Is the religion itself violent or have its leaders over the centuries turned it into a violent one the way the Catholic Church did with the Inquisition?
In a disturbing but thoroughly researched new book, “Religion of Peace? Islam’s War Against the World,” author and filmmaker Gregory M. Davis rebuts the notion that Islam is a great faith in desperate need of a Reformation. Instead, he exposes it as a form of totalitarianism, a belief system that orders its adherents not to baptize all nations, but to conquer and subdue them. Islamic law’s governance of every aspect of religious, political and personal action has far more in common with Nazism than with the tenets of Christianity or Judaism.
at least he has the stones to express a different take on islam. personally, i’m sick of all this “islam is a religion of peace” rhetoric. yes, there ARE peaceful muslims, and i am very thankful for them.
but the fact is that the founder of islam and its own scriptures promote spreading the faith through force. there are only 3 options for unbelievers in islam: 1) conversion OR 2) 2nd-class citizenship and taxation OR 3) death.
don’t judge islam based on how it can be practiced peacefully here in the west. look at how it’s practiced in the middle east where it has its roots. many may be afraid to to say it, but islam is an inherently violent religion. god bless the peaceful muslims of the world who have transcended that violent mentality.
Dave,
This question is for you Dave. Just curious, why did you post this article with the picture that says: “ISLAM will dominate the world”; I am sure that you did this in purpose. Since when has Islam become such big headline news? It seems that everyone wants to jump on the band wagon for some ratings. You are smart enough to know that what is happening these days is all about profits and greed.
#1: very well said. the root of the problem are these fanatics.
#19 Take your Jesus Glasses off, please, and look up “year of our lord,” research the Gregorian Calendar, and keep your uninformed ranting to yourself.
It’s a goog thing you are advocating: looking into founding documents. I have glanced at such things during different stages of my life. When I was religious, I’d see all sorts of Xian and occult symbolism. A little history, smart teachers, and cynicism cured that.
I wish you the best on your journey. May you, too, be smug in the face of morons, evangelists, and loons.
#24, who’s ranting? I was simply being contrary towards another post saying that there’s no reference to God in the constitution. Methinks you need to calm down, breath slowly and drink a cold glass of soy milk.
Here’s a fun link for you rockstar:
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg10c.htm
#22: It was one I found that seemed to go with the story. I suppose I could have used one of a hostage’s head being sliced off, but that might be too much for some.
“Since when has Islam become such big headline news?”
Um, since we went to war with a couple of countries full of them?
#26 ““Since when has Islam become such big headline news?”
Um, since we went to war with a couple of countries full of them?”
Don’t leave out the cries of Islam leaders stating exactly what the guy in the picture is expressing. Seems that there are some people that already started to believe that crap.
I didn’t think Uncle Dave paid someone to grab that banner and take a picture of him.
Anyone who can compare “AD” and “In God We Trust” to the true theocratic oppression of Sharia is either uninformed or just plain nuts.
ISLAM WILL DOMINATE THE WORLD.
A great song to go with that placard is http://www.patrickhenrysongs.com/ItsInTheKoran-WindowsMedia-HiFi.wmv by Patrick Henry: “It’s In The Koran.”
Another desperate author trying to make a few bucks!!!
#16, Marriage is not a right as granted by a government – it’s a privilege like driving a car. The government has a right to restrict it as the people see fit. To restrict the right of someone to advocate for gay marriage, though, would be a restriction of rights.
Wrong. The Government doesn’t “grant privileges”. They can, and do, however, regulate such privileges. Courts have long held that governments do have such a regulatory authority. They must practice and implement such regulations in a fair and equitable manner.
Civil rights are very limited in scope (well they should be), and should remain so.
Why? I take it you are unfamiliar with the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the US Constitution.
…( taxation of church property)…It is a policy that I would advocate for, but if it did not exist (such as gay marriage) it would not be taking away civil rights.
There are many “rights” that it has taken years to recognize. Women’s right to vote, serve on juries, be paid the same as men, etc. etc. The “right” for Catholics and Jews to attend any publicly funded school. The “right” of blacks to be able to eat at the same lunch counter as their white friends.
You are correct, inaction didn’t not take away any of their “rights”. It took action to give them the “rights” that the rest of society already had. What you are doing is using semantics to disallow classes of people the same “rights” as the rest of us take for granted.
4, ???
and which pagan are you.. the one that leaves your child out in the cold over night to see if the devil has had it??
Of the one that has sex in the field with every male comer in October??
Pagan is a religion that ISNT your own.. and the Christien church wiped so many people out with different Thoughts, you might as well BE in Islam
Hey #16 –
“…Marriage is not a right as granted by a government – it’s a privilege like driving a car. The government has a right to restrict it as the people see fit. To restrict the right of someone to advocate for gay marriage, though, would be a restriction of rights…”
Does that give me the right to tell you to go get bent?
you have a right to marry…
the government has the ability to register it..
People are inherently violent, and it’s our culture that keeps that propensity to act violently in check. Islamic culture is on the low end of the scale among cultures in terms of their rejection of violence as a solution for social and personal conflict. Ask any Islamic woman how an argument over who can use the remote control turns out.
Meanwhile, here’s confirmation that the item that was posted here about a week ago regarding “Imans” tossed from a US Air flight was an act of psychological terrorism and a setup to try to shakedown an airline for cash.
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20061211-125716-8798r
As this story develops, with a minute fraction of the attention the one-sided original story attracted, will Dvorak post a front page item that discloses what really happened on that plane, and what these pseudo-terrorists are really after? Not now, certainly, but when all the facts are fully aired in a courtroom, somewhere. Unless, of course, US Air opts for the confidential settlement these guys are probably looking for.
Liberals should be a little more careful in today’s world in buying every scream of “anti-Islamic discrimination.”
“Liberals should be a little more careful in today’s world in buying every scream of “anti-Islamic discrimination.””
I wouldn’t encase as “Liberal” or only Liberals those who think everybody should be more care free with the current world situation. There are a lot of airheads thinking this is only paranoia and that we should behave as if there nothing really happening or else we lost. Is the other way around.
#35,
I read your link. So what? Nothing there suggested that this was … confirmation that the item that was posted here about a week ago regarding “Imans” tossed from a US Air flight was an act of psychological terrorism and a setup to try to shakedown an airline for cash.
What I did read in the article was There are conflicting reports of what happened after security agents escorted the men off the plane based on other passengers’ complaints of suspicious activity, the Washington Times said Monday.
The most apparent error here is that there was ONE reported passenger complaint, and it was anonymous. The second error is quoting the Washington Times. A notoriously bad news source.
Simply because the Imams chose to obtain some legal council does not in any way suggest they are trying to “shake down” the airline. According to your article, the airline was also invited to have legal council present. The right to legal council in no way is indicative of guilt, innocence, or anything in between.
Although you are free to claim whatever nefarious claim you wish, that does not make any of it true. And if you get sued for slander, then it becomes your problem. There were six Americans removed from an airplane because of their religion. That is both illegal under the Civil Rights Act, and immoral.
#31, Wrong. The Government doesn’t “grant privileges”. They can, and do, however, regulate such privileges. Courts have long held that governments do have such a regulatory authority. They must practice and implement such regulations in a fair and equitable manner.
Sure it does. A patent monopoly is a privilege granted and enforced by the government for disclosing the details of the patent to the public; copyright is similar. Non-profit organizations being exempted from taxation is also a privilege granted by the government. Government services being made available to selected groups of individuals based upon income are also privileges as they are not shared by everybody. Even veterans’ cemeteries are government established privileges.
Back to the topic, people have the right to call whomever they desire their “husband” or “wife,” but the government creates a privilege when it selectively recognizes the contractual agreement of marriage and assigns benefits only to that select group of people.
Can I suggest something here..
We are talking about a group that has 70% of its people dont know how to read or Write. They can only believe what is TOLD to them, for those that are Probably Almost as illiterate as they are.
thsoe that Become Mulah only need to memorize the Koran, NOt debate it…Even the Hebrew debate the beliefs thay are given, Even christians debate their religion…And we try to FIX the inequities. To find a better understanding. these filks are let loose into an illiterate Community to Preach THEIR understandings, and they have NEVER debated the readings of their OWN religion.
This is as bad as a person becomeing a theologian, and only knows 1 religion or belief…
#33 – you sure do have that right, and I feel honored that you would use your rights with respect to me!
#38 – this is what I was trying to say. Everyone has the right to any kind of marriage they want – it’s just that the government shouldn’t be required to call it a legally authorized form unless the people choose for it to be so. It’s not a “rights” issue – it’s a government granting ability issue. This is where the gay “rights” people get it wrong. It’s a right to be allowed to live, be free to speak, etc – not to have a government stamp on your marriage. If they took away hetero marriage, I wouldn’t feel any less married to my wife.
Personally, I think there should be a semi-easy way to setup a partnership similar to marriage. It should work for any two people who wish to set it up – whether gay or not. That way people can have two friends who decide to link up for benefits, etc. BUT, it should require a good bit of work and some consequenses to get out of, eg. like divorce, so people don’t use it willy-nilly. (I’m 25, but I LOVE that word)