Will America Ever Have a Muslim President? (1 Viewer)

[St. Widge]

:redx: No. Actually Islam fits perfectly within the "western" tradition. The biggest difference is that many Judeo-Christian civilizations and nation-states seperated secular functions from religious functions. The problem with most Muslim nation states is not Islam in of itself, it's the lack of seperation between church and state.

But to claim that Islam and western civilization is incompatable is just patently false.

There are a few Muslim nations which are advanced and just as "western" as other "western" nations.

Especially when you consider the fact that Islam is really a branch of Christianity in many ways. They worship the same god that the Jews and Christians worship, it's just that they follow a different profit and reject that Jesus was the son of god. They see Jesus as a profit, much like the Jews.

 

[MSUSousaphone]

My point is that any religion, be it Muslim, Christian, etc. can be interpreted by some to justify violence. (Maybe not Buddhism) And, that both extremist Christians and Extremist Muslims have and will commit acts of violence in the name of their god. Your claim was that there was a "HUGE difference" between extremist Christians and extremist Muslims. That statement is "flat out wrong." On the other hand, there is nothing wrong about what I said, since I agree that the New Testament teaches a path of peace and love. The problem is that some don't interpret it that way and find ways of using the language in the Christian Bible to justify violence, just as some interpret the words of the Koran to justify violence.

But that's where our differences are. It can't be used to justify it. Some people may TRY to but they are wrong. You can't take the teachings that say to 'Turn the other cheek' and to 'Obey the law of the land' and that preaches selflessnes and going so far as to let yourself be killed before doing harm to others and justify killing people with it.

So IMO, these people should no longer be considered Christians, as they abondoned Jesus' teachings. They were not true followers. The religion did not promote it.

Now again, the Muslim faith may be like that and its just extremists abusing its teachings. Then there wouldn't be much difference at all. But, and my origianal point, if the teachings of the faith does promote violence to spread the news, than its totally different and not comparable.

But again, I don't know the Muslim faith. :dunno:

 

[St. Widge]

But that's where our differences are. It can't be used to justify it. Some people may TRY to but they are wrong. You can't take the teachings that say to 'Turn the other cheek' and to 'Obey the law of the land' and that preaches selflessnes and going so far as to let yourself be killed before doing harm to others and justify killing people with it.

So IMO, these people should no longer be considered Christians, as they abondoned Jesus' teachings. They were not true followers. The religion did not promote it.

The problem with that is that then you get into a battle over what it really means to be a "Christian". If you are a protestant does that mean Catholics aren't Christians or if you are Catholic that protestants aren't Christians? They make different conclusions based on reading the same book. It's convenient to say that if someone reads the same book and reaches a different conclusion they aren't like me, especially when that conclusion is that it's okay to kill for your god, but I'm not sure it's true. Were the Crusader's not Christians? How about IRA bombers? What about Christian terror squads in Bosnia? What about people who say that you should go to Chruch on Sunday eventhough the Bible clearly indicates that the Sabbath is on Saturday?

After all, Lenin used atheism to promote things that the vast majority of of atheists disagree with, but that doesn't change the fact that he was an atheist.

 

[Thorin]

It isn't. I don't want Huckabee in there either.

edit to add that I do think the muslim extreme is worse. I don't trust them based on the 1000's of years of christian/muslim history. But the fact is we need neither extreme in office.

Agreed, thank you.

 

[TPS]

>>The essence of Islam is very anti-American. The essense of America is anti-islam.

Anti-Islamist perhaps. But according to one of her close friends of the past 25 years, the book Benazir Bhutto finished editing on the day she was assassinated makes the case for Islam and Democracy. You may not want to believe that. You may view things in other terms, but you would be wrong or at the very least incomplete. The book is entitled, "Reconcillation: Islam, Democracy and the West."

The general rule is if you think you know you probably don't.

TPS

 

[MSUSousaphone]

The problem with that is that then you get into a battle over what it really means to be a "Christian". If you are a protestant does that mean Catholics aren't Christians or if you are Catholic that protestants aren't Christians? They make different conclusions based on reading the same book. It's convenient to say that if someone reads the same book and reaches a different conclusion they aren't like me, especially when that conclusion is that it's okay to kill for your god, but I'm not sure it's true. Were the Crusader's not Christians? How about IRA bombers? What about Christian terror squads in Bosnia? What about people who say that you should go to Chruch on Sunday eventhough the Bible clearly indicates that the Sabbath is on Saturday?

After all, Lenin used atheism to promote things that the vast majority of of atheists disagree with, but that doesn't change the fact that he was an atheist.

Again, though, its the people and not the teachings.

We're not even arguing the same thing. Are the people comparable? Yes. Are the teachings comparable? Agian, I don't know the Muslim faith well, so if they preach no violence for any reasons, than yes its very comparable, but if they do promote violence in God's name, than its not comparable....at all.

 

[Thorin]

Again, though, its the people and not the teachings...

... Agian, I don't know the Muslim faith well, so if they preach no violence for any reasons, than yes its very comparable, but if they do promote violence in God's name, than its not comparable....at all.

The koran is peaceful, the whacko extremists are making their own rules to suit their agenda.

 

[TPS]

>>We're not even arguing the same thing. Are the people comparable? Yes. Are the teachings comparable? Agian, I don't know the Muslim faith well, so if they preach no violence for any reasons, than yes its very comparable, but if they do promote violence in God's name, than its not comparable....at all.

Spanish Inquisition
Crusades
Abortion Clinic Bombers
War Mongers
etc.

Yes, they are definitely the same. They may not completely equal each other today, but there are historical equivallencies. Jewist, Christianist ([tm] for PaTsy) and Islamist fundamentalists all pretty much share the same ultimate views: a) they know the mind of God and therefore are self-justified in whatever actions they undertake; b) only their way is the right way; c) all others capitulate or die or burn in hell.

TPS

 

[BigRonJon]

>>The essence of Islam is very anti-American. The essense of America is anti-islam.

Anti-Islamist perhaps. But according to one of her close friends of the past 25 years, the book Benazir Bhutto finished editing on the day she was assassinated makes the case for Islam and Democracy. You may not want to believe that. You may view things in other terms, but you would be wrong or at the very least incomplete. The book is entitled, "Reconcillation: Islam, Democracy and the West."

The general rule is if you think you know you probably don't.

TPS

But you do know?

Im not sure what your point is, Bhutto is the authority on Islam? I may not want to believe what? that she wrote a book contrary to muslim fundamentalism?


How many nut jobs blow up abortion clinics? not that many.
How many nut jobs blow up kids and women in the middle east? daily

 

[Waymer]

I would be happy to tomorrow, I'm at work now and dont have the book here. I think its important for people to know the truth that political correctness is trying to hide.

The Quran is specific in who must be harmed, all "infidels" or non-muslims.

I don't disagree with you in regards to that, but let's be very specific as to what infidels are actually defined as. Most, and I do mean most (99.999999%), people would not be defined as infidels. Those who are interpreting things have skewed this definition to justify attacks like 9/11 and Islam teaches respect to other religions.

 

[BigRonJon]

I don't disagree with you in regards to that, but let's be very specific as to what infidels are actually defined as. Most, and I do mean most (99.999999%), people would not be defined as infidels. Those who are interpreting things have skewed this definition to justify attacks like 9/11 and Islam teaches respect to other religions.

Since you seem to know a good bit about islam, could you please define what Quran calls infidels? Also where in the quran does it say about respecting other religions? The quran is full of contridictions.

 

[TPS]

>>But you do know?

Yeah I know. It's pretty apparent that the Americans and British are ultimately responsible for the state of the Middle East and therefore, Islam, today. They didn't carve up their countries, didn't appoint their leaders and didn't have the shadowbacking of various kings, shahs, sheiks, dictators and such without either of our two countries. Could Islam function in America and vice versa? Probably.

>>Im not sure what your point is, Bhutto is the authority on Islam? I may not want to believe what? that she wrote a book contrary to muslim fundamentalism?

No. The point is that your statement is disputed from the heart of radical Islam, Pakistan's former leader. I'm sure Queen Noor would be a better face than Usama bin Laden for that argument too. But you seem to be dealing in an absolute that doesn't necessarily exist for all times, just for now and among extremists.

TPS

 

[Taurus]

Forget violence, I wonder how a faithful Muslim man could ever possibly reconcile his faith with American insistence on equality when the Koran explicitly states that women are inferior to men.

My wife runs into this all the time. Otherwise reasonable men, intelligent, seemingly well-integrated into American culture come apart at the seams when they have to take orders from a mere female. They resent it, fight against it, get passive-aggressive, downright defiant, etc. etc. etc. Imagine the worst knuckledragging misogynist you know, now put him in a suit and give him an excellent education in computer sciences and you've got the guys she all-too-often has to work with.

We will skip what the Koran has to say (and is never later modified) about homosexuals and nonbelievers.

 

[SaintJ]

Is W forcing others to be Christian or imposing his religious beliefs by force and violence? Christianity is based on faith, which cant be forced on someone. Muslims want to take over the world by any means necessary, that is fundamental islam.

Let's just say the C-I-C isn't putting a lot of energy into opposing the idea.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080214063450.m1i2f0gz&show_article=1

 

[RebSaint]

but if they do promote violence in God's name, than its not comparable....at all.

I think you are really missing something here. In fact, I think most everybody is.

It's not the religion in of itself, it's the misinterpretation of religion. Islam and Christianity in of themselves don't condone killing innocent people.

I recognize that there are many more people in this world probably who misinterpret/mischaracterize Islam than Christianity--it really doesn't have anything much to do with the religions themselves, nor the history of both Christianity and Islam.

In fact, as TPS indicated the problems with Islam and the middle east have much more to do with lots of other things beyond just religion.