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.
The problem comes with the religious leaders, and getting people to REACT, insted of Looking for truth.
I think he is right.
Neo-Paganism is not like this though. And that is a religion. Look up pagan ideas on wiki or verious web sites. basically the opposite tact is taken from all these monotheistic religions.
I think the article notes a very important concept. That, in the Islamic world, the idea of separation of church and state is alien. Since Mohammed warred on Mecca from Medina, the Church has been the State. So war is both a state function and a church function. The crusades, the latter chaos of bad popes, and the Spanish troubles solved Christianity of this concept. The same cannot be said of Islam.
There’s a reason that site is generally referred to as “World Nut Daily.”
Author and filmmaker Gregory M. Davis has two credits to his name: the film, Islam: What the West Needs to Know and this book.
According to the publisher: “Gregory M. Davis received his BA in political science from the University of Rochester in 1997. He has a Ph.D in Political Science from Stanford University.”
So, this young guy gets his Phd in Poli Sci and out of the gate puts together two hit jobs on Islam. Right.
I’m trying to figure out the point of this post. I mean, if “Uncle Dave” is truly interested in discussing Islam, why wouldn’t he cite a more scholarly work by an expert in the field instead of essentially forwarding a press release from a wet-behind-the-ears wingnut?
I thought everyone knew that they spread their religion through violence?
#6 , Which religion is established by the state, or prohibited from free exercise thereof, by the term ” In God we Trust?”
I get rather offended by the constant pushing of the Atheist Religion upon me through the use of the second amendment and the bastardized separation of church and state concept that appears nowhere in the Constitution, but is only later stated in letters from Thomas Jefferson. Free expression of religion is a right, with historical precedent.
Of course, this guy being one of the Neo-Con Religo-Facist Death Cult of Christianists, means that he is TOTALLY impartial!
Yeah, this guy is so right wing, that he makes Dubya look like Stalin.
Gimmie a break already. If you believe anything this guy writes about Islam, I have a bridge for sale for you!
A__B, I’m trying to understand why you waste your time reading and commenting on a site you feel should be called World Nut Daily?! Exactly how much time do you have to waste per day?!
It’s not that Islam inherently violent, or ar least it was not designed to be so in its original conception – but things change over time… as memory serves, Catholocism (??spelling) was supposedly designed so that “all are equal in the eyes of god” but um yeah that changed over time to adapt to the whims of those that are more equal.
@6
“#5 That’s funny, because it certainly isn’t like that in the US at all. Otherwise there wouldn’t be “In God We Trust” on the money and God all over the constitution. ”
God is not mentioned in the Constitution. Not even once.
I think that all religions are inheritly good natured, its just when it they are led by people who preach hatred, it can be turned into a deadly thing, especially if a government is based on it. I also think the only way we can fight terrorism, at least as much of it relates to Islam, is to accept and find tolerance for those who use the good aspects of it. And try to make them the majority not the minority.
#11 He’s refering to the linked site, http://www.worldnetdaily.com, not here.
The problem is that religion is to never be furthered at the end of the sword. I’m a very right-wing Christian who is very much strong in my beliefs. The thing is, though, is that I can’t make someone else believe them no matter how much I want to try.
Now, I have the right in America to try to pass laws on things I find immoral. One has to be very careful not to impinge on someone’s right to exist, but a balance between absolute freedom and absolute control must be struck.
Not allowing gay marriage doesn’t actually stop someone from being able to live a free life. 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.
See the difference? Feel free to persuade people you are right (I sure do!), but don’t make everything into a civil right. Civil rights are very limited in scope (well they should be), and should remain so. The problem with society today is that we want to make everything a civil right because then it shuts down debate on an issue, which is a sad state to be in.
Again, there are very few real civil rights. Don’t make your pet cause into one. To make you liberals happy, for instance, a church being a tax-exempt organization is not a right (although some of my fellow believers would say so). 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.
#9
Which religion is established by the state, or prohibited from free exercise thereof, by the term ” In God we Trust?”
I’m sure religious folks get all warm and fuzzy over having it on coins, in the constitution etc, but it’s bullshit that shouldn’t be part of our common environment. If you want to believe in version of God… go ahead… just don’t force it upon people who manage to think for themselves.
Free expression of religion is a right, with historical precedent.
Freedom from religion is a right too.
#13, no, but Jesus is made reference to:
“Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.”
#16 says “Now, I have the right in America to try to pass laws on things I find immoral.”
I agree you have that right, but I’m curious why you actually do it. What is it about Christianity that makes people want to make laws concerning morality, assuming no physical or economic harm can be specifically linked to the behavior legislated against? I have a hunch about what’s at the root of this, but I’m looking for some independent, unprompted confirmation. Why do you advocate legislating morality?
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?
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..