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.
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.”
#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)
#38,
Mike, you are using semantics to obscure the absurdity. A privilege is something you have that other’s may not have. There does not need to be any fairness or equality with a privilege. In the US, the government may not be capricious in who gets to have something. Therefore, they don’t “grant” privileges, they regulate activities.
Your example of patents is a good example. Patents are allowed to monopolize their invention for a set time. This regulating is to encourage inventions and novel new uses of items and technologies. At the end of the patent period, the patent becomes part of the public domain.
Non-profits being tax exempt are also a regulation of the economy. By being done in a fair and equitable manner, society as a whole will benefit. Veteran’s cemeteries would more likely fall under the renumeration of military service, which is a regulated part of government and is done without discrimination to all servicemen and women.
The key here is that the government does not GRANT a privilege. It regulates for the good of society whereas privileges do not. A monarch can usually grant a privilege and most of the 13 colonies were formed in such a manner.
You are correct that when government selectively entitles a segment of society and does not extend the same entitlement to the rest of society they are granting a privilege. When Courts decide that NO, this is inequitable, then we will see the laws change. But inequality is something that has been fought for hundreds of years. Even today, very very few will argue that owning another human being is a “right”, yet it took years and hundreds of thousands of lives to win that battle.
#41, Hahaha, I’m the one using semantics? Shall I go dig up an old post of yours where you called driving a privilege? I’m certain that’s also something which is “regulated” by the government.
More importantly, how does a government regulate a privilege without having first created one? Or are you meaning to refer to the privileges that individual grant to each other outside of the government? And how does that relate to the clause in the 14th Amendment which reads:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;..”
Which privileges are those exactly?
Don’t get me wrong, Fusion, I really enjoy the fact that you and I can stubbornly argue back and forth without getting anywhere or convincing the other of his error, but I don’t even believe, in this case, that you believe the nonsense you have talked yourself into.
#42, OK Mike, you might have me here. It seems to me that I might have indeed referred to driving as a “privilege”.
Maybe if I stressed the word REGULATE where you have used GRANT.
kill them all and let our God sort it out!
#43, Fair enough. Although I would say there is no discernible difference between the two in this context, we really are picking at nits at this point.
I must say, having read the Koran, that many parts of it have language that could be interpreted either way. I think the original Arabic would be necessary to truly understand what it was saying.