It would be a staggering event for the Silent Islamic Majority to rise up and re-take leadership of their religion. On an individual basis, quiet reason doesn't do too well against a maniac with buddies who are also maniacs. I'd be a 'bashful guest', too.

It also helps if America changes it foreign policy that helps moderate Muslims. There has been "Muslim bashing" by America and it side kick Israel for too long (over 50 years). Stop it and then we can push some of this fundamentalism away, if you don't why should the silent majority, there is little reason to.

Allah Akbar

Grim Islam has been around for 1400 years or so. You ought to be able to come up with some historical evidence of toleration in a Muslim society. I say, it cannot be done. Prove me wrong.

Hope I suggest that you'd be a 'bashed' guest. Any proof to the contrary?

cap'n, what criteria would have to be met in order to show tolerance?

Ahh, the lurker is back and posting (a little down time at work) ... sorry if this is too delayed or off-topic.

Grim, this is the type of comment the pushes me to post and ask WHY?

Again, why is it the fault of the United States that Muslim fundamentalists are not peaceful?

In the other thread, I posted about this and asked the questions why?

GP in France responded with a very good play-play description, which included a reference to American foreign policy towards Israel which marginalized the Palestinians and led to this which led to that ...

But, as is typical, we stopped there at one level deep of why i.e. the play-by-play description of history. Unfortunately, I was too buried in work stuff to continue the discussion we started.

But the gist was, what we need is an understanding beyond the first look.

Grim, I ask you ... and don't stop at the scratch the surface answer of American foreign policy ...

Why is American foreign policy the cause of this?

You may answer because it is heavy handed towards Israel and not fair towards Palestinians ...

This is about where GP in France stopped ...

GP answered that it marginalized the Pals ...

Why did it marginalize them?
Why was/is this America's responsibility?
Why is it America is condemned for treating a country with common values and goals an allay, when another group who shares less in common (Pal) is not treated the same - why is this 'wrong'?

Why isn't Israel and Palestine held responsible for this?

This is roughly level 2 of asking why.

Once you start asking why beyond the answers that first pop up, you get real results.

However, time and time again, we ask why and stop at the first or maybe second level of why ... go to 3, 4, 5 levels down.

Again, it can't all be about 50 year's worth of foreign policy that is perceived as 'unfair' –
Why is a conflict with roots from thousands of years ago the responsibility of how a country (that is not even 300 years old) has behaved or not behaved in the last 50 years?

In my own searching, a lot of it seems to come down to :

Why is the rest of the world not dealing with problems but instead pointing to anyone else but themselves - which of late means to blame America for everything?

I know the first level why - because they don’t have to face their own internal problems ... it is easier ... but WHY?

Now, why have we gotten to this place, where it is better to demonize the US then help your own people?

I would love a real discussion about this, rather than the usual 'Failed foreign policy of the US ...' or
'The US is too heavy handed and always meddling' or often said in the same breath as the last one 'The US doesn't do enough, they could be doing ...'

Finally, why is it acceptable to defend the often murderous actions of others with the sentence 'what they did was wrong ... BUT ... if US foreign policy was different none of this would happen ...'

This can easily be said:
'US foreign policy towards Palestine [and Arab countries] is unfair ... BUT ... if Muslims behaved more like people in the US then foreign policy would be friendlier ...'

Why doesn’t the world ask the second question instead of the first?

Back to the top of the article, it said "white Americans unlearned hatred. So must muslims". Would any of this unlearning of hatred be easier if their 'holy book' didn't directly preach such hatred?

Not being a big fan of religious zealotry, I am especially put off by what I have read of the koran. Religion of peace my ass! Show me the koranic text that talks more of peace than killing and enslaving infidels.

p.s. Grim, you are an idiot. I would suggest an overdose of sleeping pills for you. That might cure your unrelenting depression.

june 16, 1904 tolerance 2 a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b : the act of allowing something.

Hello all,

Maynard Goofball suggests an overdose of sleeping pills for me.

I am extremely dissapointed with your POV, is it American, Christian or just plain "Islam bashing".
Probably it is a mixture of all 3.

This is EXACTLY what I am talking about, you guys have an inbuilt hate of muslims and that is extremely disappointing as there seems little way forward with people like you.

Imagine a young muslim child reading this, perhaps you can understand why they would distrust your POV.

Sleeping pills indeed .......

As for peace in the Koran, let me point you to more learned people than me visit the following URLs

www.greaterthings.com/News/911/Koran_War_Peace/partI.htm
www.harunyahya.com/32terrorism_middleeast_soc08.php
www.harunyahya.com/32terrorism_pacifism_soc10.php

and Goofball..... get your act together stop being anti-muslim per-say

Allah Akhbar

Grim Why do you need to point us to URLs? Can't you simply give me an answer to my question? Please do not avoid me. I am giving you more than ample opportunity without condemning you, to answer for your faith. I believe yours is a false religion and I can argue that from Reason but if you believe it to be true, you ought to be able to defend it.

My religion teaches me that I must Love my Neighbor, which means YOU. I do not hate you. I do not like it that your religion has made victims of even your own brothers and sisters, but I do not hate you or them. My religion has been around a bit longer than yours but history not withstanding, you should be able to give us examples of tolerance of other religions in Muslim society. Can't you do that without relying on someone else?

Grim, we've been through this. Rgardless of your position on this, the fact is that the Muslim world has produced less scientific and cultural literature combined in the last 400 years than Germany has in the last three; the fact is they have the lowest industrial base and some of the worst human rigts records in the world, the lowest rates of literacy, the lowest life expectancies, and Muslim countries that have subsequently been taken over or by or experienced a resurgence of radicals have experienced a tremendous decline (Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan) These are facts, Grim, not my opinion. You can't just explain all this away with American/Israeli foreign policy. And you only marginalize yourself by continuing to try. As long as a society continues to embrace victimology (like some, but not all Muslims) they will never move forward as a culture. Stop reading Edward Said and start reading Bernard Lewis or Amir Taheri.

Cap'n, there is historical precedent for Muslim toleration. The Christians and Jews who paid the jizyah (although outrageous) were not really persecuted. Some groups in those lands persist to this day, like Syria. (They ARE however, persecuted NOW) The same cannot be said for the Muslims in Christian dominated lands. Some of that was that the number of Muslims in Christian lands were much smaller to begin with. Within 50 years of Christians taking over a Muslim land, there werre no muslims left. Some left, and were free to do so, some were killed.

Hi Grim,

Glad you're back. I make no apology for the previous sleeping pill remark. Other than to distance myself completely. Whilst I cannot (and would not wish to) put words into the mouth of my fellow bloggers, I am quite certain that Maynards last paragraph was not acceptable within the spirit of the CP.

I do share however some of the Cap'n's view that it would help the debate along if you were to express your own views , as opposed to merely reffering us to other web sites.

In the past, you have taken several positions here at the CP, and whilst not being able to fully support your POV you have shown a gift for reasoned arguement. Please go on , and reply to both the Captain and others. Following our earlier debate I have been looking, (with, I hope an open mind) for authorities that support the principles of an open and tolerant Islamic doctrine, to date I must admit failure. Genuinely , assist me with this one. Inshaalah.

Thanks and Maleiakum a Saalam.

Max

johnnymozart Please help me out here with particulars. Do you consider a 'religious' tax to be tolerant? If you were a poor nonMuslim and could not pay to practice your faith? I thought I read somewhere that it was a matter of pay up, get out or die. Is that true, or is that a myth? I'm not being critical, but rather trying real hard to be 'tolerant' myself, and although I am bound to Love the Muslim, I must only be tolerant of Islam. Although I have been angry in the past, I also have a well-grounded historical perspective of Islamic 'intolerance', and I would be very happy to put it in its proper place. Can I get to that point?

///Do you consider a 'religious' tax to be tolerant?///

Of course not. Perhaps I should define 'tolerant' as 'tolerant of the presence' No one historically was as tolerant as our society today. That's an unfair comparison. But the reality is that Christian communities survived under Muslim rule, but the reverse is not true. Some of that is that the nature of Muslims' interaction with non-Muslims tends, as we have seen throughout history, to be inflammatory. Some of it was that the Christian rulers were vindictive and cruel. Some of it was there were just not as many Muslims under Christian rule vs. Christians under Muslim rule and thus just by sheer numbers the Christian communities were more likely to survive. However, there IS precedent for Muslim 'toleration' of Non-Muslims.

///pay up, get out or die. ///

Almost. Pay up, convert to Islam, or die. As far as I know, there was no option to leave.

Hello everyone,

Thank (some of ) you for at least distancing yourself away from Maynard's POV, I was certainly shocked by it.

Where do I want to start, ....well I am a practical person and a peace loving....so

1) In no way do I say that everything in Islam is correct and rosy, JM, Max & the Cap'n do make "some" valid points. There is little doubt that "modernisation and economic globalisation is required." It is sad I think that so little has been achieved by the oil rich muslim states. They have had expertise exported from other counteries and very little is retained by the locals, this is due to lack of ambition, procedures and a few people holding a lot of the power, I think there is little excuse for this.

2) My POV on religion.... What is really missing is a central (supreme Islamic) authority that "potentially" offers a route for change ....one that speaks for the whole of Islam. As holders of Mecca I would have liked the Saudis take a lead on this.... but they have their heads buried in the sand and their legs buried in Oil .......dissapointing.

The lack of this central administration has had local imams, other leaders attempting to offer this authority but having their own agenda.

I read that the Sikhs have a central authority which is well respected & formed in 1925. Since this time they (from what I have read) put forward little change but have the final say on delicate matters and that is missing from Islam.

If Islam can get to this position in the next coupla generations this will be a huge step forward. Here we could do with (gentle not occupations) help from the West and from the Maynards and JeffBs of this world for lack of Bias, patience and understanding.

3) A lot of Islamic countries have sharia law and a lot of countries don't want it. What may possibly required is modernisation of it "but as it is the word of Allah how do you dare do that", this is where the central Muslim authority (CMA) can provide guidance. We obviously can't go back in time and ask the Prophet Muhammed (May Allah oversee him for all time) or the Angel Gabriel so we are gonna have to do with the CMA. It is gonna take time but .....

I have to go but will try & continue more later....

Allah Akbar

God IS Great, Grim. Thank you for your reply. The tone was much appreciated. Truly.

What you describe has merit, perhaps we will have a central Islamic authority someday. Do you think that is likely given the schism between Shia and Sunni? Or will there be two authorities?

People, including myself and some members of the Democratic party have suggested that alternative fuel sources may rescue us from "dependence" on foreign oil. I am concerned however that taking away the one source of revenue from an already declining group of countries may precipitate more blame being placed on us instead of less. Any thoughts?

I went to your web sites, and they are fine, but I think they miss a crucial issue. This issue is similar to when I talk to my friends about this. There are many passages in the Qur'an which talk about peace, but there are just as many if not more that discuss war, specifically with the non-believer. When I have asked myfriends the meaning of jihad, they tell me it does not mean "holy war" but rather refers to " a personal spiritual struggle"

But see, Grim, where people like C-P posters get tripped up with this is that all they have to do is turn on the news and hear Muslims talking about holy war with the US, Israel, etc. The question then becomes "which one is the truth?" and if it is the latter, why aren't more people who believe that trying to drown out the former? It is too easy, then, to blame it on current or recent trends in Western foreign policy, because all you have to do is look at historical writings, hadiths etc, to see similar things said about jihad in reference to wars Muslims provoked. So current foreign policy could not possibly apply.

And that is the disconnect that we often see. The average joe needs to hear more than "Islam means peace" (which for the majority of Muslims, it does) and then turn on the news and see the exact opposite of that. Islamic culture and the world needs to see action.

cap'n,

the Mughal king known as Akbar was an example of an expressely tolerant Islamic ruler. in addition to allowing free practice of religion by India's hindus, jains, christians, sikhs et cetera, he repealled the institution of the jizyat tax and pilramage taxes. the man also considered himself to be a devout Muslim. he's the one who had the taj mahal built.

this is a link on the absolute basics of his rule.

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/MUGHAL/AKBAR.HTM

the jizyat is an interesting tradition. this speaks on it a bit.
http://www.islamonline.net/askaboutislam/display.asp?hquestionID=3812

it seems that the amount of the jiziyat, and indeed whether it was to be paid or not, depended entirely on the level of tolerance in the muslim community at the time. some empires charged almost no tax, some charged great taxes. i've seen estimates ranging from one to ten percent in the average muslim empire from the time of the prophet to the time of the Ottomans.
i saw a figure of four dinars on this mildly fundamentalist muslim site. http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ABewley/zakat2.html

the tax was, in a way, a method of establishing dominance over conquered populations without placing them under the sword. it was only paid by adult males. forcing them to pay the tax was a way of letting them know that they were ruled by muslims and that they were not the power in their particular areas. this does make them second class citizens in a way. in that respect, it is intolerant.

on the other hand, the Muslim rulers of an empire force their citizens to pay a tax in exchange for the upkeep of roads, protection from marauding bandits and any other services that your average government would provide at the time. this tax also secured them the right to worship freely. so, if a non-muslim agrees to contribute to the well-fare of the state that protects him, he can practice his religion. non-muslims had churches throughout the empire and in exchange, all they had to do was pay a tax just like the muslims. this is no different from any other empire in history and in that respect it is tolerant.

its interesting to note that the statues of the budda in afghanistan survived 1500 years of traditional muslim rule without being destroyed. only in the recent past, under the rule of the taliban, were measures taken to destroy such so called graven images. all other muslim rulers had accepted that buddhists needed shrines as well. all thorugh muslim countires, populations of non-believers as well as their places of worship have persisted. if islam was entirely intolerant, would this be possible?

anyone who tells you that jihad is just about inner struggle is trying to sell islam. that's utter nonsense. while that is a part of what jihad is about, it also refers to armed struggle against those who threaten the faith. jihad is about just war theory. Muhammed realized that sometimes war has to be waged and he incorportated a section on how it should be done into the Qu'ran. or Allah did if you're Muslim. just like when in the old testament the israelites are justified in many of their acts of war, in the qu'ran, muslims are justified in theirs. radical muslims nowadays are perverting notions of jihad. in the qu'ran, it says that jihad can only be waged against men who are of age and opposing you directly. attacking women and children in cowardly terrorist acts would not be condoned by the prophet.

Grim,
Thank you for you measured reply, and other gentlemen for your considered opinions. I cannot agree with any of you entirely, even my "old friends june 16, or JM. But there was for a moment light in the debate,( cast in no small way by a red and green set from the Captain, steering as ever between the buoys.)

In such debate lies peace, the acknowledgement of differing views, the acceptance of others to hold them, and a sharing of common ground, albeit of a tenous nature.

Grim, as a passing thought your nom du blog is by it's very nature in the English language, rather downbeat, I believe that you believe, in your faith and PoVs with a genuine enthusiasm, perhaps now might be the time to share such a light, and do not in the words of my Holy Book , "hide your light beneath a bushel". Give us a new name, a brighter flame to know you by.

God bless us all.

Max

Grim,
Thank you for you measured reply, and other gentlemen for your considered opinions. I cannot agree with any of you entirely, even my "old friends june 16, or JM. But there was for a moment light in the debate,( cast in no small way by a red and green set from the Captain, steering as ever between the buoys.)

In such debate lies peace, the acknowledgement of differing views, the acceptance of others to hold them, and a sharing of common ground, albeit of a tenous nature.

Grim, as a passing thought your nom du blog is by it's very nature in the English language, rather downbeat, I believe that you believe, in your faith and PoVs with a genuine enthusiasm, perhaps now might be the time to share such a light, and do not in the words of my Holy Book , "hide your light beneath a bushel". Give us a new name, a brighter flame to know you by.

God bless us all.

Max

WOW Grim,

Please do NOT give this up. I am beginning to at least understand why you believe the way you do. Please do not take everything that is said here as representative of Western thought, but take each POV as brought to this forum by each of us. We are all stuggling to coexist with each other - that is all that I am looking for, and I hope that each of us that is willing to listen, is willing to leave the door open to moving toward that end, for us all. That includes YOU, Grim, whether you choose to pick another NICkname or no. As Max said, it may give the wrong impression to those that see it.

Robert Prather My compliments to you sir, for bringing this out of the archives. I think it was well worth it.

A couple of points. Have the rest of you amazingly 'tolerant' individuals forgotten earlier comments by Grim? He first appeared on this blog spouting nothing but doom and scorn for Dubya and the US in general. He was arrogant, and he was an idiot. This new incarnation of Grim may be better, but unless it is a new person borrowing someone elses Nic, the leopard is trying to change spots.

As to islam, how can a cult that has in writing, the attrocities it claims to be divinely inspired, be taken seriously? Ever wonder why God or Allah only talks to a hand full of 'prophets', when no one else is around? At least Jesus is reported to have preached love and respect for fellow men. Mohamed was a criminal asshole, who made up his own religion to cover his ass.

That is not a blanket statement that all muslims are evil. There are indeed good people who follow islam, as there are good and bad followers of all religions. The problem is, islam's 'holy book' preaches intolerance more than tolerance, and is open to abuse more so than other major religions.

Maynard,

Perhaps Grim, responds like a human being, threaten him and he retaliates, curse at him and he spits back. Treated with respect, and as a fellow being capable of debate......and surprise surprise, Grim reveals that he is a human being. Perhaps there's a lesson here for us all.

Thank you June 16 for raising the matter of the Moghul states in India and Pakistan. These rulers were of course as blood thirsty and rampant as any others, but they did appear to avoid persecution on religious grounds. IE they justified their domination on military grounds rather than religious doctrine.

Just a thought..... Perhaps the leaders of Arabian Islam used the jews (as did Christians , and sadly as do some christians), as the minority whipping boys of their respective states. This was/ is supportable by reading the Koran and interpreting to taste!?

I suspect that the Koran , like my own Holy Book is capable of being interpreted in many ways, and that the unscrupled can find justification to unleash oppression , mayhem , Jihad or Crusades.

Just some ideas to be commented on.

Max

Hello everybody,

A few good posts I think, June thank you for sharing the jiziyat issues in the correct context, it has been abused (like all taxes to some extent) and don't forget we pay taxes today as well, and I am glad it has been abolished.

Max, I started off with Grim, and I'll stay there for now, it was there to reflect how I feel about a lot of things at the moment.

JM, Cap'n thank you for your encouragements, I think a lot of average Joes do associate Muslim with viteroel, Jihad (a very misused term) and hate, and that is sad as the West is supposed to have the most educated societies on Earth which brings me nicely onto Mr M Krebbs.

Mr Krebbs views probably reflects the average Joe very well, thank you for portraying that to the rest of the postees.

Mr Krebbs writes "He first appeared on this blog spouting nothing but doom and scorn for Dubya and the US in general"

I am not anti-American, I am anti-American Administration, a significant difference but a similar position to a lot of Americans themselves.

I still don't trust Dubiya & his administration....why 1) America is a superpower with designs I think to become a hyper power (they have over 12 billion oily reasons to stay in Iraq).

2) They will build permanent large Military bases there and get ready for Iran (in the fullness of time) as they too have oil and will use the same WMD & regime change views. (they have already talked about dodgy nucleur programs in Iran).

3) They will continue to verhemently support Israel as their "get out of Jail free" card in the ME. Note that the only country WITH WMD in the ME is Israel, but do the International Atomic Authority want to know.....NO , why is that!!!. The BS about Isreal being democratic and responsible with weapons is just that, given dodgy circumstances Isreal would not hesitate to provide a full nucleur response.

4) America will not occupy countries like Zimbawabe who also have an evil dictator (and whose people WOULD welcome the Americans) why......because there is little economic gain there (e.g. no Oil).

So you see Mr. Krebbs I have good reason to distrust the Dubiya and hope he will be replaced by Deano next year.

And so onto religion and your extremely inflammotory remarks. I seems that you are the one who has little tolerance and perhaps lack of knowledege , you see......

5) the Quar'an talks about the greater Jihad (one that everyone faces all the time, like greed and lust)
and you pray 5 times a day for guidance and spiritual strength and Tolerance against the greater jihad. People talk about Muslims being slaves to Allah, but they have it the wrong way round, by praying 5 times a day the muslim asks (in a forgiving, surrending way to Allah) to put his protective hand on him and become his "slave" (Allah forgive my lack of knowledge to use better prose in attempting to describe such humble acts).

You see it is a 2 way thing (there is a muslim saying "you cannot clap with one hand") a way for both to reach out to each other, this is Islam, other forms and interpetrtations of Jihad are wrong or the smaller jihad which are interpetred incorrectly.

Mr Krebbs I think you need to learn tolerance, and my humble recommendation for that is for you to convert (or at least try out) to Islam. Praying 5 times a day (rather than having tea-breaks and a cigaeratte) will teach you to be humble.

Famous people like Muhhamed Ali did it as did Cat Stevens (the english singer whose most famous hit was the christian Hymn "Morning has broken, like the first morning" so.....

what do you think Mr Krebbs.........or are you the a$$---e.

Allah Akbar

Max,

You have a much more even tempered nature than I. As I said, Grim came in a few weeks back, spewing the most negative dribble, almost a VF with better syntax. I will try to lighten up and let you guys bounce your ideas back and forth, but until I see enlightenment coming from Grim, his earlier idiocy will be hard to erase.

IMHO, you guys are being played. But hey, good luck talking sense into all who will listen.

Interesting thread, but the larger point is missing. Religion is, among other things, neo-tribalism, or at least lends itself to it. We used to use kinship as a means of determining association and now we use crazy ideas. I guess we could use wearing specific colors, pretty much the same thing. We could blindly follow one political party or another, pretty much the same thing. I think this must have happened very soon after the neolithic revolution or maybe as late as the establishment of city states. I could be wrong, it might be more proximal. I view Islam in its most benign form as a bad thing, I view all organized religion this way, so I'm not being intolerant specifically towards Islam. I think back to growing up in the small town I came from in Michigan. My Dad was the preacher at the largest baptist Church in town, it was a part of the American Baptist Convention. Then there was another Baptist Church, they had split off of the afore mentioned Church and became a member of the GARB, which Mom always referred to as meaning 'Grand Army of Rebel Baptist' "Those" people were treated as members of a rival gang. I never did learn what caused the split in the first place, it pre-dated Dad's tenure and it really didn't matter! They had their little church up there and we didn't need to talk to them. Of course they were better than the "Conversationalist" (Congragationalist to the rest of the world). This is all to illustrate the tribalistic nature of humans and how we are driven to use religion to differentiate ourselves into us and them. It's not something religion necessarily does to us, we do it to religion and everything else, constantly. Muslims with their head scarfs and Kufis are wearing the other gang's colors. The Christians can't help their animal instincts, and visa versa. Of course if people could just one day wake up, look into how we came by the crazy ideas (and I do mean that in a pathological sense) they might realize that we have far better ways of determining who is different than us, like personal net worth. After all, the root of all sorts of evils is the love of money (note, that is not money itself, the love of it.) I realize that religious conflict is a real problem, but someday people will realize that the real problem is that they still have the spirit of fear, in spite of their "conversions." The only piece of advice I dare to offer is to never vote for or support a politician who operates by promoting fear. This is the same kind of thing preachers do to make sure the collection plates have hands to pass them. It's a pretty weak substitute for real leadership.

There is no giving Grim any credit, for anything. He is the typical aggressor/victim here.

Grim,
Can you do the right thing and call the 9/11 attacks cowardly, against the real teachings of Islam, and denounce UBL, his evil followers, and the like.

Do you have the balls? Or was this "justified" given the evils perpurtrated on the muslim brotherhood by the great satan America. Give me a break. You guys can't even build toilets. Your giving Africa a run for their money as the most backward ass, broken down area of the world.

You can spout all kinds of BS about our current administration, but I for one believe 100% in what they are doing. I have children who deserve a peaceful world, and I believe George W. Bush is taking the hard, necessary steps to make it just that. Who cares if we piss off a few hundred million muslims whose leaders have distorted their views of the Western world.

Do you want to know why they've done that. One reason, power. You accuse the US of ousting Saddam for more power, but what about your own leaders. There is not one, not one, functioning democratic government where muslims are the majority. Why, because your leaders are all openly corrupt. They gain great wealth for themselves, at a severe cost to the general public. They consolidate their power through torture, intimidation, killing, making up the rules as they go, and using and abusing religion.

You need to open your eyes. While America has its own set of problems, the Muslim world under the current leadership is failing miserably. Your people are starving, dying at the hands of brutal dictators, and making very wealthy leaders out of hate preaching imams.

Why does an evil bastard like UBL do what he does? One reason, POWER. He is not a religious man. He is attempting to consolidate power within the muslim world for his own benefit.

Mullah Omar? POWER. The ruling party in SA? POWER. Are you too blind to even see the most obvious?

Americans do the same thing. However, our strong country, flawed as it is, tries to make our power grabbers do it from a minimum standard standpoint, ie laws. The rulers in the muslim world do it one way, and that is with force.

You need to shut your mouth, open your eyes, and start fixing your own problems instead of highlighting ours. If you do that, and the other billion muslims around the world might make this a better place to live. Its up to you. Of course given your "rich" history I'm not holding my breath.

Jacko ,

Thank you for your comments, they need to be aired, I only wish many other muslims should see this, indeed they need to see the hate coming from people like you.

I truly agree with some of your comments. Islam has singularily failed to provide leadership and cohesion over many generations. And when someone comes along they are not moderates.

People like Arafat, the Saud family, Saddam Hussien have done enormous damage to the cause of Islam and indeed the West has taken advantage of this and made Islam look weak and backward. The more fundamental Islamists have seen this and lashed out over a number of years culminatuing in the 9/11 atrocity.

And what do I think of it.....truly.....I'm ashamed, I'm shocked and I condemn it, I try not to understand it but sometimes part of me says look at Palestine and then another part (getting stronger) says understanding that has nowhere to go and that is the greater jihad within the moderate Muslims.

The West has reacted in turn, which has then given rise to the next generation of fundamentalists, so what is the trick to break this cycle, my POV is that things need to be done bit by
bit and IN partnership to break this cycle. "You cannot clap with one hand".

Islam needs true moderate leadership, and I'm not holding my breath on that count, and the west really needs to understand Islam in greatar depth.

In particular comments like "Who cares if we piss off a few hundred million muslims whose leaders have distorted their views of the Western world"
need to go, you can imagine the fundmantalists saying exactly the opposite to you.

While we are opposites there is no going forward, you need to tone it down.

Yes the muslim needs to open his eyes, but he needs to speak out, this is exactly what he doesn't do at the moment.

To-nite I will pray to Allah the Almighty for true moderate muslim leadership and for people like you to be given greater tolerance and understanding.

Allah Akbar

Grim What I see happening in this forum is that there is a variety of PsOV expressed, and there is no attempt at suppression. Commentors here are free to say what they wish without fear of being castigated or punished for it. Some of it is hatred, Grim, but some of it is measured by the restraint exhibited by others. There are those of us here who want to see a 'moderate' voice being heard in the ME, one in which not just the richest few see benefits in their lifestyle, because that is what I see - no (or very few) middle-class families, and very large lower class - some of them educated only from the Islamic perspective. Islamic leadership is controlling and self-serving. Islamic leadership tells these followers that they must submit. I say that is not right - They may submit if they wish, but they must also realize they have the right to be free and accept responsibility for their own future, rather than blaming their current status on 'the evil US and Israel'. Moderation, Grim. You need to hear it, and we in the West need to hear it as well. We have the freedom to practice our Faith (or no faith) as we see fit. Your Muslim brothers in this country could tell you that, and you aptly point out that Mohammed Ali does that very thing. Is he preaching hatred of the US and Israel? You and your brothers cannot sit idly by and allow yourselves to be victims for the present Islamic leadership. That is wrong. You ARE being asked to submit, when what you should be being told is that you are free - and you have the right to choose your path, and that your path will be one of peace and understanding with your fellow travelers.

What hatred dude. I'm pissed off about 9/11 and I'm glad my government finally has the balls to do something about it. But where's the hate?

I may be a bit vitriolic at you, but that is because you are bashing our great President, who is doing nothing more than squashing the threat to our citizens, whether it be a insane dictator, like Saddam, a freak like UBL, or an oppressive, terroristic madman like Mullah Omar.

Where's the hate? There is none. I'm telling the truth and it must hurt to hear it. Calling the muslim countries backward? How is that hateful. Name one that is a shining example of functioning, caring, benevolence. Can't. Name one whose leaders can't be named amoung the richest in their country. Can't.

America has problems. Our foreign policy has flaws. I frankly wish we would give the Isrealis and Arafat's people a final chance, then wash our hands of them. But alas, there is a perception that we need them there. Anyway the point is I'm not saying we're perfect, and I'm not spewing hate. I'm stating the facts, so don't get defensive.

Jacko Give him another honest read. He has agreed with your POV on many issues.

Grim,
I'm curious.

Let's just suppose that the USA really is sincere in creating a democratic functioning government in Iraq and that endeavor succeeds.

What do you think will be the political effect on Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria by the end of this decade?

And would a democratic Iraq encourage the emergence of moderate Islamic leadership?

Mac33 and jacko,

Enjoyable comments. I doubt someone like Grim will ever look in the mirror and see the utter hypocrisy that is islam. Not that any mainstream cult is admirable, but the islamists are really making themselves look bad. Praying 5 times a day doesn't mean shit, if the rest of the day you are plotting the deaths of people whose only 'sin' is not believing in your mad storybook.

Why is it that even in the biased leftist media, when you see some a$$hat blowing up kids and innocents, he/she is more often a muslim? That doesn't make me want to hone my tolerance for their lunacy. Muhhamed Ali was a great boxer. Cat Stevens wrote some catchy tunes before falling off the earth. What relevance do they have to anything of importance?

Grim equates my clarity with 'average Joe' mentality. I equate his circle-jerk reasoning with brilliant stupidity. Does, or does not, the koran say to slay the infidels? Make them pay a tax, convert, or die? If a muslim converts from, or rejects, islam, is not the koranic penalty death? Face it, Grim, you have been sold a rotten bag of shit for a religion.

Maynard You cannot drag, push or bully a man to walk on your path by calling his a rut.

Hello All,

TexasGAl,

what a wonderful question, a marvellous change to the usual negativity.

I would say this.. The US will get this one chance and itis SOOOO important that they take it. Sure there will be difficulties and one of the biggest is not having a leader within the current 23 person Iraqi forum. Allah, give me strength, how can you not have a leader, if they can't choose one the US should appoint one, this IS a problem.

What happens here will dicate the rest of the ME, if it works you WILL see IRAN, mullahs & the Saud family binned.

But it must be right, the US must leave and leave the Oil for the Iraquis and then provide strong support like they do for Israel and then the moderates will shine through.

Maynard says "Praying 5 times a day doesn't mean shit, if the rest of the day you are plotting the deaths of people"

What people think the rest of the day is upto them, you can't mix it all like that, that statement can be true for fanatics of any religion. You can't tar all muslims with the same thick brush......

Maynard says "Face it, Grim, you have been sold a rotten bag of shit for a religion".

Now you gorne & done it, you don't see me cussing other religions like that. The only thing I will say about it is that the Prophet M (peace be onto his eternel soul) got the messages direct from Allah through the Angel Gabriel. You see that Maynard DIRECT FROM ALLAH ....

in other words PERFECTION..... how can you improve on that...... the answer you caint. so we are the lucky ones, it's people's interpetration that mucks things up, you I'm afraid are a complete and utter beginner in understanding Allah's message....
perhaps if you converted.........

Allah Akber

Grim,
I pondered for some hours in how to move the debate on. I think you have done it for me:

You said....

it's people's interpetration that mucks things up....

You are of course completely right. Man takes the word of God, and twists it, puts his own spin on them, not for God's purposes, but for man's small bitter aspirations. My Church has shown this many times in the past, we pray that our religious leaders have grown away from such ways, and have moved closer to religious rather than secular objectives.

Captain, thank you for your wise post following that of Maynard. I thought your choice of words was truly inspired. Perhaps we should ALL remember that Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same God, we have chosen different paths to find him.

Texas Girl,
I think we should rename you The Sniper, you sit quietly in the background, you scope things out, when you shoot, you rarely miss.

Grim, when we first met a few weeks back, you were spitting back and buckling for your dust. Since then you have shown many of a reasoned and reasonable side. I personally, (and I am sure many others would join me ), in inviting you to prepare a short (or long) piece, on your PoV regarding the way forward between the Capitalist democratic West and Islam. Perhaps you might care to examine positive ways forward, I think we are all aware of the potential for armageddon.

I will just chime in and say that that would be great for Grim to do ... but ... and not picking a fight here ... but ... it can't all be a rehash of:

1) You don't understand the message of Isalm. Convert and you will see my PoV better ...

2) American foreign policy is ...

I am truly interested in this debate and Grim's PoV, but I am truly disinterested in hearing again and again how I must change to move forward or as Grim puts it : 'IN partnership to break this cycle' ...

Grim, I can admit and say, it IS possible the only solution to this is for every westerner to either convert to Islam or 'be more tolerant'

Do you believe it IS possible that there are steps the Muslim world can do ... i.e. convert to Christianity or 'be more tolerant'?

Actually, I turly believe that reality is somehwere in the middle ... but we must reach a point where I can say:

'American foregin policy towards some parts of the world is unfair ... BUT ...'

without the BUT ... And you can say:

'Islamic Fundametalism is wrong ... BUT ...'

There has to be a way of getting there without the entier planet converting to Islam ...

Finally, your PoV seems to be (and I say seems because I don't want to speak for you) that the west has far more changing to do than the Islamic community. Likewise, many westerners believe the same ...

What pathway other than 'Stop it and then we can push some of this fundamentalism away ...' or another way of saying it 'You change and then we can move forward' I am sure (as you have expressed) that the statement 'Muslims, stop Islamic Fundamentalist attacks and we can find a way to have better foreign policy' ... would be answered with 'After you change foregin policy'

Do you believe there is a way forward without at least one of the party changing?

// I would say this.. The US will get this one chance and itis SOOOO important that they take it. Sure there will be difficulties and one of the biggest is not having a leader within the current 23 person Iraqi forum. Allah, give me strength, how can you not have a leader, if they can't choose one the US should appoint one, this IS a problem.
What happens here will dicate the rest of the ME, if it works you WILL see IRAN, mullahs & the Saud family binned. But it must be right, the US must leave and leave the Oil for the Iraquis and then provide strong support like they do for Israel and then the moderates will shine through.//


Grim,

Thanks for your response. It gives me a lot of hope and means President Bush and I are on the same page then..:-) I don’t believe we went to Iraq for the oil, I do believe we will leave Iraq as soon as it is possible and I don’t doubt that we will provide strong support for Iraq, perhaps even stronger than Israel .. but, I fear, all this is based on President Bush being re-elected.

It seems to me that to see the motivation of the US as an endeavor to create a democratic region in the Middle East serves both of our interests:

It serves to dissolve the threat of Islamic extremists who have taken control of your religion, and it serves the interest of the Islamic moderates who wish to take back control of your religion.

I think that holding on to the “oil” suspicion only serves to undermine the success of this “one very important chance”. I realize that it is sometimes difficult to let go of suspicion and it probably takes faith to let go.

Another question please:

Christianity has gone through quite an evolution in the last 500 years. The Reformation led to the development of the Protestant movement. There are now many denominations of faith under Christianity.

Is it the same for Islam? Are there denominations under the “umbrella” of Islam?

P. S. Max,
//I think we should rename you The Sniper, you sit quietly in the background, you scope things out, when you shoot, you rarely miss.//

LOL

You got me pegged on that one! It must be my Texas Ranger persona…:-)

Did anyone else read the beginning of this thread?

OpinionJournal: Islam's Silent Majority: White Americans unlearned hatred. So must Muslims.

How did you 'tolerant' folk get turned around? Islam needs to learn tolerance. The west has been over tolerant, and allowed the lunatic islamists to believe the west is weak. Were it not for OBL and the attacks against the US, do you really think the US would have gone to the ME and regime changed?

The west did not pick this fight. It was brought on by power grabbing lunatics, using islam as their best excuse to cause trouble. OBL directly, Sodom indirectly.

All religions are designed to subjugate the masses. Islam just happens to be the most malignant. Direct from Allah? Grim, if you honestly believe that, you are a childish fool. God/Allah was created in man's image, not the other way around. All the promises of a fairy tale afterlife are just ploys to get you to do the bidding of your 'holy men'.

Maynard Yup. You are quite the expert. And you got the rights (check the Declaration of Independence) that you have from Whom? This country was founded by whom? For what reason? How old are you Maynard? It's been a long time since I played cards for a 'holy man'... I can understand some of your comments, but these last escape me.

Maynard I have some duties to attend to today, but I'd like to offer a couple more comments for your consideration. There seems to be a mindset in this country (English speaking anyway) that it is highly unsophisticated to claim religious beliefs of any kind. With that in mind, I'd point out that over 80% of the population holds the belief in the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ, whereas less than 30% of the population believe in evolution. To hold a religious belief of any kind requires Faith. If you believe that 'this is all that there is', and there is nothing beyond 'this', then you are welcome to hold that belief. It is difficult to defend from Reason, but that is your choice. Do not however, scoff at those who do hold faith, for you have the rights that you have because the Founding Fathers did, almost to a man. They disagreed to the point of disenfranchisement in almost all cases, but they believed. You have unalienable rights, and someone gave them to you. It was not the Founding Fathers.

Maynard,

I read the posted article and I’ve been reading the exchanges on this thread, and I must say a very interesting and enlightening discussion.

What I am trying to understand is this:

If those who describe themselves as practitioners of moderate Islam feel their religion has been “hijacked” by extremists and also feel as Grim has stated that they need leadership within their religion to emerge in order to restore the principles of peace taught by Islam, then why do they not support the actions in Iraq?

If the transformation of Iraq can create a democratic driven society that allows for freedoms such as speech and religion, it seems to me that the moderates in Islam will emerge, (Grim stated this and I agree). But if Islamic moderates allow Islamic extremists to use propaganda about motivations for the war to withhold their support for continuing the actions in Iraq, then they are in essence undermining their own religion.

I find it interesting that there seems to be parallels with the current turmoil among those who practice Islam and those conditions that lead to the Protestant Reformation.

If I was a novelist;

I could write a story about how there was this society of people who founded a country that supported freedom of religion because they had suffered a history of religious persecution based on intolerance. They grew and prospered.

One day along came some people who used their religion to harm this country and wanted to take away their freedom of religion. The people of this country came to understand that their attackers were not representative of the aggressor’s religion. They decided to join with those who wanted to remove those aggressors from their religion. And the setting for this story just happens to be in the ancient places that gave birth to religions.

I think if those who call themselves moderates of Islam could embrace this opportunity this story could have a wonderful ending for their religion.

Sniper, er I mean TexasGal,

The tone of your comments are always so thoughtful. Nice. Why do you think islam is being hijacked? Why not Hinduism? Budhism? The Protestants? Could it be flaws in the koran that leave it open to abuse, more so than the rule books for other religions?

Sir Doobie & I have had this discussion before. As a devout Agnostic, I don't pretend to have the answers as to whether there is or isn't a "God". As an optimist, I kinda hope there is, but nothing I have ever seen or heard from any religion gives me reason to believe. Instead, most if not all religions are transparent tools to control people, and their evil far outweighs their good. I just don't see how a divine being would put up with the crap that has been, and still is perpetrated in his name.

So while I respect everyone's right to have faith, I really get annoyed when someone tries to push their fairy tales and ignorant superstitions on others. The muslims seem to be the most zealous in pursuit of domination. I just don't see this as being very "godly". In this way, I and a whole lot of other common people around the world, tend to agree with parts of Maynard's comments. Maybe we just wouldn't express ourselves the same.

Grim might want to question the motives behind his "prophet's" vision. Maybe he should convert to xtianity. Oh, wait, that would sentence him to death. Hell of a catch-22.

Elvis As explained further up, you cannot push, shove, cajole or force religious beliefs on anyone. In a sense, I am willing to give Grim the opportunity to explain his faith. I have admitted to him I find it false, and I find that by Reason - a gift that I was given (along with some rights) by my Creator. Yes, I suggest as do you, that he may want to question the motives of his prophet's vision, but until he has the opportunity to do that (which at this point he is not, because he is not 'free' to do that), he shouldn't even consider a conversion to some other faith. He has been asked some very pointed questions, and they have not all been measured in the asking. Calling a man's faith mere 'superstition' will not have the desired effect. You as an optomist (but devout) Agnostic, kinda hold out hope. Is that not even a possibility for Grim?

superstition- noun- a belief that cannot be explained by reason or science. [Oxford wordpower dictionary]

How does the above definition not fit all religion? I have noted the Cap'n's frequent referral to "Ultimate Authority" and "Reason". I find all religion false, and by very sound Reason. Faith boils down to extreme wishful thinking. No one has anything more than "prophet's" alleged word from god/allah. How can you logically arrive at the existence of any "god". Religion was establihed hundreds of years ago, when the earth was flat and dragons ate you if you fell off the edge. Power hungry men long dead figured out how to control the masses by blaming all things bad on not doing as the "boogey man " said. Flood? Well you must not be fearing the lord. Plague? you must be sinning in some way. Maybe you need to pay the church more money to avoid more punishment from god? yeah, that's the ticket.

80% believe in the virgin birth? 30% believe in evolution? Can you prove or disprove either? NO. do I care? NO. My belief is that 90% of the population of the world are morons. Care to prove me wrong? You argue things you can neither prove nor disprove. Your great Reason is predicated on falsehood, and thus you will never be swayed from it, just as Grim is cocksure Allah spoke to a known criminal and gave him the real deal.

sniper, how about some nice words to soothe my irritation? I'm beginning to synpathize with Maynard. Have mercy.

Anyone heard from Seth or Wolf lately?

//Why do you think islam is being hijacked? Why not Hinduism? Budhism? The Protestants?//

Elvis,

Actually I used the word hijacked because that is the general explanation that I have heard describing the Islamic extremist’s interpretation of the Koran. There may be those who practice Hinduism or Budhism who feel some of there followers have done the same in their religions. I can think of some Protestants that I would consider characterizing as hijacked their religion/denomination.

Religion is really too complicated for me to discuss in this format, but I’ll offer something to consider: Even though religion does require faith, faith doesn’t require religion.

// sniper, how about some nice words to soothe my irritation? I'm beginning to synpathize with Maynard. Have mercy.//

How about? May the FORCE be with you ..:-)

LOL Don't Be Cruel, baby... Christ died because He said He was God. Nobody whispered in his ear. I will argue that you obtained some rights, just like the rest of us, and they came from somewhere or someone. If you don't want to know and are happy with the not knowing, you will not be convinced by anything that anyone tells you. You said - As an optimist, I kinda hope there is, but nothing I have ever seen or heard from any religion gives me reason to believe. Hope there is what? God? Do you not go into Baskin-Robbins and ask for a specific flavor, or do you walk in the door and hope someone gives you your favorite?
I'm not trying to prove anything here but this - Grim came here and expressed the POV that Americans 'bash' Muslims. That is simply not the case, and you are an 'imperfect' example. I do not wish to demean your POV, but he has a right to believe or not believe whatever he wishes in this country because we all of us have been guaranteed that we may exercise our consciences on such matters. Can you explain a 'miracle'? No, and neither of us can prove they occur, either. Maybe Grim by simply coming here and reading what we all have to say on the matter of tolerance will be his miracle.

I love the whole bit about misinterpretation of this or that text. God said it I believe it, that's good enough for me. Except, someone that no one ever laid eyes on said that God said it and when any good scholar looks at it, the person who said it didn't actually write it (much of the time). God always seems to be hear-say at best and heresy at worst, depending on who is quoting someone who is repeating something that someone else said who was listening intently to something but didn't write it down. People argue over text of dubious origins for what reason?

Something to think about. Call it meditations on Ohm. For thousands of years we thought the best way to discover the nature of the universe was through something called theology. Then the enlightenment came (which, with all due respect to my fellow citizens around the court house in AL, provided the basic tenets this fine country was founded on. Ben Franklen did something, a lot of things with his life, John Edwards... a waste of ink and breath as far as I'm concerned). We started meditating not on a fairy tale God of our own making but on things like V=I*R. Think about how valuable Ohm's Law is, how many people worldwide have jobs and how many of us are alive because someone did real work to figure this relationship out between voltage, current, and resistence. It's true, and it's just one simple thing that your life in the modern age is actually based upon. Compare and contrast this with the real benefits given to society by Islam or Christianity, etc. Now think of all the societies where no one got to the point of deriving Ohm's law (for example). No one argues about Ohm's law on a practical level. Everyone argues about religion. Ohm's Law does a lot of good. Religion is destructive and largely without benefit, except possibly as an opiate. Of course this is meant to be a topical ( the BALM of Gilead), but many people out there who have come in contact with the stuff quickly learn to freebase it, and opps, there goes the neocortex!

Now we have a President, who probably freebased something else but now claims that his policies are informed by his faith. Would Jesus have done the things that this guy has to the poor and under served while shoveling out cash to those who already have more than they can use? (I personally could see Jesus making another whip and marching right into the Oval Office, overturning that big desk saying things like, "how dare you... and did you realise the consequence of line 96 of artical 6 within you budget proposal...It's a great mental image, little George against a stong authorative figure who actually held a job doing physical labor at one point in his life) Islam hasn't hurt the poor of this country like the Bush administration has. The purpose of this reference is to use an easily accessable example of how someone with a clear lust for political power will not be afraid to use religion to their own ends and to hell with interpretation. UBL is said to put together the most beatific prose in arabic and preach a theology of vengence from the Koran. I think, based on my own experience in the US of late, that he doesn't really have to make too much sense theologically, he too probably only has to play to the simple and under-informed beliefs of his followers.

When you think about Islam running amuck out there in the third world, think about what a Christian Bishop said about European missionaries:

"When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said "Let us pray." We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land."

(Bishop Desmond Tutu)

What do you think they say in the less sympathetic Muslim world about such things? Don't you think that this history has anything to do with the anger so easily twisted by pols, like UBL and Ayman Zawahiri, eager to use the forge of religion to mold their followers to their will? The laudry list of offenses, real and perceived, is long and have little to do with religion and much to do with mammon. Leaders, call them politicians, use religion because it is poorly defined at its base and therefore putty in their dirty stinking hands. This is why Islam will have a hard time with learning tolerance. Isreal and their nutty evangelical backers in this country are not helping if this is the goal. What they are doing is real has real consequences in peoples live and has little to do with the pie in the sky bull sh*t that they seem to think buys them a free pass, which ironically is exactly what make God REAL made. How do I know? He told me. He really did! What, you're checking credentials now, when did that start?!?!

Good points mac33, but you fail to recognise that we are not descended from apes and are subsequently chosen by God. Your scientific ramblings are therefore egregious. Sussed! 10 Hail Marys for your impudence.

mac33,

I don't go with you on the Bush being neoSatan theme, but the stuff about how illogical religion is, amen sister! Pay no attention to dirky boy. You and me, we need to start up our own church. You tell me what god told you and I'll tell you what he told me. Any missing pieces we will just make up as the need arises. Hell it worked for that used camel thief, why not us?

Google hits for "Church of Elvis and mac33"- 1

Yeehaw! One bleeding hit!

neoSatan? And here I thought he was cut from the older cloth.

For those out there keeping score, I never mentioned evolution. If Dirk made his comment in jest, which it sounds like, he's right on. Physics, Geology, Biology... 'na na na na, I'm not listening!' When people started talking about the american taliban a while back I honestly thought they were talking about Falwell et al. Now there is a prime example of how this thread presented us with a flawed argument!

Elvis, next time try Nexus.

mac33 Does that NIC mean something? You are a very liberal-minded person, with no grasp whatsoever of right relationships of Man to State. I have neither the time nor the inclination to argue your 'wrong' ideas, but suffice it to say that your logic is flawed and your history in error. Do some reading. Start with a high school Government text book. Scratch that. Read the Declaration and Constitution. If you have questions, come back here and ask. Don't infer anything.

Oh, please enlighten me. You know, just because he founding fathers stated that the 'Creator' gave these rights to us doesn't give any proof what so ever that such an entity exists. The god of deism is a far cry from El (or who every you want to call him). The relationship of Man to State has been an ever shifting balance and alway comes down to some kind of social contract. The most sustainable contracts, I believe, are the most equitable ones. This requires that the people being governed are best served and that the state does not serve itself at the expense of it's weakest members. Maybe that makes me liberal, in the 1860's. At one point the chosen system was feudalism (unless you live in central america where it still seems to be thought of as such). There you have the devine right of kings, with the creator bestowing all his blessings on the top. Now, movement conservatives are pushing what appears to be the devine right of corporations on us. Just because references to God are sprinkled through out the founding documents doesn't mean that it wasn't intended to be allegorical. By the way, are you also a creationist? I've always wondered which creation story in Gen 1 or Gen 2 is the correct one to base a scientific explaination of the process and why is it that Gen 1 was always used. I figured it was because creationist had a hard enough time reading Gen 1, or maybe they liked the E texts better than the J, even though they were all literally true. (talk about a logical pretzel). I would love for you to actually tell me which of the ideas expressed are 'wrong' and how you bother to concretely define the 'right' relationships between Man and State. Sounds almost like Marx in it's dogmatism.

Natural Law. As I said, you are a liberal man. Do some reading. Whether I'm a Christian or Pagan, I have rights which are mine, and with those rights come responsibilities. You use a bunch of labels that you not only don't understand, you don't use them logically. Get a grip.

BTW mac33. If you think your rights are allegorical, or to think you acquired inalienable rights in an allegorical fashion, or that the FF's were laying your guaranteed rights on the line in an allegorical manner, you are allegorically hangin' yourself out to dry. Allegorically get a grip.

liberal is a label, do you understand it?

How are 'rights' allegory?

The FF might have been using an allegory for natural law, if there is no God, one in the 18th century might have used it as a useful metaphor for the fact that there is not rational reason why one person has the right to lifie, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (etc) while someone else does not, or has them to a lesser extent based on birthright.


One could argue that rights are cyclical. As you have said, rights imply responsiblity. The lack of responsible action leads to the loss of a person's rights. The proper exercise leads to greater rights, espeically in the aggragate.

You keep using the word "logically" and that I don't seem to appreciate this word but you have yet to tell me where I am illogical. Please, tell me who I should read to be brought back to the fold, or at least present me with a syllogism pointing out my error. If I am in error it will aid in my achieving understanding, sitting at the feet of one so wise as my present company. Sorry, I don't mean to be flip, it's not civil. I am not trying to stop you from believing what you want to, I'm just telling you that I think it is silly.

Hey, I can't tell if we are off the Tolerence track or right down the middle of the rails

The FFs (Signers of the Declaration) depended upon Jefferson to 'frame' the preamble. He used language that had been used before, but plagerized nobody. He defends his words. You seem to imply that there was other than the Creator for a source for inalienable rights. Jefferson understood the relationship of Man to the State, and that Society has rights and responsibilities as well. Whether you think it silly or no, you have them. You have duties because you have rights. They used no allegory. 39 of the 56 Signers were Christian, the others their affiliation cannot be determined. They believed in the Creator. He, according to them, was not allegorical, and by logical extension, the rights that they said were given to us by Him, are not allegorical.

'Their Creator' seems pretty generic to me. What if it turns out, even if it seems unlikely to all of us here, that the closest thing to a Creator is a Big Bang and subsequent evolution, both cosmologic and biological. What would it matter what those guys thought about in their free time? Where does your frame of reference go? It seems to me that the words 'Their Creator' is a bit of legal ass covering, otherwise they would have said, "God." This entire frame rest on the existance of a creator, not what Tom wrote down. (He told me I could call him that, check it out). At the point where one concludes that if there is not God we are on our own, is there anything left but natural law, of some sort or another? we are feeling in the dark without a cosmic Father telling us what to do and eat etc. What good is a line in a document, however binding, if its basis is not supported by experience or fact? Was there a competing hypothesis that the electorate would have accepted for where said rights came from, afterall, as you alluded to, it was a political document. I don't see what you have proved.

Take another SPIN, Cap'n.

mac33 God is mentioned in the Constitution. Are you attempting to tell me that they were going generic because they knew that you would not believe? LOL. Tight logic... Their 'ideas' were not new, sir. They came from somewhere! I can lay out three documents side by side, and whithout missing a beat, the same ideas as to rights are mentioned in all three. You are spinning off-thrread here, and it really has nothing to do with toleration. We could discuss INtoleration at the time of the Signing, but that has nothing to do with the present circumstances either.

Cap'n my Cap'n, where is God mentioned in the Constitution in what context that God becomes a binding principle?

i believe they were being generic because they needed language of inclusion. All the unitarians and deist hanging around the room, you know.

Does it really matter what they believed on the matter of God. You can believe something that is false. Many very smart people around that time believed in things like spontanious generation, bleeding for every little disease, Mercury as a cure all, the list goes on. There was no competing idea about origins or cosmology that politcians would embrace. Where did the idea of spontanious generation come from? If it was a good source does it make it more palatable? "They came from somewhere!" is nothing more than an appeal to authority! Come on cap'n, that is lame, if not as loose as one can get, logically.

You are right, we have both gotten way off thread and we won't convince each other of anything with this distraction. It does illustrate the problem, though.

mac33 - All the unitarians and deist hanging around the room, you know. Care to produce some numbers? I KNOW what they are, but I don't believe you do. You drag arguments into this that have no place, in that you 'might' be cooking this up in your brain... There was no allegorical connection. It matters what THEY thought, because by virtue of their thoughts on the matter, our government is rightly ordered, and your rights are guaranteed. Like I said, if you want to discuss INtolerance, we can do that, but it makes no difference what it was then - Iraq is the issue, Islam is the underlying issue, and if it weren't for the argument that we needed to make our religion a matter of conscience, they would not be able to decide for themselves about this matter of toleration.

Cap'n my Cap'n, where is God mentioned in the Constitution in what context that God becomes a binding principle?

i believe they were being generic because they needed language of inclusion. All the unitarians and deist hanging around the room, you know.

Does it really matter what they believed on the matter of God. You can believe something that is false. Many very smart people around that time believed in things like spontanious generation, bleeding for every little disease, Mercury as a cure all, the list goes on. There was no competing idea about origins or cosmology that politcians would embrace. Where did the idea of spontanious generation come from? If it was a good source does it make it more palatable? "They came from somewhere!" is nothing more than an appeal to authority! Come on cap'n, that is lame, if not as loose as one can get, logically.

You are right, we have both gotten way off thread and we won't convince each other of anything with this distraction. It does illustrate the problem, though.

Cap'n my Cap'n, where is God mentioned in the Constitution in what context that God becomes a binding principle?

i believe they were being generic because they needed language of inclusion. All the unitarians and deist hanging around the room, you know.

Does it really matter what they believed on the matter of God. You can believe something that is false. Many very smart people around that time believed in things like spontanious generation, bleeding for every little disease, Mercury as a cure all, the list goes on. There was no competing idea about origins or cosmology that politcians would embrace. Where did the idea of spontanious generation come from? If it was a good source does it make it more palatable? "They came from somewhere!" is nothing more than an appeal to authority! Come on cap'n, that is lame, if not as loose as one can get, logically.

You are right, we have both gotten way off thread and we won't convince each other of anything with this distraction. It does illustrate the problem, though.

Do the numbers matter, how about weight.

Jefferson, Christian?

Adams, Christian?

Franklen, Christian?

Okay, Hamilton was pretty damned important, I'll give you that. How many hangers on do you want to count and what would that prove? If these were the main authors and all the rest were actually Christians I would wonder it that means there was pandering going on in the record. I personally don't think that the response to King George's Government's actions were founded within the letters from St Paul.

How about Lincoln? what do you think honest Abe would say. I've read that he was a deist but by the time he became Pres. he had retreated to agnosticism. Of the people, for the people and by the people is almost a statement of Natural law. Pretty damned liberal too.

mac33 I don't know where you have been getting your information from, but I have done a Census of the Signers - of the Declaration in particular. I gave you a number before, which I was using from memory. The number of KNOWN Christians who signed the D of I was 41. That leaves 15. Three of those last were Deist, Theist or Unititarian, Universalists, or what have you. That leaves us with 12, and the only reason I cannot give you their affiliation is because it cannot be traced. Jefferson was potentially a Deist, but regardless of whether or no he was or was not, HE WROTE the Preamble. If you are interested in where the language came from, I can give it to you, but I am not about to take up thread space writing it all out. What does Lincoln have to do with this AT ALL? Which Adams? John was a Unitarian. DO you know what that means? Franklin? What were his beliefs? All of them knew quite well what relationship was required in order to form a rightly ordered government. That you would think that they formed it based on allegory is preposterous. I know how they went about the process. You do not. I know what Jefferson had for sources when he wrote it, and you do not. When you have invested some time in studying the subject, send me an email. I'm willing to share. In the meantime, don't propose arguments for which you have no proof, including allegory.

mac33 BTW. Hamilton didn't sign the Declaration.

mac33 BTW. You obfuscate as well. Nobody said there were any words drawn from the Epistles of St. Paul, at least Cap'n SPIN didn't. Did you?

Robert Prather Here, one can learn from white Americans. Fifty years ago, racist views were tolerated, even encouraged by mainstream society.
We can all learn a lesson from our 'mainstream views', but I wanted to add that RELIGIOUS intolerance was not laid to rest in this country until the late Twenties...

Are you saying there is no religious intolerance in the US? Or that it is mostly unseen?

And thank Zorg, the distant, the disinterested, that Al Legory didn't steal the presidency in 2000.

Elvis American Protective Association. It claimed 4 million members at one time. Google it up. Do you see religious intolerance of consequence in this country today? I know that is a question that you asked me, but I wouldn't call your attitude intolerant, nor would I called mac33's POV intolerant. For him, he may not know or may have never learned the true source of American Democracy and Tolerance. I am willing to demonstrate that I do. For you - well, for you I have hope. :o)

God hates fags (Lev 20:13)

dirk 'Judge not, lest ye be judged'. Is He speaking directly to you? Unless He is, I think you are using Private Interpretation, and are perhaps misspeaking. I say perhaps, because I would have to look at a Commentary which covers the cite.

dirk Old Law. Christ brought a new Law. It is the act which is condemned. It violates the sanctity of the marriage act. In short, the right end of marriage is procreation.

Cap'n

I know you have read some of my posts. You have dubbed some of them egregious. I hope you believe my previous post was a misstatement. My previous post is a direct quote from placards brandished by the Reverend(!) Fred Phelps and his supporters, who condoned the beating to death of Matthew Shepard, picketed his funeral with such placards and no doubt helpful verbal Christian advice as to the permitted conduct of the mourners and now proposes to erect a monument to his murder confirming his passage to Hell. I'd say, on balance, religious intolerance in the US is a current problem. Or do I have to quote Ann Coulter's post 9/11 thinkpiece on Middle East stability?

DIRK You do not have to quote anyone. I know of no Fred Phelps, reverand or otherwise. Intolerance is expressed in numerous ways, and I don't claim to be an expert. I have spent over thirty years of study of my Faith, the early history of our country, and several years examining Islam.
I did not find your previous comment to be egregious. I responded as I felt it required to be answered. Many Christians, despite warnings in the New Testament to do otherwise, interpret as they see fit. Fred Phelps, although taking words from the OT, does not follow in the footsteps of Christ in the matter of tolerance, nor would I agree with the sentiment. When I addressed you as liberal, I took only what you said as expressing a liberal attitude toward our President and his Administration. You have the right to express and hold your POV.

Now ya'll have gone and done it! Never in my life have I knowingly felt egregious, but when I woke up this morning, damned if I didn't jump up and say, "Boy howdy, do I feel egregious today".

Stop the insanity!!!!!

Elvis Hope.

There is no benefit in the gifts of a bad man.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: