A few passages taken out of context and some terribly biased writings by Christian conservatives bent on defaming Islam is not overwhelming evidence of anything but one person's beliefs and desire to spread intolerance. Speaking of religions persecuting and killing non believers here's how Christianity fairs: From the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs: HISTORY: Foreign Domination ( http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts+About+Israel/History/HISTORY- Foreign Domination ): By the end of the 4th century, following Emperor Constantine's adoption of Christianity (313) and the founding of the Byzantine Empire, the Land of Israel had become a predominantly Christian country. Churches were built on Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Galilee, and monasteries were established in many parts of the country. Jews were deprived of their former relative autonomy, as well as of their right to hold public positions, and were forbidden to enter Jerusalem except on one day of the year (Tisha b'Av - ninth of Av) to mourn the destruction of the Temple. In July 1099, after a five-week siege, the knights of the First Crusade and their rabble army captured Jerusalem, massacring most of the city's non-Christian inhabitants. Barricaded in their synagogues, the Jews defended their quarter, only to be burned to death or sold into slavery. The Jewish Virtual Library (American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise): The Virtual Jewish History Tour - Germany (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/germany.html): With Christendom unified in a single purpose, the Jews were now viewed as outsiders, and were rumored to be allied with the Muslims. Crusaders would routinely massacre whole Jewish communities on their way to the Holy Land. Communities in Worms, Mainz and Cologne were devastated; in Mainz, for example, 1,100 Jews were killed in one day in 1096, and the synagogue and other communities buildings were razed. It is important to note that while the Pope occasionally condemned these attacks on Jews, the condemnations were neither vocal nor frequent. Moreover, the lack of any punishment or reprisals against the violators of the Pope's orders gave the rioters implicit approval, and the attacks continued during the next seven crusades in the 12th and 13th centuries. .... In the thirteenth century, the Catholic Church instituted the Inquisition. Secular and religious rulers alike attacked "heretics" – a category that sometimes included Jews – with savagery, subjecting them to imprisonment, forced conversion and often death. At the same time, the Jews were accused of killing children for ritual purposes (blood libels), of host desecration, and, during the Black Plague in the fourteenth century, of poisoning wells. These accusations, and the violence that followed them (Juddenschlacht, or "Jews slaughter), led to the repeated expulsion of the Jews of Germany from their towns. The following linked article is a good example of Christian behavior towards Jews it is writings by Martin Luther (the founder of Protestant Christian religions). His writings are to vile to reprint so I'll just quote the introductory commentary. From the Jewish Virtual Library (American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise): Martin Luther: The Jews and Their Lies ( http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Luther_on_Jews.html ): At the beginning of his career, Luther was apparently sympathetic to Jewish resistance to the Catholic Church. He wrote, early in his career:The Jews are blood-relations of our Lord; if it were proper to boast of flesh and blood, the Jews belong more to Christ than we. I beg, therefore, my dear Papist, if you become tired of abusing me as a heretic, that you begin to revile me as a Jew.But Luther expected them to convert to his purified Christianity. When they did not, he turned violently against Jews. ... although Luther's comments seem to be proto-Nazi, they are better seen as part of tradition of Medieval Christian anti-Semitism. While there is little doubt that Christian anti-Semitism laid the social and cultural basis for modern anti-Semitism, modern anti-Semitism does differ in being based on pseudo-scientific notions of race.Falsely labeling one as anti-Semitic as GTech has done here is as irreprehensible and is no better than those who are truly anti-Semitic. If any single act in this forum deserves being banned for, labeling another as anti-Semitic is as unforgivable of an offense as one could commit in this forum. The citations I reference above are just the tip of the examples of the atrocities committed in the name of Christianity and the compulsion of Christianity upon non-believers by way of a "sword". I could continue on with my digging into the history of how Christians not only persecuted non-believers (especially Jews) and used the sword to spread their beliefs, but for now what I have posted serves my point. Those who claim that Islam is an inherently violent religion should turn inward and look at their own religion because millions have died or been persecuted in the name of Christianity. If we were to deploy the standards some here want to deploy to discriminate against Islam, we would also be forced to ban Christianity.
yet again I ask gtech and bead corn what is the solution? if you were king of the world what would you do, ban islam? kill all the muslims? what exactly do you guys suggest doing? since muslim is totally evil or whatever?
Incorrect. The basis of the entire allegation is false: 1) The verses are in context and as of this post, you have failed in every way to put them in any context. In fact, I've done it for you in numerous replies, yet you continue to use deception and denial as your shields. 2) There are no biased writings. There are truthful writings, yet you are not interested in the truth or being aware. You would prefer sweep everything presented under the carpet of "political correctness" as an islamic apologist. The depth of your deception has amazed many here. In fact, the evidence has been so overwhelming, through news reports, historical articles and those who truly know the history, that most of what you have posted in the name of other apologists has long been rebutted. Still, you persist with covering up the truth and resisting knowledge. What happened a thousand years ago, whether historically correct or rewritten by apologists/revisionists, has no bearing on the argument. You've more than demonstrated that you have no interest in anything truthful at all, therefore you have no credibility with your sources. What you are doing here is seeking moral equivalence from a time none of us were alive. To assert moral equivalece here, is to accept what I've been posting all along, including numerous sources that just flat out present you as a liar. In essence, by choosing moral equivalence as your sheild, you accept the former as truth and now seek to say "here, this also happened" as a way to deflect from the current topic of discussion. A poor choice on your part, but then you have a consistent pattern of poor choices. I've not falsely labeled you anything. Your posts were the epitome of anti-semitism. If you are ashamed of making anti-semitic remarks and making purely one-sided attacks against Jews and Israel, as you did earlier, then you should think about the positions you are wilfully volunteering on a public forum. I did not ask you to exude your anti-semitism, you did it on your own free will. You have attacked Israel with one-sided view points, that like virtually anything else you offer, are lacking in truth. You've gone to great lengths to rewrite history and your posts were persecutions of the Jews of Israel. The last time you were losing this continued debate, like a coward, you ran crying to moderators with no regards to the reprehensible filth you, yourself, put forth. It appears that once again, the false and deceptive arguments you put forth are just not accepted by anyone and the only recourse you feel you have is to call for my being banned. Silence those who counter the revisionism and deceit you preach. Indeed, I am humbled that this is the only remaining measure you have to call for.
Good post, I have to agree, Constitution was made a sheild GTech if it wasn't there we would have no where else to turn and turn into a facist state. the Constitution is there to protect our right's and also the right's of your annoying and biased post's. So if KBG is hiding behind it, so are you.
yeah but guys don't every really say anything its "we need to vigiliant, and make some degrading remarks about their religion" if muslims are as inherently evil as you guys say shouldn't we just start killing them, or least not allow muslims in the US?
Using the Constitution as your shield again, in order to avoid directly commenting on your hypocrisy for outright denial and deceit of verses you want to sweep under the carpet as an apologist. Your sources have primarily come directly from discredited islamic apologists. They have done your thinking for you and you have clearly demonstrated this. The only one I'm aware of that you haven't used yet is Karen Armstrong. Not the wide array you might have others believe, but from like minded apologists wo seek to cover up the truth. You seek to offer confusion between the actual hatred (kill non-belivers, don't befriend Christians and Jews) and being aware of it, like most bleeding heart liberal apologists. Deny and obfuscate the truth through deception and label those who are aware of such. The hatred preached is in the mosques around the world on Fridays, "death to America, death to Israel, death to Jews" is the hatred, but rather than being aware of such, you attempt to alter reality and say anyone who is aware of such and takes issue with it, is the offender. Deceit. Your inconvenient truths are right here. They show how wrong you are and to what lengths you have gone to deceive others. It's funny you believe you can see something in others, but are so oblivious to what you yourself are doing. But then again, you are not really oblivious are you? It's intentional deception. Incorrect. They are from apologists like yourself. One lie after another. Ignoring everything presented because despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you cannot fathom that you are wrong, even though you are. No one suggest they are not. The entire argument has been based on what is in the quran and the great lengths you have gone to white wash it. As I, and others have previously noted: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=697343&postcount=125 But you are too ignorant and deceptive and seek to use the "hatred card" against those who are aware of the hatred being taught. Hypocrisy. The Constitution makes no declaration about religions that call for the deaths of others. If we are going to shift to talking about moving, I suggest you move to the palestinian territories where you can continue your verbal tirades against Israel in action. They have revisionists working hard for them and as a dhimmi, you would do well for them. You took the positions of other apologists and their references and used them as red herrings against perceived arguments that simply didn't exist. Strawman arguments. As have I done, repeatedly. And us usual, ignored them. Pretending they didn't exist. Pretending Beslan didn't occur. Pretending tsunami funds are not being used to abuse women. Pretending events in our time just didn't happen. Attempting to cover up everything. But it didn't work. Don't blame me for your voluntary anti-semitic views. If you are ashamed of them, don't make them on a public forum for others to see. Likewise, I consider liars and people who use deception as the most despicable of people. So you are not alone. I saw very little, if any questioning. But it is popular for deceptive people to make the kind of posts you did, then later refer to them as "just questioning." It was outright allegations, one sided. Though you called for a balance, the only thing you did was defend terrorists and attack Israel. Incorrect. You referenced a left wing peace activist who is also an apologist. We do not live in historical times, we live today. And it is clear who is treating the Jews with such contempt. Liberals, the liberal media, islamic apologists such as yourself and islam, as it always has. Outright lies and attacks are not questioning. It seems you are aware of every perceived shame in the world, but one. And you have no excuse for doing such, even though you do it. I certainly don't question this particular comment. I'm well aware of the Catholics complicity. But I'm not a Catholic apologist and I don't need cover up history by seeking moral equivalence. You take issue with Catholics, but we see who you don't take issue with. Good apologist! No one that I'm aware of disputes that Jews have been the subject of persecution by many throughout history. However, in your usual attempt, you see it in everyone but islam. A good apologist! Fortunately, one need only go back and reference the views you openly volunteered on a public forum to see them. If you are ashamed of your anti-semitic comments, don't make them in a public forum. Not everyone is ready to come out of the closet, but sometimes they inadvertanly do. Israel was Israel long before islam was invented. palestinians do not want their own state, as evidenced by numerous attempts over the years to help them achieve such. They choose not to, on their own accord. They want israel wiped off the earth. And complicit apologists are more than ready to do their bidding. Your continued attempts to hide behind the Constitution are flawed. They are strawmen arguments with no foundation. No one contests islam's right to religion in the US. No one contests their right to practice their religion, even though evidence exists that most mosques in the US are preaching a violent and hatred filled ideology. You have no problem with the hate preached, but take issue with anyone who is aware of such. All the while making up strawman arguments to abuse the Constitution with. And that's a shame.
I can't speak for others, but I make no argument that I have the solution to "everything." I contend that being aware, despite deceitful apologists, is something everyone should do.
And your saying Christianity isn't preaching hate and violence? What about the radical Christians who claim to hate Muslims and want the jew's back in Palestine (The Holy Land) those are not preaching violence and hate? All those TV preachers saying that it's the Christians duty to help the jew's back in there 'Holy Land' even if it means violence (Revelations In the bible).
Indeed what is their solution. The its been answered many times in the past won't fly just as others were not satisfied with my simple links to relevant articles. A vague dismissal of these questions won't fly. Either answer this these questions in this thread or shut up. No vague evasive answers. In detail what is your solution or do you have no solution? Give us an explicit solution or we will have to conclude you have no solution and simply want to spout of hatred and intolerance and have no idea what the solution is. Islam is a reality. 1.3 billion Muslims is a reality. Several million Muslims living in the U.S. is a reality. Since you believe that Islam is so evil, what is your solution? How would you solve the Islam "problem"? Would you try to force 1.3 billion people to convert at the point of a sword. Would you drive them out of the U.S.? Would you suspend the Constitution? Just what would you do? All you do is spout hatred and intolerance. Hatred and intolerance breeds violence and violence begets more violence. The intolerance I have heard spouted in this forum stinks of the intolerance of a certain fascist government some 60-70 years ago. The Constitution is not something that can be selectively defended. Either it is defended for all or it is worthless. This nation was NOT founded as a Christian nation and no where in the constitution does it create any qualifiers to the guaranteeing of religious freedom. Our founding fathers were not ignorant of Islam and in fact one of our first treaties was with an Islamic nation. As I have repeated cited our founding fathers made reference to Islam and Muslims in relation to their clarifying what they meant by religious freedom. John Adams and the U.S. Senate further clarified their position when they ratified the Treaty of Tripoli in 1797, which is a treaty with an Islamic nation and happened to have been written in Arabic and English. It is very clear to all but the most ignorant and/or cowardly that the Constitution's protection of the freedom of religion includes the religion of Islam. To try and deny a Muslim their right to their religion or to express their religion is to spit on the Constitution and to trample on those things that our founding fathers deemed fundamentally important to a free and peaceful society. Those who can not accept this basic principle about our Constitution and its protection of the freedom of religion do not deserve its protection and should leave the U.S. because they are wholly unamerican. In regards the repeated and unredeemablely disgraceful accusations of Antisemitism, two editorials must be read (both editorials are in regards to President Carter's new book): The first is http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/soumaya_ghannoushi_/2006/12/article.htmlBut in the world of politics, nothing, no one, no group and no state is above criticism or condemnation. No one is above the law. If I criticise Saudi Arabia or Iran I am not an Islamophobe. If I denounce China's actions I am not an enemy of communism or Confucianism. If I condemn India's policies I am not a Hindu hater. By the same token, criticising Israel does not make the critic an anti-semite. Criticism has nothing to do with love or hatred for your subject, and every thing with calling what you see before you by its name whatever the risks may be. This means telling the truth as it is. The opposite is complicity with the aggressor and betrayal of the victim. The following editorial on this subject was written by M.J. Rosenberg, Director of Policy Analysis for Israel Policy Forum, is a long time Capitol Hill staffer and former editor of AIPAC's (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) Near East Report. If Mr. Rosenberg is not qualified to authoritatively speak on this, no one is. The entire editorial can be read at http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=18801:There is a disturbing trend in the pro-Israel community in which the usual suspects react to any and all criticism of Israeli policies by assaulting the critics, demanding that they either shut up or be prohibited from speaking at a particular venue. This has to stop. Americans should be free to discuss any subject they choose without being subjected to hit jobs from self-appointed monitors of Middle Eastern political correctness. A former President of the United States is immune to those attacks. But other writers, professors and journalists are not immune to pressure. And that pressure stifles discussion. If the Iraq Study Group is free to dissect the conduct of a war while it is going on, any American should feel free to criticize any aspect of foreign policy including U.S. policy toward Israel. That should go without saying. In Israel, not an apartheid state but a beleaguered democracy, everyone from Knesset members, to journalists, to cab drivers feel free to express views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that would cause conniption fits here [in the U.S.]. It makes no sense. You should not have to take a 10 hour flight just so you can watch an open and free-wheeling debate about the Middle East. You should be able to do it here. It's a free country. Right?
Nor will "I don't have to provide a context they belong in." To suggest there is a solution is to accept there is a problem. And in doing that, you openly admit to your deceit and lies that there isn't any. Thanks klb, I believe that is checkmate Will you be taking your own advice to shut up? Nothing could describe you better.
To recap klb's revisionism and deceit, this is basically where it all started. Bigotry - if you don't think the way I do, you are a wacko. While hiding behind the Constitution with strawman arguments, lies, deceit, moral equivalence, denial, anti-semitic posts against Israel, diatribes against Christians and Jews, it all boils down to his own bigotry. Denying another's view. Intolerance of other's views.
You are the one claiming that there is a problem with Islam, not me. If YOU believe there is a problem with Islam and Muslims worshiping Islam in this country, what is your solution or do you have no solution because you know there is no problem and you are simply a hateful person who simply wants to spread fear and intolerance of other people's religions? The problem is you can't post what YOU really believe the solution is because it would prove that you are an intolerant fascist who would spread YOUR beliefs with the point of the sword. People like you are the real danger to our country because people like you would have no problems suspending the Constitution to protect your sensibilities and it is becoming all to apparent that you would be willing to use any tactic to force your religious beliefs on others. Here it is the Christian season of peace and all you can do is spread hatred and intolerance. May God have mercy on your soul.
The ignorance is yours and it is sweet! To assert there is a solution is to accept there is a problem. Being aware is not hatred. I'm am not practicing the hatred in these verses, I'm being aware of them. In fact, it would appear that you approve of and condone not taking Jews to be friends and killing non-believers, as you are going to great lengths to deny them away. Fully aware of what hatred is, but denying it when it's in plain view. Hypocrisy. Bigotry - if you don't think the way I do, you are a wacko.
just tell us what the solution is Gtech, or what might be the solution if you are right and the muslims are inherently evil , the mosques preach evil, they all want to kill us and they are taking over the world there only seems to be one logical solution, we should ban islam, get rid of the mosques, burn all the qurans, and outlaw it, right? Its seems like you guys are just too pussy to say what you really think we should do? If muslims are inherenently evil as you guys say, why are you holding back? Shouldn't we get rid of them?
I've already addressed your weak question here. This is a flawed assumption, except what is in bold. The rest is fantasy that has no foundation. This wouldn't be the first time you've shared your skewed perceptions. Reiterating a flawed argument, that no one has even remotely offered, except for you. It seems for someone who has a history of sympathy towards terrorists, you've come about full circle and surpassed anyone here.
Such pedantic observations. The difference lies in the fact that persecution by Christians is in contradiction to the teaching of Christ and the New Testament which bares His Holy name. Persecution of non-muslims by muslims is perpetrated in concert with their bloody prophets dictums and authorized by the koran. Quite simple actually.