Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Imam Rauf's refusal to acknowledge and denounce Hamas as a terrorist organization is very telling as to his ideological alliance, if not financial alliance, with the Muslim Brotherhood (google it).
He refuses to denounce a group which he may one day have to negotiate with in his fight to build peace in the Middle East, and you want to slander him because of it.
And yet only yesterday you were defending GW Bush's right to refuse to comment.
I have read what he's written. And saying that American law is currently compliant with Sharia Law in his opinion is a far cry from what you are saying.
By him saying that "American law is currently compliant with Sharia Law" clearly identifies his belief that Sharia Law is paramount, as he graciously grants a passing grade of "compliance" to constitutional law.
More importantly is what he doesn't say but implies is that he would not be bound to constitutional law if it were not compliant with Sharia Law, and would work to make it compliant, which is EXACTLY the point.
By him saying that "American law is currently compliant with Sharia Law" clearly identifies his belief that Sharia Law is paramount, as he graciously grants a passing grade of "compliance" to constitutional law.
More importantly is what he doesn't say but implies is that he would not be bound to constitutional law if it were not compliant with Sharia Law, and would work to make it compliant, which is EXACTLY the point.
Actually, more to the point is how he interprets Sharia Law, don't you think? Because he doesn't interpret it the same way Al Qaedo does. He doesn't interpret it the same way the Taliban does. The Taliban doesn't interpret it the same way as the Iranian clerics do. They ALL are different.
He's not the enemy. The majority of Muslims in the world are not the enemy. They don't all think alike. Sharia Law isn't uniform across all Muslim groups. When the Pope issues an edict, the Baptists don't listen, do they? Well when one Muslim cleric issues a fatwa, it doesn't mean that all Muslims have to obey.
What we need in this country is less knee-jerk reactions and more people actually educating themselves about things they fear or worry about.
And we are a secular nation. We aren't in danger of becoming a non-secular nation except from the militant Christians who are whipping themselves into a frenzy over Sharia Law.
This picture isn't real. It's a still from a movie. How about I find a picture of zombies tearing apart a human, and start using that to get people all fired up?
Pelosi said the FUNDING of the opposition to the planned mosque should be investigated. It's not the same thing. And the difference is important.
There is no difference whatsoever because as a government representative, Pelosi is the government, and the government has no say what transpires on private property, especially in a religious debate. What difference does it make who funded, or who organized the protest? By aligning herself and hence, aligning the government, such is a violation of church and state. PERIOD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
Regarding what you say about Islam. It disturbs me to no end that people keep on making these references to Islam as if every person who was a Muslim was a clone. There are several distinct branches of Islam. Sunnis, Shi-ites, Kurds, and so on. In the same way that Christianity has different branches. Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians. And then within the branches there are different sects. Even the First Baptist church in town teaches things a little different than the Emmanual Baptist church in town. The Muslim faith is no different. People who fear Islam have gone through to find the most egregious passages to support their fears. There are plenty of hateful passages in the Bible, as well.
And it disturbs me to no end to see so much denial under the guise of political correctness when such is simply an extreme demonstration of naiveté.
And given the fact that there are no sects of the Christian religion which rule entire nations with an iron fist, nor sends out global commands to commit murder of those opposing the Christian Church or who have been deemed to have insulted the church, there is a distinct and enormous difference.
Christians are not commanded by the Bible to convert non-christians under the threat of death to those who refuse such conversion ... nor do they call for holy wars (Jihad) for which ALL Christians are required to honor, as are the Muslims.
And you can draw a funny cartoon of Jesus, and publish it on your website without fear, but try doing that with Mohammed, and you'll have a Fatah placed on you, which compels Muslims everywhere to find you and kill you.
Do ya think there is no difference?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
We don't have to fear Islam. We have to fear extremism. And the people expressing a fear of Islam seem to be somewhat extremist in their views.
With over one Billion Muslims in the world, and a conservative estimate that at least half of those are fundamentalists, that makes 600 Million radical muslims in this world. You may sell this BS of yours to those with an intellect equal to a dish cloth, but any rational mind can easily see the threat posed by religious ideologues who's philosophies are so hostile to individual freedoms. Even the moderate Muslims make christian fundamentalist demagoguery tame by comparison. And Islam is not just a religion ... it also encompasses it's own political and financial systems which are contrary to our constitutional republic.
Need I remind you of all of the examples of Muslim dominated governments? As some would have you believe, the Taliban and their extremist views of oppressing females, banning electronics such as television and even radios ... banning books except Islamic religious manuals were an anomaly .. but nothing could be further from the truth. Saudi Arabia is an Islamo-facist nightmare ... and in many other countries where Islam is the state religion, individual freedoms simply do not exist, but stone age type oppression and brutal punishments are a fact of daily life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
This Imam is a moderate. Here's what he's written, nothing about overthrowing the Constitution, nothing about Sharia law being substituted for American law.
Grounding itself in reason, just as the Quran and the Abrahamic ethic did in asserting the self-evident oneness of God, the Declaration opens with the most important line in the document: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident." The language evokes the long tradition of natural law, which holds that there is a higher law of right and wrong from which to derive human law and against which human laws may be -- and ought to be -- measured. It is not political will but moral reasoning accessible to all that is the foundation of the American political system.
But "nature," at least in the eyes of believers in God, is just another word for "God's creation," and thus natural law must mean "the laws that God established and structured creation on." These span the spectrum from the laws of the physical sciences such as mathematics, physics, biology, and chemistry to the sociological and psychological laws that govern human relationships, all of which are knowable to humans through reason. Thus the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence opens with the words "When ... it becomes necessary for one People ... to assume ... the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them".
Here's what else the moderate Imam said:
“In America, we have a Constitution that created a three-branch form of government -- legislative, executive and judiciary. The role of the judiciary is to ensure that the other two branches comply with the Constitution. What Muslims want is a judiciary that ensures that the laws are not in conflict with the Qur'an and the Hadith.
Now go ahead and put the Islamo-Facist spin on this if you like ... but few are going to be taken in by such obfuscations. Just as was said earlier, and reiterated in his own words ... Muslims want a Judiciary compliant with Sharia Law. Do you need me to define what "Comply" means?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
Pointing out the slander when people are saying that he wants to overthrow the Constitution and American law is exactly the right thing to do. It is slander and needs to called what it is.
No, your claims are left wing double talk that wants to insist that up is really down.
You want to automatically accept the claims of this radical as he attempts to present himself as a moderate, regardless of how his own statements betray him.
He is a radical Muslim who's core beliefs are contrary to a free nation, and should not be allowed to spread his cancer among the gullible who follow him. If he wants a nation that observes Sharia Law, there are plenty from which to choose from .... just not THIS ONE.
There is no difference whatsoever because as a government representative, Pelosi is the government, and the government has no say what transpires on private property, especially in a religious debate. What difference does it make who funded, or who organized the protest? By aligning herself and hence, aligning the government, such is a violation of church and state. PERIOD.
And it disturbs me to no end to see so much denial under the guise of political correctness when such is simply an extreme demonstration of naiveté.
And given the fact that there are no sects of the Christian religion which rule entire nations with an iron fist, nor sends out global commands to commit murder of those opposing the Christian Church or who have been deemed to have insulted the church, there is a distinct and enormous difference.
Christians are not commanded by the Bible to convert non-christians under the threat of death to those who refuse such conversion ... nor do they call for holy wars (Jihad) for which ALL Christians are required to honor, as are the Muslims.
And you can draw a funny cartoon of Jesus, and publish it on your website without fear, but try doing that with Mohammed, and you'll have a Fatah placed on you, which compels Muslims everywhere to find you and kill you.
Do ya think there is no difference?
With over one Billion Muslims in the world, and a conservative estimate that at least half of those are fundamentalists, that makes 600 Million radical muslims in this world. You may sell this BS of yours to those with an intellect equal to a dish cloth, but any rational mind can easily see the threat posed by religious ideologues who's philosophies are so hostile to individual freedoms. Even the moderate Muslims make christian fundamentalist demagoguery tame by comparison. And Islam is not just a religion ... it also encompasses it's own political and financial systems which are contrary to our constitutional republic.
Need I remind you of all of the examples of Muslim dominated governments? As some would have you believe, the Taliban and their extremist views of oppressing females, banning electronics such as television and even radios ... banning books except Islamic religious manuals were an anomaly .. but nothing could be further from the truth. Saudi Arabia is an Islamo-facist nightmare ... and in many other countries where Islam is the state religion, individual freedoms simply do not exist, but stone age type oppression and brutal punishments are a fact of daily life.
Here's what else the moderate Imam said:
“In America, we have a Constitution that created a three-branch form of government -- legislative, executive and judiciary. The role of the judiciary is to ensure that the other two branches comply with the Constitution. What Muslims want is a judiciary that ensures that the laws are not in conflict with the Qur'an and the Hadith.
Now go ahead and put the Islamo-Facist spin on this if you like ... but few are going to be taken in by such obfuscations. Just as was said earlier, and reiterated in his own words ... Muslims want a Judiciary compliant with Sharia Law. Do you need me to define what "Comply" means?
No, your claims are left wing double talk that wants to insist that up is really down.
You want to automatically accept the claims of this radical as he attempts to present himself as a moderate, regardless of how his own statements betray him.
He is a radical Muslim who's core beliefs are contrary to a free nation, and should not be allowed to spread his cancer among the gullible who follow him. If he wants a nation that observes Sharia Law, there are plenty from which to choose from .... just not THIS ONE.
Funding is different. I see that you are looking at this from a different perspective. But say that Company A starts seeing all these terrible articles about it's business practices in the newspaper. And then people started picketing Company A for these things. And the things weren't true. If Company A investigated every person picketing, what would be the point? To discover that a lot of sincere people believed what they'd read and cared enought to get involved? But if Company A investigated where the money was coming from for all the protests, and where the misinformation was coming from, they might discover that Company B, a competitor, was running an underhanded campaign against Company A. Do you see why I said there's a difference between investigating the protestors versus investigating the funding, now?
I don't know what your point was, though, with the second part of your post. Muslims want a judiciary that doesn't conflict with their holy teachings. Are you saying that Christians do want a judiciary that conflicts with their holy teachings? Because that doesn't make sense. Christians want a judiciary that is in accord with their religious beliefs. And they try quite often to make the American judiciary more reflective of Christianity. Sometimes successfully. Isn't the anti-abortion movement primarily an attempt to get the American judiciary to be more reflective of the Christian stance on when a fetus becomes human, when it acquires a soul, when it should be protected? But for the most part, the Constitution has done a very fine job of fending off attempts to introduce religion into the judicial process. Why do you think Islam would be more successful than Christians?
There is no difference whatsoever because as a government representative, Pelosi is the government, and the government has no say what transpires on private property, especially in a religious debate. What difference does it make who funded, or who organized the protest? By aligning herself and hence, aligning the government, such is a violation of church and state. PERIOD.
And it disturbs me to no end to see so much denial under the guise of political correctness when such is simply an extreme demonstration of naiveté.
And given the fact that there are no sects of the Christian religion which rule entire nations with an iron fist, nor sends out global commands to commit murder of those opposing the Christian Church or who have been deemed to have insulted the church, there is a distinct and enormous difference.
Christians are not commanded by the Bible to convert non-christians under the threat of death to those who refuse such conversion ... nor do they call for holy wars (Jihad) for which ALL Christians are required to honor, as are the Muslims.
And you can draw a funny cartoon of Jesus, and publish it on your website without fear, but try doing that with Mohammed, and you'll have a Fatah placed on you, which compels Muslims everywhere to find you and kill you.
Do ya think there is no difference?
With over one Billion Muslims in the world, and a conservative estimate that at least half of those are fundamentalists, that makes 600 Million radical muslims in this world. You may sell this BS of yours to those with an intellect equal to a dish cloth, but any rational mind can easily see the threat posed by religious ideologues who's philosophies are so hostile to individual freedoms. Even the moderate Muslims make christian fundamentalist demagoguery tame by comparison. And Islam is not just a religion ... it also encompasses it's own political and financial systems which are contrary to our constitutional republic.
Need I remind you of all of the examples of Muslim dominated governments? As some would have you believe, the Taliban and their extremist views of oppressing females, banning electronics such as television and even radios ... banning books except Islamic religious manuals were an anomaly .. but nothing could be further from the truth. Saudi Arabia is an Islamo-facist nightmare ... and in many other countries where Islam is the state religion, individual freedoms simply do not exist, but stone age type oppression and brutal punishments are a fact of daily life.
Here's what else the moderate Imam said:
“In America, we have a Constitution that created a three-branch form of government -- legislative, executive and judiciary. The role of the judiciary is to ensure that the other two branches comply with the Constitution. What Muslims want is a judiciary that ensures that the laws are not in conflict with the Qur'an and the Hadith.
Now go ahead and put the Islamo-Facist spin on this if you like ... but few are going to be taken in by such obfuscations. Just as was said earlier, and reiterated in his own words ... Muslims want a Judiciary compliant with Sharia Law. Do you need me to define what "Comply" means?
No, your claims are left wing double talk that wants to insist that up is really down.
You want to automatically accept the claims of this radical as he attempts to present himself as a moderate, regardless of how his own statements betray him.
He is a radical Muslim who's core beliefs are contrary to a free nation, and should not be allowed to spread his cancer among the gullible who follow him. If he wants a nation that observes Sharia Law, there are plenty from which to choose from .... just not THIS ONE.
As for your last paragraph, then the previous administration used a radical Muslim for seven years, didn't they? Do you think GW Bush thought Imam Rauf was a radical Muslim?
He refuses to denounce a group which he may one day have to negotiate with in his fight to build peace in the Middle East, and you want to slander him because of it.
And yet only yesterday you were defending GW Bush's right to refuse to comment.
Hypocrisy in 1...2....3....
Not hypocrisy at all. One situation had to do with the traditional role of former Presidents staying out of the current administration's affairs and policies as to not send any mixed messeges of a power struggle and an attempt to hold on to said power after leaving office.
The refusal of Imam Raul to comment against Hamas is suspect and should be open to scrutiny. I am quite certain I did not slander.
Have you personally met with Imam Rauf and discussed these matters with him in such confidence that you know his heart and mind? Or, are you stating your opinion of how you perceive the situation just as I am stating mine?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
