But but but....Islam isn't a religion?

Some of you people are crazy. The terrorists are everywhere and everyone is a suspect to you.

As far as Israel and Palestine goes, they both can take a hike for all I care. You can say one is terrible all you want but the fact is that both attack civilians pretty regularly. The only difference is that we fund the attacks on Palestinian civilians.

Footwedge;464375 wrote:If you can't understand the corollary here I don't know what to tell you. Let me be blunt...the National Review is a horrible source to use when trying to make a point. The National Review is a neoconservative, warmongering, extremely biased site. McCarthy position mirrors the position of this online publication. I listed 5 or 6 authors to whom I am familiar with...and as I stated above...they by definition, promote the fear of the Islam religion. That's what they do.

You forgot "chickenhawk".

I understand the corollary quite well- but you still have yet to interact with a single sentence from McCarthy's material in the past few weeks. Multiple times he illustrated the difference between everyday Muslims and radical Islam.
And you haven't even dug up any dirt on McCarthy himself yet. Surely he was a draft dodger or at one time said "All Muslims are evil" or something to that effect. You saw "National Review" and all logic and common sense went out the window. I think most people take the NR articles I posted for what they're worth- one man's (highly informed, credible) opinion on a hot-button issue.

And they resorted to terrorism because of their own strife with human rights violations. Just as the Palestinians have done. A point that you have yet to acknowledge with any of your responses.

The attitudes of people that suffer from broad brushed Islamophobia, exacerbated by the words and writings of fundamentalist Christian factions, and those that write for the Weekly Standard and the National Review, increase the divide between religions, and by default further the agenda for more religious wars.

As much as I despised the foreign policy of Bush 43, I would love for him to come out of hiding on this issue. Why? One of his very few highlights was when he spoke on national television...and told the American people in very clear words....that the religion of Islam had "nothing to do" with the attacks on 9-11. And for one of the very few times in his 8 year reign....he got it right

The very words of the Quran, juxtaposed with the words of the Bible (which you successfully mangled a few pages back) illustrate the already large divide between the two religions. The teachings of Jesus, his apostles, the New Testament, etc., have no problem with Christians peacefully coexisting with other religions. Don't want to become a Christian? Fine- the gospel goes on to someplace else. The Quran however leaves much room for doubt about Muslims peacefully coexisting with "infidels", Jews (especially) and people who convert from Islam to another religion.

"Islamophobes" are merely trying to open up debate on radical Islam (which the lefist media has deemed off limits), while at the same time being reasonable about US national security.

As for Bush 43- that's called being a politician. And what he said was the right thing to do at that moment when tensions were highest.

There is no debate on radical Islam. It's a bad thing. Everyone says and realizes this. The problem is that many people in this country are starting to see all Muslims in that light. That's very scary and can't be tolerated.

I Wear Pants;464484 wrote:There is no debate on radical Islam. It's a bad thing. Everyone says and realizes this. The problem is that many people in this country are starting to see all Muslims in that light. That's very scary and can't be tolerated.

Bullshit. You - and "open minded" folks like yourself - are simply hacked off that many thinking Americans want the real threat of radical Islam openly challenged and publicly debated....something your leftist media conveniently tries to ignore.

What actually can't be tolerated and just as scary is the idea that real issues like radical Islam, illegal immigration, etc. cannot be openly and honestly challenged without the left crying about bigotry, intolerance, racism, etc. in an effort to silence the opposition. This is not only un-American but the epitome of hypocrisy.

Where have I ever said that radical Islam isn't a bad thing? It is. Radical sects of any religion are bad.

But the idea that we should be wary of all Muslims because they might be radicals is insane.

jhay78;464475 wrote:You forgot "chickenhawk".

I understand the corollary quite well- but you still have yet to interact with a single sentence from McCarthy's material in the past few weeks. Multiple times he illustrated the difference between everyday Muslims and radical Islam.

I didn't read McCarthy's article because of the source. There is no reason to. Do you enjoy reading op eds from the DailyKos? I'm looking for a yes or no answer here. BTW...I would never cite an op-ed from the DailyKos either for the same reasons.

And you haven't even dug up any dirt on McCarthy himself yet. Surely he was a draft dodger or at one time said "All Muslims are evil" or something to that effect. You saw "National Review" and all logic and common sense went out the window.

For the fifth time now.....nobody with a modicum of sense in reviewing an issue would want to read an article from a hugely biased source. Only political partisan hacks resort to such nonsense. I have no idea who McCarthy is...but I do know the agenda of the National Review.

I think most people take the NR articles I posted for what they're worth- one man's (highly informed, credible) opinion on a hot-button issue.

That's fine. I completely disagree. Most people that want to make a decision on an issue will not turn to some partisan website in forming an educated opinion.

The very words of the Quran, juxtaposed with the words of the Bible (which you successfully mangled a few pages back) illustrate the already large divide between the two religions. The teachings of Jesus, his apostles, the New Testament, etc., have no problem with Christians peacefully coexisting with other religions. Don't want to become a Christian? Fine- the gospel goes on to someplace else. The Quran however leaves much room for doubt about Muslims peacefully coexisting with "infidels", Jews (especially) and people who convert from Islam to another religion.

I mangled what now? I didn't mangle anything at all. My posts clearly showed how verses from either the Bible or the Qur'an can be taken out of context. Christians "co-existing" has been an extreme disappointment...if one looks at history books.

"Islamophobes" are merely trying to open up debate on radical Islam (which the lefist media has deemed off limits), while at the same time being reasonable about US national security.

No... Islamophobes are by definition...fearful of all those that follow Islam....Islamophobes have absolutely no interest in debating what's good for American national security. They are interested in escalating religious wars through fear-mongering...and by wontonly spreading the nonsense that all Muslims take their own holy book from the "literal" perspective only...and want to kill all non believers.

As for Bush 43- that's called being a politician. And what he said was the right thing to do at that moment when tensions were highest.

LOL. So Bush didn't fall in line with your irrational line of thinking that Islam was responsible for 9-11?....and as such...he was merely acting the role of a politician?

Seriously?

Tell you what Jay....why don't you google "Osama bin Ladin...reasons for attacking America". You'll get thousands of hits. With all of his quotes available....you will not find even one quote from him stating that 9-11 happened because all infidels "need to die" for their religious views. Not one. Why is that? I challenge you to dig. Go for it. Why would this terrorist not reiterate that his "holy book" states that Muslims must kill all non believers? He never cited America's "freedoms" either...but that's for a different thread.

If ever there existed one person...that would want to convey this nonsense...that American innocent citizens must die...because the Qur'an says so....that Islamophobes want to spread...it would be bin Ladin.

After 15 pages, has anyone changed their stance because of what someone else posted?

Footwedge;464666 wrote:I didn't read McCarthy's article because of the source. There is no reason to. Do you enjoy reading op eds from the DailyKos? I'm looking for a yes or no answer here. BTW...I would never cite an op-ed from the DailyKos either for the same reasons.

For the fifth time now.....nobody with a modicum of sense in reviewing an issue would want to read an article from a hugely biased source. Only political partisan hacks resort to such nonsense. I have no idea who McCarthy is...but I do know the agenda of the National Review.

That's fine. I completely disagree. Most people that want to make a decision on an issue will not turn to some partisan website in forming an educated opinion.

I'm not in the habit of reading the Daily Kos, but if someone were to post a link, I would read it and evaluate it on its own merits, not because of any predetermined bias I may have toward the site. I posted other links listing McCarthy's credentials as a federal prosector and terrorism investigator.

I mangled what now? I didn't mangle anything at all. My posts clearly showed how verses from either the Bible or the Qur'an can be taken out of

You emphatically stated there were multiple verses from the NT advocating violence, then later, when you were called out, you changed it to "See how things can be taken out of context?"

jhay78;464775 wrote:I'm not in the habit of reading the Daily Kos, but if someone were to post a link, I would read it and evaluate it on its own merits, not because of any predetermined bias I may have toward the site. I posted other links listing McCarthy's credentials as a federal prosector and terrorism investigator.

Here is a list of McCarthy's articles over the past 4 months or so.

Andrew C. McCarthy...National Review archives......

12 Month Archive

August 2010

• Director Mueller, Say No to CAIR 08/10

• More Moderate Muslims 08/07

• Oh, No: Not Another ‘CIA Solution’ for Afghanistan 08/03

July 2010

• It’s About Sharia 07/31

• Rauf’s Dawa from the World Trade Center Rubble 07/24

• Khalidi’s Audacity of Hope 07/22

• The Case Against the New Black Panthers 07/20

• Karl Rove’s Mea Culpa 07/15

• Holder: Aiding al-Qaeda 07/13

• Three Cheers for Politics 07/09

• Elena Kagan’s ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ Sharia Policy 07/08

• Why Endorse McCain? 07/01

June 2010

• Roberts Rules 06/22

• Why Has Holder Indicted the Times Square Bomber? 06/21

• Bon Jovi Islam 06/17

• An Islam of Their Very Own 06/01

May 2010

• The House Divided 05/24

• Terror Charge Upheld Despite ‘Torture’ Claims 05/13

• The Washington Post Talks Sense on Detention and Interrogation 05/10

• Getting the Times Square Bomber’s Confession 05/06


Talk about a neoconservative Islamophobe. The guy is absolutely obsessed. If you want to read his diatribes, have fun.

I couldn't find whether or not this McCarthy dude ever served militarily. But given the track record of these types of individuals, I would feel pretty safe in saying that he didn't.

Most Americans would consider this guy a wacko....just as they do Michael Ledeen...another National Review stalwart....who stated this beauty...

"Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business"

Or Mark Stein who indirectly spoke in 2003 that in Iraq..."the more people we kill the more lives we save" kind of stuff.

You emphatically stated there were multiple verses from the NT advocating violence, then later, when you were called out, you changed it to "See how things can be taken out of context?"

I cited 2 statements in the New Testament from up above. 2. That's it. Both of them referenced violence or murder. I'm not a Bible scholar....but I'm sure there are more.

Every year I listen to the story when Jesus got enraged at the money changers in the temple. He threw some shit around...He was not very pleased. Does that mean Christians should follow His lead and throw stuff around? Is that what He was suggesting?

As I stated above....both religions promote peace.....but you can find evidence of violence in both Holy books.

Footwedge;464840 wrote: I cited 2 statements in the New Testament from up above. 2. That's it. Both of them referenced violence or murder. I'm not a Bible scholar....but I'm sure there are more.

Every year I listen to the story when Jesus got enraged at the money changers in the temple. He threw some shit around...He was not very pleased. Does that mean Christians should follow His lead and throw stuff around? Is that what He was suggesting?

As I stated above....both religions promote peace.....but you can find evidence of violence in both Holy books.

Yes, you cited 2, but you then claimed that you could cite many more (go read your post again), which we come to find out you can not.

You also still claim they some how promote violence? They reference it as in talk about it in a story, referencing a situation is NOT the same as promoting it. A 7 year old can see that.



So, Jesus saw people robbing people in the "church" at the time and got upset and threw them out. Well good for him, there are a lot of money grubbing "pastors" on TV that Jesus would do he same thing to if he was physically walking around today.

And yes, if Christians see a church leader basically robbing the church or its people, absolutely throw them out of the church.

I just find it funny you look retarded with a statement you make and then keep trying to back it up, change your story, etc to "save face".

Footwedge;464840 wrote:As I stated above....both religions promote peace.....but you can find evidence of violence in both Holy books.

The difference is Christianity promotes peace in the freewill choice of accepting Christ as one's personal savior. Islam promotes "peace" by indicating that world peace will come after all become Muslim....even if that conversion is brought by force.

Nowhere in the New Testament will you find passages even close to these violent passges from the Qu'ran (all clearly instructing its followers how to deal with non-believers):

Qu'ran (3:151) "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority".

Qu'ran (4:74) "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."

Qu'ran (8:12) "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

Qu'ran (9:29) "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book (IE: Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."


These are but a handful of these types of passages and there are many more.

As a Bible believing Christian I can understand the mindset that would allow people to actually believe these things....and to practice them. In fact this is precisely why I see radical Islam as a direct threat to our freedoms and security. Radical Islam doesn't need standing armies to fight us. They've already proven that.

You can also accomplish it from within by migrating to the land of non-believers and slowly through higher birthrates, etc. undermine the law of the land and begin implementing Sharia Law. Far fetched? Ask the Brits, French, and Germans if it isn't possible.

To be sure Christians are not perfect and have certainly used violence in the past in the name of the Lord. I'm simply saying that there are fundamental differences between the New Testament and the Qu'ran.

Generally when the New Testament speaks of the deaths of non-believers those deaths are caused by the hand of God, not the followers of Allah.

Believer: Where did you get those translations? Because that really matters.

From AJ Arberry: (Groups of 5 verses, so 150-155)
3:150 O believers, be not as the unbelievers who say to their brothers, when they journey in the land, or are upon expeditions, 'If they had been with us, they would not have died and not been slain' -- that God may make that an anguish in their hearts. For God gives life, and He makes to die; and God sees the things you do.
If you are slain or die in God's way, forgiveness and mercy from God are a better thing than that you amass; surely if you die or are slain, it is unto God you shall be mustered.
It was by some mercy of God that thou wast gentle to them; hadst thou been harsh and hard of heart, they would have scattered from about thee. So pardon them, and pray forgiveness for them, and take counsel with them in the affair; and when thou art resolved, put thy trust in God; surely God loves those who put their trust.
If God helps you, none can overcome you; but if He forsakes you, who then can help you after Him? Therefore in God let the believers put all their trust.

4:70: and then We surely would have given them from Us a mighty wage, and guided them on a straight path. Whosoever obeys God, and the Messenger -- they are with those whom God has blessed, Prophets, just men, martyrs, the righteous; good companions they!
That is the bounty from God; God suffices as One who knows.
O believers, take your precautions; then move forward in companies, or move forward all together.
Some of you there are that are dilatory; then, if an affliction visits you, he says, 'God has blessed me, in that I was not a martyr with them.'

8:10: God wrought this not, save as good tidings and that your hearts thereby might be at rest; help comes only from God; surely God is All-mighty, All-wise.
When He was causing slumber to overcome you as a security from Him, and sending down on you water from heaven, to purify you thereby, and to put away from you the defilement of Satan, and to strengthen your hearts, and to confirm your feet.
When thy Lord was revealing to the angels, 'I am with you; so confirm the believers. I shall cast into the unbelievers' hearts terror; so smite above the necks, and smite every finger of them!'
That, because they had made a breach with God and with His Messenger; and whosoever makes a breach with God and with His Messenger, surely God is terrible in retribution.
That for you; therefore taste it; and that the chastisement of the Fire is for the unbelievers.

9:25 God has already helped you on many fields, and on the day of Hunain, when your multitude was pleasing to you, but it availed you naught, and the land for all its breadth was strait for you, and you turned about, retreating.
Then God sent down upon His Messenger His Shechina, and upon the believers, and He sent down legions you did not see, and He chastised the unbelievers; and that is the recompense of the unbelievers; then God thereafter turns towards whom He will; God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.
O believers, the idolaters are indeed unclean; so let them not come near the Holy Mosque after this year of theirs. If you fear poverty, God shall surely enrich you of His bounty, if He will; God is All-knowing; All-wise.
Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden -- such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book -- until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled.


I'll also say the early suras were from a later period, during Mohammad's exile from Mecca. The unbelievers were the idol worshipers in Mecca. That is the context a majority of Muslims see the message. But, of course, the radicals have adapted it and twisted it to fit their agenda. I'll also add it makes more grammatical sense to group the verses into groups of 5, as that is the format in the Qur'an, which is a reference to old pre-Islamic poetry. So, taking one verse and quoting it is taking it out of context.

jmog;464911 wrote:Yes, you cited 2, but you then claimed that you could cite many more (go read your post again), which we come to find out you can not.

You also still claim they some how promote violence? They reference it as in talk about it in a story, referencing a situation is NOT the same as promoting it. A 7 year old can see that.



So, Jesus saw people robbing people in the "church" at the time and got upset and threw them out. Well good for him, there are a lot of money grubbing "pastors" on TV that Jesus would do he same thing to if he was physically walking around today.

And yes, if Christians see a church leader basically robbing the church or its people, absolutely throw them out of the church.

I just find it funny you look retarded with a statement you make and then keep trying to back it up, change your story, etc to "save face".

I never changed a story. And your interpretation of Jesus blowing His temper is pretty poor....especially for a self proclaimed Bible expert.

Jhay erroneously claimed the the NT had no references regarding violence. I proved him dead wrong....just as I have proven you dead wrong.

For the sixth time now...since you can't seem to follow the ball here....Bioth the Qur'an and the Bible have reference to violence...INCLUDING the New Tesatment. And these statements can be misinterpreted...or taken out of context.

I personally find it disgusting that Christians on this board shit on the teachings of Christ...in painting the Muslim Religion collectively as evil. Apparently "Love thy neighbor as thyself" only applies to certain people/religions. Absolutely pathetic...and the primary reason that I view most fundamentalist Christians as utter hypocrites.

Instead of piddling all over the Bible quotes, why don't you address all the other points that I made?

You're more interested in ad hominem, than you are substance.

ptown_trojans_1;465074 wrote:Believer: Where did you get those translations? Because that really matters.

From AJ Arberry: (Groups of 5 verses, so 150-155)
3:150 O believers, be not as the unbelievers who say to their brothers, when they journey in the land, or are upon expeditions, 'If they had been with us, they would not have died and not been slain' -- that God may make that an anguish in their hearts. For God gives life, and He makes to die; and God sees the things you do.
If you are slain or die in God's way, forgiveness and mercy from God are a better thing than that you amass; surely if you die or are slain, it is unto God you shall be mustered.
It was by some mercy of God that thou wast gentle to them; hadst thou been harsh and hard of heart, they would have scattered from about thee. So pardon them, and pray forgiveness for them, and take counsel with them in the affair; and when thou art resolved, put thy trust in God; surely God loves those who put their trust.
If God helps you, none can overcome you; but if He forsakes you, who then can help you after Him? Therefore in God let the believers put all their trust.

4:70: and then We surely would have given them from Us a mighty wage, and guided them on a straight path. Whosoever obeys God, and the Messenger -- they are with those whom God has blessed, Prophets, just men, martyrs, the righteous; good companions they!
That is the bounty from God; God suffices as One who knows.
O believers, take your precautions; then move forward in companies, or move forward all together.
Some of you there are that are dilatory; then, if an affliction visits you, he says, 'God has blessed me, in that I was not a martyr with them.'

8:10: God wrought this not, save as good tidings and that your hearts thereby might be at rest; help comes only from God; surely God is All-mighty, All-wise.
When He was causing slumber to overcome you as a security from Him, and sending down on you water from heaven, to purify you thereby, and to put away from you the defilement of Satan, and to strengthen your hearts, and to confirm your feet.
When thy Lord was revealing to the angels, 'I am with you; so confirm the believers. I shall cast into the unbelievers' hearts terror; so smite above the necks, and smite every finger of them!'
That, because they had made a breach with God and with His Messenger; and whosoever makes a breach with God and with His Messenger, surely God is terrible in retribution.
That for you; therefore taste it; and that the chastisement of the Fire is for the unbelievers.

9:25 God has already helped you on many fields, and on the day of Hunain, when your multitude was pleasing to you, but it availed you naught, and the land for all its breadth was strait for you, and you turned about, retreating.
Then God sent down upon His Messenger His Shechina, and upon the believers, and He sent down legions you did not see, and He chastised the unbelievers; and that is the recompense of the unbelievers; then God thereafter turns towards whom He will; God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.
O believers, the idolaters are indeed unclean; so let them not come near the Holy Mosque after this year of theirs. If you fear poverty, God shall surely enrich you of His bounty, if He will; God is All-knowing; All-wise.
Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden -- such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book -- until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled.


I'll also say the early suras were from a later period, during Mohammad's exile from Mecca. The unbelievers were the idol worshipers in Mecca. That is the context a majority of Muslims see the message. But, of course, the radicals have adapted it and twisted it to fit their agenda. I'll also add it makes more grammatical sense to group the verses into groups of 5, as that is the format in the Qur'an, which is a reference to old pre-Islamic poetry. So, taking one verse and quoting it is taking it out of context.

Give it up PTowne....You will never convince certain people that Islam is anything but pure evil...it matters not what you reference.

Mayor Bloomberg puts this debate to rest.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-26-2010/michael-bloomberg

ptown_trojans_1;465074 wrote:So, taking one verse and quoting it is taking it out of context.

Seems to be a common tactic with some I agree.

For example we get the tried and true "Love thy neighbor as thyself" BS from some of the secular leftist Chatter crowd in a laughable attempt to slap down and silence those who firmly believe the self-professed religion of peace is anything but. What amuses me is how quickly they attach the hypocrite label when they see fit, but they cannot fathom that their form of self-righteousness is the highest form of hypocrisy.

Here's an excellent spot-on "sums it up" site that all you lefties can feel free to hemorrhage on: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html

Footwedge;465125 wrote:Give it up PTowne....You will never convince certain people that Islam is anything but pure evil...it matters not what you reference.

They could go a little easier on the killing people and blowing shit up too. That might help.

believer;465332 wrote:Seems to be a common tactic with some I agree.

For example we get the tried and true "Love thy neighbor as thyself" BS from some of the secular leftist Chatter crowd in a laughable attempt to slap down and silence those who firmly believe the self-professed religion of peace is anything but. What amuses me is how quickly they attach the hypocrite label when they see fit, but they cannot fathom that their form of self-righteousness is the highest form of hypocrisy.

Here's an excellent spot-on "sums it up" site that all you lefties can feel free to hemorrhage on: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html

Alright, I'm confused. How do you make the link to what I posted to that website? I wasn't referring to leftist, hypocrisy or Christianity. Simply, that translations of the Qur'an radically differ and that in translations, you must also take into consideration history, when the sura was revealed, and the structure of Arabic poetry. You would fail in translating the Qur'an if you focused on one verse or ayea. Also, the majority of Muslims interpret the Qur'an in this manner, only the crazy folks take what they like to fit their agenda.

I honestly don't care about leftist or hypocrisy or Christianity.
And that site is exactly what is wrong with this debate.

ptown_trojans_1;465351 wrote:Also, the majority of Muslims interpret the Qur'an in this manner, only the crazy folks take what they like to fit their agenda.

A majority of Muslims? Is that your opinion or is it based on fact? But I agree there are crazy folks in all religions. It's my opinion that Islam has a robust supply of them.

believer;465403 wrote:A majority of Muslims? Is that your opinion or is it based on fact? But I agree there are crazy folks in all religions. It's my opinion that Islam has a robust supply of them.

Based on several factors. 1. My reading of Islamic history, through numerous books and courses at OSU. 2. Personal experience, both in studying in the Middle East, being in mosques in the U.S., Syria, Lebanon and Jordan, discussions with Muslims from all areas of the world. 3. My readings of many articles in my academic and professional career.
If Islam has a robust supply of them, I have yet to meet them in my numerous dealing with Muslims in numerous countries and my reading of Arabic.

I'm just reading "war" by Sebastian Junger and noticed this passage about a Muslim in Afghanistan after U.S. forces had killed innocent civilians:
"The Koran offers two choices, revenge and forgiveness." he said, "But, the Koran says that forgiveness is better, so we forgive. We understand it was a mistake. so we will forgive. The Americans are building schools and roads, and because of this, we will forgive."
This is just one example of many, I've encountered in my readings and speaking to Muslims.

I'd also say, how to expect to win a war on terrorism if you believe a majority of Muslims are radical? How do expect to win a COIN strategy if you alienate an entire religion?

I appreciate your opinions and your expertise. I really do.

But while my political leanings are clearly conservative, I think I've proved to be relatively articulate, usually even-handed, and reasonably intelligent in most of my political posts on Chatter...even if some may vehemently disagree with my views.

That being said I can tell you that with every fiber of my being, with every shred of common sense I can muster, with my own educational & religious background, my military experience, and with a great deal of wanting to be genuinely wrong in this particular topic, I sincerely and deeply believe that radical Islam is a major security threat to this nation....period....no question in my mind whatsoever.

When the "silent majority" of Muslims reign-in their radical kook fringe and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are indeed a religion of peace, I'll be the first to say I was wrong. But since the radical kook fringe has hijacked their entire religion I don't think I'm in any serious danger of having to admit my error.

I actually agree with you and the war between the majority of Muslims and the radicals is an important one that we should all pay attention to.
The problem is not just religious, but social, economic, and political. But, yea. radical Islam is a direct threat to the country and while there are Muslims groups who are against the violence, the heavyweights, such as Saudi Arabia Imams are quiet.

But, bringing back to the NYC Mosque, I believe the Imam is a moderate trying to grow the moderate wing and this should be encouraged. Now, we disagree on that, which is fine.

He doesn't know the answers to those questions. Because all he knows is that the Muslims are bad and out to get him. It is beyond some on this forum to understand that bible verses are used to justify just as much violence as Koran verses. We aren't all that different from the vast majority of Muslims.

The intense pessimism about the majority of people you don't even know is something I'll never understand. It has to suck thinking that most other people are either lazy sloths feeding off your dime, evil no gooders trying to take your dime and give it to the lazy ones, or evil religions fanatics trying to kill you and yours.

But yes, radical Islam is a threat to this and many countries. I just think that threat tends to be overplayed anymore. Not saying we should let our guard down but this be afraid attitude is more dangerous than any bomb.

Intense pessimism? Hardly. America has weathered many storms and I am optimistic we'll weather this one as well. What I refuse to do, however, is to stop calling a spade a spade. I will NOT play the political correct girlie kumbaya bullshit the phony left loves to hide behind.

Footwedge;465117 wrote:I never changed a story. And your interpretation of Jesus blowing His temper is pretty poor....especially for a self proclaimed Bible expert.

Jhay erroneously claimed the the NT had no references regarding violence. I proved him dead wrong....just as I have proven you dead wrong.

For the sixth time now...since you can't seem to follow the ball here....Bioth the Qur'an and the Bible have reference to violence...INCLUDING the New Tesatment. And these statements can be misinterpreted...or taken out of context.

I personally find it disgusting that Christians on this board shit on the teachings of Christ...in painting the Muslim Religion collectively as evil. Apparently "Love thy neighbor as thyself" only applies to certain people/religions. Absolutely pathetic...and the primary reason that I view most fundamentalist Christians as utter hypocrites.

Instead of piddling all over the Bible quotes, why don't you address all the other points that I made?

You're more interested in ad hominem, than you are substance.

It would help all of us if you would make up your mind here- does the NT clearly and emphatically teach Christians to be violent, or are the weak references you cited being taken out of context? If it's the former, you still have yet to produce one single instance where that is the case. Most have acknowledged that anything (Bible, Quran, etc.) can be taken out of context.

ptown_trojans_1;465448 wrote:I actually agree with you and the war between the majority of Muslims and the radicals is an important one that we should all pay attention to.
The problem is not just religious, but social, economic, and political. But, yea. radical Islam s is a direct threat to the country and while there are Muslims groups who are against the violence, the heavyweights, such as Saudi Arabia Imams are quiet.

But, bringing back to the NYC Mosque, I believe the Imam is a moderate trying to grow the moderate wing and this should be encouraged. Now, we disagree on that, which is fine.

I second believer's statement- I appreciate your expertise in this debate. Referring back to one of McCarthy's articles, he stated he and other prosecutors were trying to get info from American Muslims in a terrorism investigation, but because he could not guarantee anonymity, the Muslims could not cooperate for fear of being ostracized by the larger Muslim community. And these were patriotic, moderate individuals. I guess it will take more standing up and accepting this risk.