PDA

View Full Version : Report: Saudis spread hate through U.S. mosques


alanm
01-29-2005, 11:24 AM
I found this story to be quite a bit disturbing. :shake:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42603

Posted: January 29, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com The government of Saudi Arabia is disseminating propaganda through American mosques that teaches hatred of Jews and Christians and instructs Muslims that they are on a mission behind enemy lines in a land of unbelievers, according to a year-long study by a Washington human-rights group. The 89-page report by Freedom House's Center for Religious Freedom (http://www.freedomhouse.org/religion/), "Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques (http://freedomhouse.org/religion/)," concludes the Saudi government propaganda examined reflects a "totalitarian ideology of hatred that can incite to violence." The report says the fact it is "being mainstreamed within our borders through the efforts of a foreign government, namely Saudi Arabia, demands our urgent attention." The report asserts: "Not only does the government of Saudi Arabia not have a right – under the First Amendment or any other legal document – to spread hate ideology within U.S. borders, it is committing a human-rights violation by doing so." The Center for Religious Freedom says Saudi Arabia's "extremist Wahhabi ideology" is followed by a distinct minority of Sunni Muslims worldwide, "as is evident by the millions of Muslims who have chosen to make America their home and are upstanding, law-abiding citizens and neighbors." Former CIA chief James Woolsey, chairman of the board of Freedom House, writes in the forward that such publications that "advocate an ideology of hatred have no place in a nation founded on religious freedom and toleration." Among the key findings of the report: Various Saudi government publications gathered for the study, most of which are in Arabic, assert it is a religious obligation for Muslims to hate Christians and Jews and warn against imitating, befriending, or helping them in any way or taking part in their festivities and celebrations; The documents promote contempt for the United States because it is ruled by legislated civil law rather than by totalitarian Wahhabi-style Islamic law. They condemn democracy as un-Islamic; The documents stress that when Muslims are in the lands of the unbelievers, they must behave as if on a mission behind enemy lines. Either they are there to acquire new knowledge and make money to be later employed in the jihad against the infidels, or they are there to proselytize the infidels until at least some convert to Islam. Any other reason for lingering among the unbelievers in their lands is illegitimate, and unless a Muslim leaves as quickly as possible, he or she is not a true Muslim and so too must be condemned. For example, a document in the collection for the "Immigrant Muslim" bears the words "Greetings from the Cultural Attache in Washington, D.C." of the Embassy of Saudi Arabia, and is published by the government of Saudi Arabia. In an authoritative religious voice, it gives detailed instructions on how to "hate" the Christian and Jew: Never greet them first. Never congratulate the infidel on his holiday. Never imitate the infidel. Do not become a naturalized citizen of the United States. Do not wear a graduation gown because this imitates the infidel; Other Muslims, especially those who advocate tolerance, are condemned as infidels. The opening fatwa in one Saudi embassy-distributed book, published by the Saudi Air Force, responds to a question about a Muslim preacher in a European mosque who taught that it is not right to condemn Jews and Christians as infidels. The Saudi state cleric's reply rebukes the Muslim cleric: "He who casts doubts about their infidelity leaves no doubt about his." Since, under Saudi law, "apostates' from Islam can be sentenced to death, this is an implied death threat against the tolerant Muslim imam, as well as an incitement to vigilante violence; Sufi and Shiite Muslims are viciously condemned; For a Muslim who fails to uphold the Saudi Wahhabi sect's sexual mores [i.e. through homosexual activity or heterosexual activity outside of marriage], the edicts published by the Saudi government's Ministry of Islamic Affairs and found in American mosques advise "it would be lawful for Muslims to spill his blood and to take his money"; Regarding those who convert out of Islam, the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs explicitly asserts, they "should be killed"; Saudi textbooks and other publications in the collection, propagate a Nazi-like hatred for Jews, treat the forged Protocols of the Elders of Zion as historical fact, and avow that the Muslim's duty is to eliminate the state of Israel; Regarding women, the Saudi publications instruct that they should be veiled, segregated from men and barred from certain employment and roles; The report states: "While the government of Saudi Arabia claims to be 'updating' or reforming its textbooks and study materials within the kingdom, its publications propagating an ideology of hatred remain plentiful in some prominent American mosques and Islamic centers, and continue to be a principal resource available to students of Islam within the United States."The Center for Religious Freedom said the research, translation and principle analysis of the materials for the report were carried out by both Muslims and non-Muslims who wish to remain anonymous for reasons of security.

memyselfI
01-29-2005, 11:34 AM
but, but, but they are our FRIENDS...

undemocratic buddies of Sr. Who cares????

Brock
01-29-2005, 11:37 AM
Maybe it's time to remove the tax exempt status of US mosques. Not supposed to talk politics in church, remember?

alanm
01-29-2005, 12:36 PM
but, but, but they are our FRIENDS...

undemocratic buddies of Sr. Who cares????Saudi Arabia gets a pass as long as oil is a commodity we need to survive. Maybe in 10-15 yrs science may render oil obsolete. Especially if national security deems it necessary. Screw big oil. If they were smart they'd be making plans now.

penchief
01-29-2005, 01:07 PM
Maybe it's time to remove the tax exempt status of US mosques. Not supposed to talk politics in church, remember?

Maybe it's time to remove the tax exempt status of all churches. Jerry Fallwell and his self-righteous ilk have not behaved in ways much different than the mosques when espousing politics from the religious pulpit.

Granted, Falwell and most Christian evangelicals do not go to the extremes of advocating death (only eternal damnation) for those who don't follow the "laws" of Jesus, but that is not what you said.

When it comes to religisizing politics, there is no difference between PEOPLE like Jerry Fallwell & Pat Robertson using their Christianity to promote a political position or a candidate and those who promote social politics from a mosque, IMO.

Brock
01-29-2005, 01:12 PM
Maybe it's time to remove the tax exempt status of all churches. Jerry Fallwell and his self-righteous ilk have not behaved in ways much different than the mosques when espousing politics from the religious pulpit.

Granted, Falwell and most Christian evangelicals do not go to the extremes of advocating death

Way to contradict yourself there, chief.

penchief
01-29-2005, 01:25 PM
Way to contradict yourself there, chief.

Not at all, Brock. AND LISTEN GOOD!

You said, "NOT SUPPOSED TO TALK POLITICS IN CHURCH, REMEMBER?" That is exactly what you typed.

That is what my comparison pertains to. That is EXACTLY why I countered my own comments with that "CONTRADICTION (as you say)" when in reality, it is only a contradiction to you because you are unable to see the fact that I anticipated your response prior to your responding.

There is a huge difference between the extremes to which each (Falwell v bin Laden) would go to impose their beliefs, however, there is no difference between the use of religion to promote politics, IMO.

Baby Lee
01-29-2005, 01:26 PM
Maybe it's time to remove the tax exempt status of all churches. Jerry Fallwell and his self-righteous ilk have not behaved in ways much different than the mosques when espousing politics from the religious pulpit.

Granted, Falwell and most Christian evangelicals do not go to the extremes of advocating death (only eternal damnation) for those who don't follow the "laws" of Jesus, but that is not what you said.

When it comes to religisizing politics, there is no difference between PEOPLE like Jerry Fallwell & Pat Robertson using their Christianity to promote a political position or a candidate and those who promote social politics from a mosque, IMO.
Other than that, how was the play?

Brock
01-29-2005, 01:28 PM
There is a huge difference between the extremes to which each (Falwell v bin Laden) would go to impose their beliefs, however, there is no difference between the use of religion to promote politics, IMO.

Inside your head must be a really scary place, if you are just as worried by Jerry Falwell as you are about bin Laden. I feel sorry for you, droopy.

penchief
01-29-2005, 01:28 PM
Other than that, how was the play?

I claim ignorance. I don't know what you mean.

Brock
01-29-2005, 01:29 PM
I claim ignorance. I don't know what you mean.

ROFL ROFL

penchief
01-29-2005, 01:31 PM
Inside your head must be a really scary place, if you are just as worried by Jerry Falwell as you are about bin Laden. I feel sorry for you, droopy.

It is so much easier for you to make flippant comments than it is for you to respond to my comments, isn't it?

Baby Lee
01-29-2005, 01:37 PM
I claim ignorance. I don't know what you mean.
The apophrycal question posed to Mrs. Lincoln.

penchief
01-29-2005, 01:38 PM
ROFL ROFL

Since you are laughing, you must understand what BabyLee means. Why don't you explain the joke to me?

penchief
01-29-2005, 01:40 PM
Way to contradict yourself there, chief.

Way to cut my quotes off before they are finished in order to make a phony point. Why not respond to my comments instead.

Is that deflection? Hmmmm.....

Brock
01-29-2005, 01:44 PM
It is so much easier for you to make flippant comments than it is for you to respond to my comments, isn't it?

As much as you'd like to divert attention away from your laughably stupid comments, I won't oblige you. It is idiotic to say "they're both exactly the same, except one will sanction murder and the other will not", which is what you did. Very, very dumb.

Rausch
01-29-2005, 01:46 PM
*sniff...sniff*

I smell...regime change...

Baby Lee
01-29-2005, 01:51 PM
Since you are laughing, you must understand what BabyLee means. Why don't you explain the joke to me?
You STILL don't get it?

There was this president in the 1860s.
His name was Abraham Lincoln.
He was assassinated.
His assassination took place while he was in the box seats of the Ford theatre, watching a play.
His assassin was a member of the cast.
The [apophrycal] story is that, after Mr. Lincoln died, a reporter asked "Other than that, how did you like the play, Mrs. Lincoln?"
You see, the tale demonstrates the sheer ignorance of dismissing an important, some might say essential, aspect of a situation to glean irrelevant information.

KCWolfman
01-29-2005, 02:12 PM
Maybe it's time to remove the tax exempt status of all churches. Jerry Fallwell and his self-righteous ilk have not behaved in ways much different than the mosques when espousing politics from the religious pulpit.

Granted, Falwell and most Christian evangelicals do not go to the extremes of advocating death (only eternal damnation) for those who don't follow the "laws" of Jesus, but that is not what you said.

When it comes to religisizing politics, there is no difference between PEOPLE like Jerry Fallwell & Pat Robertson using their Christianity to promote a political position or a candidate and those who promote social politics from a mosque, IMO.
If you remove the exempt status, then remove the separation rules.

Silly to balance the equation in a single favor - unless you are anti-religious and it achieves your goal

CHIEF4EVER
01-29-2005, 02:16 PM
If you remove the exempt status, then remove the separation rules.

Silly to balance the equation in a single favor - unless you are anti-religious and it achieves your goal

Good point.

BIG_DADDY
01-29-2005, 02:16 PM
They are all over these mosques you would have to be a freaking idiot if you were a terrorist to even go to one of these. Then again we are dealing with morons.

penchief
01-29-2005, 02:21 PM
As much as you'd like to divert attention away from your laughably stupid comments, I won't oblige you. It is idiotic to say "they're both exactly the same, except one will sanction murder and the other will not", which is what you did. Very, very dumb.

Again, deflection. Do you even remember what my comments were? Because your last two posts have eluded the content of my posts.

Your comments spoke to the issue of religion injecting politics into religious sermons. I responded by pointing out the hypocricy of your comments when taking people like Falwell and Robertson into account while also acknowledging the differences in extremes each would take.

Yet, you ignore these acknowledged differences in order to paint me as extreme, as you probably do anyone that disagrees with you. It is funny how you take your queue from the very same ideologues you worship.

Scream bloody murder, that's the ticket.

Brock
01-29-2005, 02:35 PM
I responded by pointing out the hypocricy of your comments when taking people like Falwell and Robertson into account while also acknowledging the differences in extremes each would take.


Again, deflection. You are the hypocrite, since you support the party that spied on Christians in church to make sure they weren't talking about abortion. But that's no surprise, you have been exposed as a hypocrite many times before.

penchief
01-29-2005, 02:38 PM
If you remove the exempt status, then remove the separation rules.

Silly to balance the equation in a single favor - unless you are anti-religious and it achieves your goal

Wolfman,

I know, just from interacting with you on this forum, that you are sharper than that.

Religion is a "PERSONAL" issue (I don't know how I can emphasize that more). To compare politics (the efforts of the many to influence public policy) to personal conviction (the effort to negotioate life on one's own terms) is bogus. PERIOD.

If Christianity instists on influencing the public domain via schools, government, and Fox News then,.........Islam, Buddhism, and The End of The Worldonians deserve equal air time because no religion has been proven to be fact moreso than any other.

2bikemike
01-29-2005, 02:46 PM
Radical Islam in America

When the horror of September 11 happened, Americans experienced a great deal of confusion and heard a great deal of speculation about the motives for anti-American terrorism. It was natural for most of us to assume that we were attacked because of who we are: because we are wealthy, because we are a dominant power in the world and because we represent ideas that are in conflict with the ideas of radical Islam. Many also assumed – wrongly I think – that it had mostly to do with the Middle East and Israel. But almost immediately a very interesting fact emerged: of the 19 suicide terrorists on September 11, 15 were subjects of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Why is this important? It is important because these were not poor people from refugee camps on the West Bank or in Gaza. These were not people who had grown up feeling some grievance against Israel and the United States because they lived in difficult conditions. These were not people from the crowded and disrupted communities of Egypt or Pakistan, or people who had experienced anti-Islamic violence in the last 20 years and had therefore turned against the United States. These people had grown up in the country that Americans often think of as our most solid and dependable ally in the Arab world – the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Thus the question arose: Why would Saudis be involved in this?

Related questions followed: What does it mean that Osama Bin Laden is a Saudi? And that so many members of Al-Qaeda are Saudis? Why is it that Al-Qaeda is essentially a Saudi political movement? And that 25 percent of those detained in Guantanamo are Saudis? Why is it that a country the U.S. had favored, to which the U.S. had delivered an enormous amount of wealth through the purchase of oil – a country that the U.S. had protected militarily, and whose young people have been educated in America for many years – why was Saudi Arabia, of all countries, so connected to the attacks of September 11?

Osama Bin Laden and Saudi Arabia

Many in the United States bought into Osama Bin Laden’s propaganda when he claimed to be outraged that American troops were stationed on the “holy soil” of Saudi Arabia. In fact, American troops were never stationed on Saudi “holy soil,” because Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia, and Dhahran, the area where most U.S. troops were stationed, are not Islamic holy sites. The only holy places in Saudi Arabia, from the Muslim perspective, are Mecca and Medina – and there were never American troops in either of those cities. The only time foreign troops were sent to Mecca or Medina was in 1979, when a group of Muslim radicals took over the Grand Mosque in Mecca and the Saudi government sent in French paratroops to kill them.

We are accustomed to hearing that Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda look on the Saudi royal family as just as much an enemy as the U.S., and that they want to overthrow it. But the truth, as I first pointed out in the Weekly Standard about a month after September 11, is that Osama Bin Laden has never called for the overthrow of the Saudi royal family. What he calls for is a change in their policies. That is, he calls for what he would consider a more Islamic policy. The fact is – based on my contacts and interviews with Saudi subjects both inside and outside the kingdom – Osama is essentially a product of the Saudi regime, and in particular of the hardliners in the regime. And so the message of Osama Bin Laden on September 11 was also a message from those Saudi hardliners, and the message was aimed at their audiences.

First, it was a message to the United States saying, “Don’t ask Saudi Arabia to change, because if we change, this is what you’ll get – instead of us, Osama.”

Second, it was a message to the people of Saudi Arabia – a fundamentally rational people. Many Saudis are on the Internet. Many have satellite dishes. And they are surrounded by a crescent of normalizing countries: Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, the Emirates, Oman, Yemen – countries that certainly are not as progressive and prosperous as Florida, but that are on their way toward becoming normal modern countries. And yet Saudis live in a country – to cite but one of several examples of stifling backwardness – where women are not allowed to drive. So Saudi society is a society demanding change. And the second message of September 11 was to the Saudi people in response to their yearning: “Don’t try to make changes because we radical Islamists still have enormous power, and it is a destructive power.”

Third, the same message was intended for Muslims all around the world: “Don’t challenge our control over global Islam.”

Wahhabism in the U.S.

The ideology of Saudi hardliners is, unfortunately, of great relevance even inside the United States. One doctrine of Islam dominates in Saudi Arabia: It is called Wahhabism. Wahhabism is the most extreme, the most violent, the most separatist, the most expansionistic form of Islam that exists. It’s a form of Islam that not only lashes out at the West, but that seeks to take over and impose a rigid conformity on the whole Muslim world.

What then of America? Islam was new in the United States in the 1980s and 1990s. Then, because of changes in the immigration laws, the American Muslim community suddenly became much larger. Most Muslims who came to the United States were not Arabs. The plurality have been people from Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. And as Islam originally emerged as a major religion in the U.S., it – unlike other American religions – didn’t have an establishment. A disparate group of Muslims arrived and established mosques in various places. They represented different ethnic groups and lacked any structure to bring them together and unite them. But that didn’t last long. And why? Because the Saudis decided to create an American Islamic establishment based on the radical doctrines of Wahhabism. In order to bring this about, they created a system of organizations that would speak for American Muslims to the government and the media and through the educational system and the mosques.

One can learn a lot about how the Saudi-backed Wahhabi establishment in the U.S. works by looking at how it came to speak for all of Islam in the American media. It did this by creating a set of organizations. One of the most prominent is called the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). This group was allegedly set up to be a kind of a Muslim version of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League. That is, its stated goal was to protect Muslims against prejudice and stereotypes. I was working in the newsroom of the San Francisco Chronicle at the time, and I was struck by CAIR’s approach with our reporters and editors. They didn’t come to the newspaper offices and say, “We’re Muslims; we’re here now; this is our holy book; this is the life of our prophet Muhammad; these are the holidays we observe; this is what we believe in, and we’d like you to report these things accurately.” Rather, they came and they said, “We are a minority and we suffer from discrimination. We suffer from hurtful stereotypes. We know that you are good liberal reporters, and that you want to avoid inflicting these stereotypes on us. So whenever you do a story on Islam, you should call us first and make sure it is correct.” And, of course, that meant “correct” according to Saudi-sponsored Wahhabism.

There are other such groups. One of them is called the Islamic Society of North America. It is directly controlled from Saudi Arabia, and openly owns 250 of the 1,200 main mosques in the United States. But this is just the tip of the iceberg: My research suggests that a full 80 percent of American mosques are under the control of the Saudi government and Wahhabism. This does not mean that 80 percent of American Muslims are supporters of Wahhabism – only that their mosques are controlled by the Saudi Wahhabis. There’s a range of such organizations. Many we don’t hear much about, including some of the worst; for example, the Islamic Circle of North America, which acts as a kind of extremist militia among Pakistani Muslims and has a very bad reputation for threatening, intimidating and enforcing conformity in the Pakistani Muslim community.

Other Areas of Wahhabi Influence in the U.S.

There are three other areas where the Saudi government and its Wahhabi ideology have gained tremendous influence in the U.S. The first is in the American prison system. With one single exception, all of the federal and state chaplains representing Islam in American prisons are Wahhabis. That is, they are certified by groups originating in Saudi Arabia; the curriculum they follow was created in Saudi Arabia; and they go into our prisons and preach an extremist doctrine. This is not the same as saying that they go into our prisons and directly recruit terrorists – although there have been cases of that. But anytime you go into a prison – an environment of violence, obviously populated by troubled people – and preach an extremist doctrine, there are going to be bad and dangerous consequences.

The second area is in the military services. Every single Islamic chaplain in the U.S. military has been certified by Saudi-controlled groups – which means that our military chaplains also hold to Wahhabi doctrines. Is it surprising, then, that we had the incident of the Muslim solider in Kuwait who attacked his fellow soldiers? Or the problems with military personnel at Guantanamo? Or the Muslim military man in Washington State who was trying to turn over useful information to Al-Qaeda?

And finally there is the problem with what are known as the Islamic academies: Islamic elementary schools, middle schools and high schools throughout the U.S. that are supported by Saudi money and preach the Saudi-Wahhabi doctrine – in some cases to Saudi expatriate children living here, but in many other cases to Muslim children who are U.S. citizens.

What to Do

This seems a very dark picture. On the other hand, there are some fairly simple steps to take to solve the problem.

First and foremost, it is important to support the federal and state governments in a sustained investigation of Islamic extremism in our country. That means not falling for the propaganda claim – made by groups like CAIR – that investigating what’s happening in mosques, and the literature being distributed in mosques, somehow violates religious freedom. It is not a violation of religious freedom to prevent extremists from using religion as a cover for sedition and criminality. To the contrary, preventing this is necessary to the defense of religious freedom. So it’s absolutely necessary to support the FBI, the Justice Department, and other agencies who are investigating the extent to which Islam in the United States is under the influence of anti-American, anti-democratic extremists. And it is important that they are empowered to perform these investigations with laws like the Patriot Act.

Second, we must identify and support the moderate and patriotic Muslims in the United States who oppose Wahhabism and all it stands for. Many Muslims fit this description, even if we rarely hear of them.

Related to this, we should hold the media to account for its coverage of these issues. How many times have we heard the question since September 11: “Why is it that more Muslim leaders didn’t speak out against this abomination?” Actually, many Muslim leaders did speak out against terrorism and in support of freedom, but they weren’t heard in the media because their message didn’t fit the mold that the media likes to impose on this story. Thus, for instance, we didn’t hear from a Muslim leader in Chicago – the Mufti of the Bosnian Muslims in America – who is a very influential man, who loves America, and who, the day after September 11, said, “No Muslim living in America should support any of this. Everybody should do everything possible to stop it. If you hear about it in your community, tell the FBI about it and organize against it.” Instead, what the media covered were angry Muslims blaming America’s support of Israel and other misleading factors.

I say to my fellow journalists, “Why don’t you go to countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, Bangladesh, West Africa, Morocco and Bosnia? Why don’t you go and interview the Muslim leaders who support the West, who are against terrorism and who are willing to stand alongside the United States?” Recently (as I have written in the Weekly Standard), I went to Uzbekistan and interviewed three Islamist defectors, two of them from Al-Qaeda. These interviews suggest that although the leaders of the Islamist movement are extreme, murderous and fanatical, the foot soldiers in the movement are just like foot soldiers in other extremist movements. They get involved in this movement for reasons that are not ideological, and often become disillusioned. One man I spoke to defected from a group connected to Al-Qaeda when he saw that he was being used to commit atrocities against his own comrades. At the end of the interview, I asked him if he had anything to say to Americans. “Yes,” he said, “I want you to tell President Bush there are a lot of us out here who are ready to stand alongside America to deal a death blow to these monsters, these terrorists.”

As this story indicates, there is reason to be optimistic about the war on terror around the globe. But let us also not forget, in the course of conducting that war, the importance of employing law enforcement to stem the influence of Saudi-supported Wahhabi extremism in our own country.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mlyonsd
01-29-2005, 02:50 PM
Maybe it's time to remove the tax exempt status of all churches. Jerry Fallwell and his self-righteous ilk have not behaved in ways much different than the mosques when espousing politics from the religious pulpit.

Granted, Falwell and most Christian evangelicals do not go to the extremes of advocating death (only eternal damnation) for those who don't follow the "laws" of Jesus, but that is not what you said.

When it comes to religisizing politics, there is no difference between PEOPLE like Jerry Fallwell & Pat Robertson using their Christianity to promote a political position or a candidate and those who promote social politics from a mosque, IMO.

I'm not going to argue the fact that there are some evangelists that use the pulpit for political issues. It happens on both sides of the aisle.

But they are not the norm and the vast majority of religious groups do tons of good work for the less fortunate or society's outcasts. To remove exempt status just to shut up the few does not help our society or mankind in the end. Just my opinion though.

penchief
01-29-2005, 02:57 PM
Again, deflection. You are the hypocrite, since you support the party that spied on Christians in church to make sure they weren't talking about abortion. But that's no surprise, you have been exposed as a hypocrite many times before.

I can easily see by your comments that this is an endlessly downward spiral.

Brock, for once, try to answer political disagreement without personal attacks. I am beginning to believe you are incapable of defending your position without attacking you opponent.

Ponder, for a moment.................please.

Your life (as you currently know it) is short-lived. Where do we go from here? Do we reap shallow, materialistic satisfaction or do we reap deep personal satisfaction in life? I don't know. That is a personal dilemna that we all struggle with. I know what my tendencies are, yet, I still struggle with those tendencies.

But, I do know that the tyranny of the few (who actually agree on the future) should not necessarily be the future of those who care about issues discordant with the viewpoint of those select few.

Bwana
01-29-2005, 03:05 PM
The entire area needs to be nuked into a parking lot.

penchief
01-29-2005, 03:12 PM
I'm not going to argue the fact that there are some evangelists that use the pulpit for political issues. It happens on both sides of the aisle.

But they are not the norm and the vast majority of religious groups do tons of good work for the less fortunate or society's outcasts. To remove exempt status just to shut up the few does not help our society or mankind in the end. Just my opinion though.

myslond,

I couldn't agree with your sentiment any more than I already do. However, just as Islam emphasizes humanity (what is moral and what is a sin) in the same way that Chiristianity does, it is wrong to demonize one religion over the other.

I believe that religion is only half of the equation when considering the philosophical war we are fighting. Ultimately, how can anyone deny that the truth lies somewhere in between us and them?.

CHIEF4EVER
01-29-2005, 03:18 PM
myslond,

I couldn't agree with your sentiment any more than I already do. However, just as Islam emphasizes humanity (what is moral and what is a sin) in the same way that Chiristianity does, it is wrong to demonize one religion over the other.

I believe that religion is only half of the equation when considering the philosophical war we are fighting. Ultimately, how can anyone deny that the truth lies somewhere in between us and them?.

You couldn't be more wrong about the highlighted statement. In Islam, any non Muslim is a Kuffar/Mushrik (idolaters or unbelievers). One of the basics of their doctrine is: "Kill the Mushriqeen wherever you find them" (one of the Surat in the Quran). This is the basis for radical Islam. All non Muslims are either to convert or die. Christianity teaches just the opposite.

CHIEF4EVER
01-29-2005, 03:38 PM
Here is the precise wording verbatim: Kill the Mushrikun (unbelievers) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iquamat - as - Salat) [the five ritual prayers per day], and give Zakat [alms], then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft Forgiving, Most merciful. Reference - Surah 9:5.

KCWolfman
01-30-2005, 02:18 AM
Wolfman,

I know, just from interacting with you on this forum, that you are sharper than that.

Religion is a "PERSONAL" issue (I don't know how I can emphasize that more). To compare politics (the efforts of the many to influence public policy) to personal conviction (the effort to negotioate life on one's own terms) is bogus. PERIOD.

If Christianity instists on influencing the public domain via schools, government, and Fox News then,.........Islam, Buddhism, and The End of The Worldonians deserve equal air time because no religion has been proven to be fact moreso than any other.
The basis of Christianity is to influence our everyday lifes. It is no moreso today than 240 years ago. The founding fathers knew what they were doing much better than what you attempt to suggest.

BigMeatballDave
01-30-2005, 01:01 PM
Screw big oil. If they were smart they'd be making plans now.Funny you should mention that...

http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=media-en&FC3=/media-en/html/iwgen/news_and_library/press_releases/2005/big_apple_hydrogen_27012005.html&FC2=/media-en/html/iwgen/news_and_library/press_releases/2005/zzz_lhn.html

alanm
01-30-2005, 02:58 PM
Funny you should mention that...

http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=media-en&FC3=/media-en/html/iwgen/news_and_library/press_releases/2005/big_apple_hydrogen_27012005.html&FC2=/media-en/html/iwgen/news_and_library/press_releases/2005/zzz_lhn.html I heard that on the radio this morning. Funny thing is, They still need oil to make the hydrogen fuel. Hopefully that can be eliminated down the road somehow. They compared the technology of hydrogen cars to the cell phones of the 80's and said within 10 years or so it will be alot better.

Lzen
01-31-2005, 03:11 PM
2bikemike,
U got a link for that article you posted. I'm curious about the author and what publication it came from.