this is intolerance, because how can anyone tolerate that which is unholy?”
I think your use of the word tolerance is actually an abuse of the word. We tolerate those which we disagree with, but we are intolerant to accepting something we see as immoral. What is wrong with that? Given your use of the word, if I’m reading you correct you are being intolerant of Jerry Falwell and the rest. Is that because you think you are right and they are wrong? That’s awful intolerant, isn’t it?
Nail, meet the hammer!!!
Thanks so much for doing your part! I enjoyed your letter.
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.