NationStates Jolt Archive

sourced from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3602175&thesection=news&thesubsection=dialogue

The end of the Cold War and the events of September 11 have engendered an intense and ever-increasing focus from academics and observers about the heterogenic and conflictual relations between the West and Islam. At the same time the powerful Western media machine has produced selective coverage of the Muslim world that has emphasised only its negative aspects: absence of democracy, human rights abuses and terrorism, all manifestly defective in any nation yet all demonstrably legacies of the Cold War and of post-colonial states that have failed to achieve development at all levels.

Sensationalist headlines and unbalanced commentaries in Western media are evidence of a systematic failure of critical thinking about how to deal with a large portion of the world's population, one that has, over the centuries, contributed ... to the human and scientific development of Western civilisation itself ...

It is one of the illogical ironies of current debates on geopolitical issues that those people who own intelligence, control the production of information and claim objectivity are the same ones who adhere to zealous and empty slogans that serve only the vested interest of arms conglomerates and other business predators.

It is likewise illogical to place Islam, which is a monotheist religion, comparable to Christianity and Judaism, in opposition to the West, which is, by turns, a strategic region, an arbitrary geographical division of the Earth's surface, or a metaphorical expression of an ill-defined agglomeration of political and economic values.

In his 1990 Tanner lecture, "Europe and Islam", Bernard Lewis talked of some of the difficulties presented by the two opposed terms in the title. Islam, he said, is not a geographic location; it is a religion. But for Muslims the word "religion" connotes something different than it does for Christians. The word itself ... is derived from the Latin "religio", a pre-Christian term for the cult and rituals of pagan Rome. The comparable Islamic term is "dín", a term originally Arabic, but which has been adopted in all the many languages of Islam and in common with its cognates in other Semitic languages, notably Hebrew and Aramaic, it means law.

So for Muslims, Islam is not simply a system of belief and worship ... it is the whole of life, and its rules include civil, criminal and even what we would call constitutional law ...

There is no doubt that truth is the first casualty of this war. It is a war that targets not only bin Laden and his few followers, but it will be a persistent pretext to muzzle opposition groups that choose a democratic path to express their projects.

In my opinion the war on terror is only another deal between the West and Arab dictators aiming to secure cheap oil in exchange for a continuing silence concerning human rights abuses, as has happened and happens still in Algeria.

The late European MP Sir James Goldsmith once observed in his book The Trap, commenting on Algeria after the putsch during the 90s: "Virtual silence has greeted the reversal of a democratic election in Algeria. The West cannot understand a democratic rejection of its ideas. For the West such a rejection is a sign of either dementia or evil."

Moreover, Oliver Roy, the French expert in political Islam, addressed the hypocrisy of the West towards democracy in the Muslim world by saying: "When the West has to choose between democracy and secularism, as happened in Algeria and Turkey, it will always choose secularism and not democracy."

I was born in 1960 in the village of Al-Idrissiya, in Algeria, where my grandfather was a Sufi preacher. I remember very clearly the year of 1967, when animosity between Israel and the Arab countries, under the leadership of Egypt, was at its height. The mood within the Arab countries was tense, and Algeria was no exception, since the Algerian people used to follow the speeches of Nasser attentively.

At that time I was very young and I used to go to the only football pitch available in my home village. There was a Jewish cemetery close to the football pitch, and sometimes the soccer ball would bounce into the cemetery. I and my fellow players took as much care as possible not to walk on any grave out of respect for the dead, since Islamic traditions prohibit such acts, or any other kind of disrespect for any dead.

Looking back, it strikes me, wasn't that a beautiful example of tolerance? Despite the inflamed feelings against the state of Israel, the principles that my little buddies and I had been taught to hold dear never let us cross the line, or led us to act incorrectly against the symbols of another religion.

Now I am older and a lot wiser about the ways of the world but the soccer games in Al-Idrissiya came back to me when I read what Edward Said wrote in his book, Orientalism. He made the point that Muslims, even when they were extremely angry, had never dared to insult the prophets of ancient Israel. We need to recall these things now, as many in the West see Islam as the enemy of civilisation and a byword for religious intolerance.

In an interview, 20 years after the first publication of Orientalism Said noted that the situation had, if anything, worsened: "The West's almost obsessive emphasis on terrorism and fanaticism in the Arab world is a form of exorcism. They see it in Islam so they won't have to recognise that the same elements exist in their own societies" ... .

The recent confrontations since September 11 tend to obscure the tentative steps we have made together. The beginning of the 20th century did witness the first, fledgling attempts to address a history of tragedies and confrontation between the monotheist religions, and this dialogue also included the representatives of Buddhism and Hinduism. In more recent times, the most encouraging stage of this process occurred in 1965, when the Catholic Church formally renounced the ancient crime held against the Jews for killing Jesus (peace be upon him).

This step underlined the fact that the Catholic Church had inaugurated a new era, in which dogmatism and history were no longer a barrier to dialogue between the sons of Abraham. Later on, various European countries such as Belgium and Scandinavian countries recognised Islam as a national religion.

Such recognition, however, was not unanimous. France, in contrast, is still caught up in its colonial legacy, as exemplified by its decision to place Islamic Affairs under the authority of the interior ministry in blatant contradiction of its secular principles. To Muslims, the practice seems to be the continuation of the colonial practices in Algeria, when the French authorities used to control mosques, name muftis and administer the Islamic properties until independence in 1962.

Historically, Islam pioneered the reciprocal recognition of the monotheist religions, Judaism and Christianity ... The Holy Koran called for constructive dialogue with the people of the book, which is itself a respectable designation for Islamists, Jews and Christians. For centuries, the Arabic and Eastern churches were involved in discussion and building bridges with Muslims. So it should come as no surprise that today there are more than 10 million Arab Christians living side by side with their fellow Muslim countrymen.

We forget this common heritage at our peril ... Yet there are numerous verses in the Koran that not only contain the names of the prophets of the Old Testament, but express praise for them, and for their actions. Furthermore the Holy Koran contains more than 120 verses about Jesus and the Virgin Mary, including details of the birth and early childhood of Jesus that do not appear in the Holy Bible ...

We share the same impulses to worship, our prophets walked the same lands in the Middle East. We are all children of the book. It is a matter of fact that the Jewish and Christian presence in North Africa, to be precise in Morocco and Algeria, precedes the Islamic presence ... .

Near where I grew up was the Trappist Monastery of Tibherine, where monks of Our Lady of Atlas had lived in respect, peace and honour for centuries. Alas, in 1996 seven of these monks were kidnapped, used as bargaining tokens and beheaded by the GIA, a crime that has an unhappy familiarity today. The international community condemned the barbaric criminals, as did the villagers for whom the monks, like the statue of the Virgin Mary that overlooked our village, had simply always been part of our community. But the prior of the martyr-monks did not condemn, instead commending their friends of the final moment to God whose face I see in yours - the God of both of us.

Unfortunately, these bonds between us are all but forgotten, as politics interferes in the dialogue between religions. This is especially so since the Cold War ended, a finale that gave birth to many ethnic unrests and fundamentalisms which, to be fair, are an understandable enough response. They represent the attempt to preserve national identities that are being threatened by the bulldozer of globalisation.

We need to be on guard that this quest to defend our identity does not become the justification for pre-emptive action against others ... Dialogue is more important than ever, especially now that Islam has a visible presence in the West ...

The value of dialogue is easy to under-rate. It seems slow, and its achievements so much less dramatic than the deadly outbursts of conflict. It consists of the patient building of bridges ... dissolving otherness and constructing an understanding based on common interests and a shared history.

As a Muslim I have always believed in dialogue with anyone and everyone who shares a readiness for dialogue and peaceful co-existence. We have to persevere. We have to show tolerance. And we must be prepared to set aside any resentment we may feel at treatment that seems unjust.

Salaam. Peace.

* Ahmed Zaoui was formerly a lecturer and tutor at the Religious Faculty of Algiers University.

Of course Islam is truly peaceful!!!

Who would believe otherwise?

Infidels! :rolleyes: *beats your wife*

Of course Islam is truly peaceful!!!

Who would believe otherwise?
my sarcasm detector is buzzing as a read your post so i wont go into detail.

my sarcasm detector is buzzing as a read your post so i wont go into detail.
The 1st part of my post is serious, the second part is somewhat more sarcastic

Your essay is too long and boring. I don't need to know that to draw my own conclusions about Islam. The good people of the earth have run controlled experiments about Islam, to whit, we have several countries governed solely by dedicated islamists; we also have several countries goverened by those dedicated to judeo-christian tradition.

While not all of the Judeo Christian sample have been outright successes all of them have worked out far better than any of the Islamic offerings. Which is why, every year, millions of muslims want to leave there muslim hellholes and move to the west. The converse is not true. All of these clever arguments that Islam is just as peaceful and respectful of human rights as Christianity is obviously belied by migration patterns.

So why do I need some long essay?

I don't remember the west having a "property of Judeo-Christianity" stamp placed on it.

It is likewise illogical to place Islam, which is a monotheist religion, comparable to Christianity and Judaism, in opposition to the West, which is, by turns, a strategic region, an arbitrary geographical division of the Earth's surface, or a metaphorical expression of an ill-defined agglomeration of political and economic values.

Why is ill-defined? and why it it illogica? (he never says "because". . . .)

Well if he read his own statements he might have a clue. . .

So for Muslims, Islam is not simply a system of belief and worship ... it is the whole of life, and its rules include civil, criminal and even what we would call constitutional law ...


So it should come as no surprise that today there are more than 10 million Arab Christians living side by side with their fellow Muslim countrymen.

Peacefully?


Nicely dressed article, but shit still smells bad.

It's such a long winded article, and the repetition does my nut.

The most peaceful type of Islam is Sufi Islam. Now the most extremist Islam is Wahabbi Islam. Sadly, Wahabbi Islam is the official religion of Saudi Arabia although even Mohammed was not that strict. I do not know of any major places where Sufi Islam reigns supreme. But there is Daghestan, a semiautonomous epublic of the Russian Federation. Sadly, it is right next to Chechnya. So there is some conflicts going on as the native Sufi culture has skermished with foreign Wahabbi fighters looking for recruits. So Wahabbi Islam is the bane of all Islam as it makes enemies out of all nonmuslims.

Your essay is too long and boring.
Its not my fault you have a short attention span.

Why is ill-defined? and why it it illogica? (he never says "because". . . .)


because Islam is not a place whereas the 'West' is a place.

I don't understand why people think islam is all about war. It's like they think worshippers declare a holy war every other day.

"Man cut me off in traffic, a fuckin' jihad on him...oh, wanna be rude eh, I'll fuckin' jihad your ass..."
"Dad, how many jihads do you have going right now?"
"Well, there's those two, the milkman, that store clerk..."

That's a good read, were all brothers(Christians, Jews, Muslims) we broke our bridges because of misunderstandings and ignorance, it's time we compromise and end our fighting.

I don't remember the west having a "property of Judeo-Christianity" stamp placed on it.

I guess you missed that memo, it was cirulated a while ago. Pretty much 'splains who founded all our modern democracies tho.

I don't remember the west having a "property of Judeo-Christianity" stamp placed on it.
It was put there by Emperor Constantine and friends.
"The West" is short for "The Western Church" and stands in contrast to "The Eastern Church" - the Orthodox.
How could "The West" be a geographical marker when it includes areas such as Australia (South of Asia!) and Spitzbergen (North of everywhere).

I guess you missed that memo, it was cirulated a while ago. Pretty much 'splains who founded all our modern democracies tho.

In that case, you seem to have mistakenly typed "Judeo-Christian" instead of "deists." Because the christians were the ones who were into monarchy.

That's a good read, were all brothers(Christians, Jews, Muslims) we broke our bridges because of misunderstandings and ignorance, it's time we compromise and end our fighting.
No?
Islam broke out of the Arabia and overran Jewish and Christian lands, sent slave raiders as far noth as Ireland and still holds the site of the Jewish Temple and the Hagia Sophia.
Given non-Muslims aren't allowed into Mecca, a 'compromise' would be to agree to let them into Jerusalem when that rule changes. Do you really think that compromise is going to solve the problem?
As someone pointed out, the massive exodus of refugees from the islamic world points out the lie of our societies being equivalent. When there are 10 of millions of refugees clamouring to enter the islamic world, I'll treat them as equals. Not before.
(I will continue to be impressed with Islam's achievements during the late Middle Ages, of course, no matter what they do now).

In that case, you seem to have mistakenly typed "Judeo-Christian" instead of "deists." Because the christians were the ones who were into monarchy.

eh ?

you have to explain that.

eh ?

you have to explain that.

Greece: not christians
America: not christians
England: the church of england doesn't count, listen to Eddy Izzard for that one :p
France: There's was a bit gruesome, as I recall


For the most part, the Catholic Church was in favor of monarchy-with one man on the top, the church just had to control that one man and they'd control the country.

Greece: not christians
America: not christians
England: the church of england doesn't count, listen to Eddy Izzard for that one :p
France: There's was a bit gruesome, as I recall


For the most part, the Catholic Church was in favor of monarchy-with one man on the top, the church just had to control that one man and they'd control the country.

No dude that's all lies.

Greece: Eastern Othordox.
England: Established Church, Eddy Izzard notwithstanding.
France: Catholic
America: Mixed Christian
Germany: Lutherian/Catholic:
Denmark: Lutherian

&ct.

I know not everyone in these countries are christians, but thats just because christians are polite and respectful, so the christians that founded them and generally run them don't try to squeeze out everyone else.

It's all in the memo.

No dude that's all lies.

Greece: Eastern Othordox.
England: Established Church, Eddy Izzard notwithstanding.
France: Catholic
America: Mixed Christian
Germany: Lutherian/Catholic:
Denmark: Lutherian

&ct.

I know not everyone in these countries are christians, but thats just because christians are polite and respectful, so the christians that founded them and generally run them don't try to squeeze out everyone else.

It's all in the memo.

What the hell?

Greece: founded BEFORE CHRISTIANITY. Bloody hell man, what're you smoking?
France: That's not a revolution I'd be proud of
America: Deist, not christian
Europe: followed the US. Posers :p

Islam is not fundamentally peaceful; it is fundamentally an attempt to prevent unnecessary war-- the same as judeo-christianity. None of these religions achieved this goal. The early Hebrews fell to the ancient fad of empire building and later, after persecution turned them into a calculating people (I should know, I inherited my cold gene from the Sfaardic iconoclasts, the oldest clan of Hebrews), they ignored the pleas and rights of Palistinians in order to build their own safe haven. Need I start on Christianity? I mean, even ignoring all atrocities commited before the crusades, they are obviously the most blatantly genocidal of the three religions. Islam, as the newest monotheistic religion, is simply going through the phases: persecution, empire, genocide, calm. (Judeaism endured a second prolonged period of persecution, preventing them from getting in touch with their genocidal side until now, which explains the whole Palestine thing, which is mild compared to the crimes of its fellow monotheistic religions) Islam has already passed the first two phases and is hopefully completing its fanatical campaign, as I hope Israel is with its peace talks.

What the hell?

Greece: founded BEFORE CHRISTIANITY. Bloody hell man, what're you smoking?
France: That's not a revolution I'd be proud of
America: Deist, not christian
Europe: followed the US. Posers :p

I think you'll find that modern day greece was founded when it gained independence from Turkey and became a christian nation.

BTW there are tons of turkish muslims who'd rather live in greece than their own islamic paradise.

As fro the rest. All Christian. Even if one or two of the founding fathers may privately had deist thoughts, they all publically embraced traditional christianity.

I think you'll find that modern day greece was founded when it gained independence from Turkey and became a christian nation.

BTW there are tons of turkish muslims who'd rather live in greece than their own islamic paradise.

As fro the rest. All Christian. Even if one or two of the founding fathers may privately had deist thoughts, they all publically embraced traditional christianity.

MODERN Greece, ooooh. See, that first republic, anchient Greece...yeah, it wasn't very christian.



As for the US...

What the fuck are you smoking? It can't be legal.

Nearly all the founding fathers were deists. NONE of them publically embraced traditional christianity. Jefferson wrote his own damn bible, Paine publically spoke out against the religion...

...Seriously, what are you using as your sources, www.myass.com?

MODERN Greece, ooooh. See, that first republic, anchient Greece...yeah, it wasn't very christian.



As for the US...

What the fuck are you smoking? It can't be legal.

Nearly all the founding fathers were deists. NONE of them publically embraced traditional christianity. Jefferson wrote his own damn bible, Paine publically spoke out against the religion...

...Seriously, what are you using as your sources, www.myass.com?

What does ancient greece have to do with anything.

1) Even though some of the city-states that comprised the various co-operative leagues in the geographic region now known as greece were nominally "republics", they bear little resemblence to modern day western nations.

2) Talking about ancient greece in this context is like talking about the effect of Iceni on modern england. There is a historical connection no more. Anyway, ancient greece was civilized by the Romans and converted to Christianity under constantine.

Thomas Jefferson always maintained ties to the episcopalian church, although he did express an interest in unitarianism. His "bible" as you call it was published in 1904 by congress and is based upon a collection of writings he compiled in respect of Jesus ethical teachings - teachings he considered to by the finest in existence. Much of the confusion regarding his actual beliefs stems from his more critical eye towards much of the dogma in more traditional christian faith. However, this critism did not stem from any rejection of chrisitianity, but rather arose as a result of studying the religious philosophy of a noted contempary and Christian minister, JB Preistly.

The actual charge of deism arises from Jefferson's political opponents during his own life time. Christian evangelists who sought to defeat his attempr for the presidency and who opposed some of his ideas regarding separation of church and state, believed that labelling him as such would aide his cause. There is no evidence from Jefferson's own writings that he ever actually subscrobed to anything other than a Christian world view.

The deist charge has been resurected in the recent era by the same kind of malcontent, but for different reasons. It is as baseless now as it was then.

Thomas Paine may even have been an atheist, but he founded nothing, and was kicked out of the country at one point.

I am smoking camel filterless.

What does ancient greece have to do with anything.

1) Even though some of the city-states that comprised the various co-operative leagues in the geographic region now known as greece were nominally "republics", they bear little resemblence to modern day western nations.

2) Talking about ancient greece in this context is like talking about the effect of Iceni on modern england. There is a historical connection no more. Anyway, ancient greece was civilized by the Romans and converted to Christianity under constantine.

Much of the US was based off of Greeco-roman ideas. Furthermore, it was the first republic, like I stated before.

Thomas Jefferson always maintained ties to the episcopalian church, although he did express an interest in unitarianism. His "bible" as you call it was published in 1904 by congress and is based upon a collection of writings he compiled in respect of Jesus ethical teachings - teachings he considered to by the finest in existence. Much of the confusion regarding his actual beliefs stems from his more critical eye towards much of the dogma in more traditional christian faith. However, this critism did not stem from any rejection of chrisitianity, but rather arose as a result of studying the religious philosophy of a noted contempary and Christian minister, JB Preistly.


Jefferson quite often spoke against the Bible and, above that, Paul.
The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.


The actual charge of deism arises from Jefferson's political opponents during his own life time. Christian evangelists who sought to defeat his attempr for the presidency and who opposed some of his ideas regarding separation of church and state, believed that labelling him as such would aide his cause. There is no evidence from Jefferson's own writings that he ever actually subscrobed to anything other than a Christian world view.

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
Sorry, but you're wrong.

The deist charge has been resurected in the recent era by the same kind of malcontent, but for different reasons. It is as baseless now as it was then.
Ask ANY American History major, and they'll tell you the same thing-the US never was, and hopefully never will be based on Judeo-Christianity. The Treaty of Tripoli states that clearly.

Much of the US was based off of Greeco-roman ideas. Furthermore, it was the first republic, like I stated before.

Greece wasn't even a country. It was a collection of city states, some with "democratic" tendencies, some not. Or are you saying that Sparta, which was the closest thing hellenic greece - which is the period I asume you are refering to - ever had to a controlling entity was a democracy. And much of the US was not based off Greco-Roman ideas. I believe it owes far more to the contemporary philosophy of the period. I understand that the work of socrates, aristotle, democratus etc. are constant favorites in the west but they are hardly representative of the realities of ancient greek society. Further, there is much the founding fathers would have rejected. For example they never considered ostracism a the sine non qua of the democratic process.


Jefferson quite often spoke against the Bible and, above that, Paul.

All those quotes simply reflect Jeffersons connection with Unitarianism and his agreement with Priestly about the need to question traditional christian dogma. They are not a rejection of christianity itself. MArtin Luther made some similar observations, was he also a deist. Jefferson - and Preistly 0 both questioned the much of the dogme that was inherent in the christian religion, but that could not be supported testually from the synoptic gospels. This is also why Jefferson questioned some of the tenents of Paul. He was not the first, and will not be the last christian to do so. You will not find a single quote from jefferson that says, I do not believe in jesus or his teachings, I am not a christian or words to that effect.


Sorry, but you're wrong.


Ask ANY American History major, and they'll tell you the same thing-the US never was, and hopefully never will be based on Judeo-Christianity. The Treaty of Tripoli states that clearly.

I'm sure I can find several legal history scholars (and bona fide ones) for example Prof. Flaherty of Fordham University school of law (J.D and Ph.D.) who looks at the amercan revolution as a product of the desire of the colonists to ensure the "natural rights and traditions" of "Englishmen." And thus sees that Judeo Christian ethics and traditions are implicit in the founding documents of the US. Indeed at the time of the ratification of the US constitution (the second system of government), several of the states had established Christian Churches, notably virginia and mass. Thus to say that the original system of US government did not incorporate Judeo Christianity is clearly fallicious, although arguably its importance has diminished significantly over the last two-hundered years.

Greece wasn't even a country. It was a collection of city states, some with "democratic" tendencies, some not. Or are you saying that Sparta, which was the closest thing hellenic greece - which is the period I asume you are refering to - ever had to a controlling entity was a democracy. And much of the US was not based off Greco-Roman ideas. I believe it owes far more to the contemporary philosophy of the period. I understand that the work of socrates, aristotle, democratus etc. are constant favorites in the west but they are hardly representative of the realities of ancient greek society. Further, there is much the founding fathers would have rejected. For example they never considered ostracism a the sine non qua of the democratic process.
While much was taken from Hobbes and Locke and such, a lot was ALSO taken from greeco-roman. Look at the architecture.




All those quotes simply reflect Jeffersons connection with Unitarianism and his agreement with Priestly about the need to question traditional christian dogma. They are not a rejection of christianity itself. MArtin Luther made some similar observations, was he also a deist. Jefferson - and Preistly 0 both questioned the much of the dogme that was inherent in the christian religion, but that could not be supported testually from the synoptic gospels. This is also why Jefferson questioned some of the tenents of Paul. He was not the first, and will not be the last christian to do so. You will not find a single quote from jefferson that says, I do not believe in jesus or his teachings, I am not a christian or words to that effect.
Jefferson was a christian, but not one of any one demonitation-he believed fully and completely in a full seperation of church and state.



I'm sure I can find several legal history scholars (and bona fide ones) for example Prof. Flaherty of Fordham University school of law (J.D and Ph.D.) who looks at the amercan revolution as a product of the desire of the colonists to ensure the "natural rights and traditions" of "Englishmen." And thus sees that Judeo Christian ethics and traditions are implicit in the founding documents of the US. Indeed at the time of the ratification of the US constitution (the second system of government), several of the states had established Christian Churches, notably virginia and mass. Thus to say that the original system of US government did not incorporate Judeo Christianity is clearly fallicious, although arguably its importance has diminished significantly over the last two-hundered years.

Treaty of Tripoli
Article 11

That alone beats ANY argument you can set forth. Period. It is a legal document that states the US isn't based on Judeo-Christianity.

Well, let me just point out the obvious ...

Show me in the Constitution of the United States of America where Jesus is mentioned and I will concede that the US is a Christian nation.

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

Better yet, show me in the Gospel where freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, full faith and credit, and all of those nice amendments are.

Sorry ... doesn't exist. The founding fathers of the US completely separated their faith from their creation of the State. I suggest you do the same.

While much was taken from Hobbes and Locke and such, a lot was ALSO taken from greeco-roman. Look at the architecture.





Jefferson was a christian, but not one of any one demonitation-he believed fully and completely in a full seperation of church and state.





Treaty of Tripoli
Article 11

That alone beats ANY argument you can set forth. Period. It is a legal document that states the US isn't based on Judeo-Christianity.


Oh that's an easy objection to overcome, why didn't they include that in the 1805 treaty then. Because they knew it was wrong.

Treaties say things all the time, and while the become federal law, they can't ever change the character of the founding, as you well know.

Oh that's an easy objection to overcome, why didn't they include that in the 1805 treaty then. Because they knew it was wrong.

Treaties say things all the time, and while the become federal law, they can't ever change the character of the founding, as you well know.

Actually, they did say that when they founded the country.

It's called the "first amendment"


Face up: it says quite clearly that the US isn't a christian nation. The Treaty of Tripoli was signed unanamously. EVERYONE agreed to Article 11.

The US never has, and never will be a christian nation.

Actually, they did say that when they founded the country.

It's called the "first amendment"


Face up: it says quite clearly that the US isn't a christian nation. The Treaty of Tripoli was signed unanamously. EVERYONE agreed to Article 11.

The US never has, and never will be a christian nation.

You are aware that for most of its history, constitutional theory did not accept the incorporation of the bill of rights as applying to state laws.

As I said before, when the Consitution was ratified it was done so by entities that actually had established churches. As the 1st ammendment clearly states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

You see CONGRESS cannot establishing a church, not there should not be any laws at all, only that the states reserved the right to determine their own seperate established churches, and this was the law until Palko v. Connecticut 302 US 319 (1937), which incorporated partially the substantive "freedoms" of the first eight ammendments as applying to a law - state and federal. At the time of founding, state established christian churches were common, there was no notion that church and government had to be seperate, only that it was up to the states to regulate it, not that all government should be seperate from religion.

As you may, or may not be aware, even today the federal government has no general police power. Outside of federal teritories the regulation of intra-state crimes is solely the province of state government. The federal government cannot consitutionally pass a law the prohibits murder in the soveriegn territories of the states unless it implicates an interstate aspect. By your logic then the US must be a pro-murder nation. But it is not, and was not at the founding either.

This distinction has become increasingly blurred since the Civil was tho, and it confuses a lot of people.

You are aware that for most of its history, constitutional theory did not accept the incorporation of the bill of rights as applying to state laws.

As I said before, when the Consitution was ratified it was done so by entities that actually had established churches. As the 1st ammendment clearly states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

You see CONGRESS cannot establishing a church, not there should not be any laws at all, only that the states reserved the right to determine their own seperate established churches, and this was the law until Palko v. Connecticut 302 US 319 (1937), which incorporated partially the substantive "freedoms" of the first eight ammendments as applying to a law - state and federal. At the time of founding, state established christian churches were common, there was no notion that church and government had to be seperate, only that it was up to the states to regulate it, not that all government should be seperate from religion.

As you may, or may not be aware, even today the federal government has no general police power. Outside of federal teritories the regulation of intra-state crimes is solely the province of state government. The federal government cannot consitutionally pass a law the prohibits murder in the soveriegn territories of the states unless it implicates an interstate aspect. By your logic then the US must be a pro-murder nation. But it is not, and was not at the founding either.

This distinction has become increasingly blurred since the Civil was tho, and it confuses a lot of people.

You have yet to comment on the Treaty of Tripoli.

It is clear and obvious proof that the US was never a judeo-christian nation.

While much was taken from Hobbes and Locke and such, a lot was ALSO taken from greco-roman. Look at the architecture.

Thomas Aquinas probably moreso than anybody, Plato, Aristotle etc was lost to the Europeans until reintroduced by the persians well into the Christian period, Augustine and the Justinian verdict brought us Plato's laws, Aquinas with Aristotlean works finally completely separated east and western europe direction after the orthodox/catholic split.

Thomas Aquinas probably moreso than anybody, Plato, Aristotle etc was lost to the Europeans until reintroduced by the persians well into the Christian period, Augustine and the Justinian verdict brought us Plato's laws, Aquinas with Aristotlean works finally completely separated east and western europe direction after the orthodox/catholic split.

Nonetheless, it is not a christian nation, as the Treaty of Tripoli proves.

The most peaceful type of Islam is Sufi Islam. Now the most extremist Islam is Wahabbi Islam. Sadly, Wahabbi Islam is the official religion of Saudi Arabia although even Mohammed was not that strict. I do not know of any major places where Sufi Islam reigns supreme. But there is Daghestan, a semiautonomous epublic of the Russian Federation. Sadly, it is right next to Chechnya. So there is some conflicts going on as the native Sufi culture has skermished with foreign Wahabbi fighters looking for recruits. So Wahabbi Islam is the bane of all Islam as it makes enemies out of all nonmuslims.

Wahabiism makes enemies out of other Muslims too.

I'm still waiting for mention of Jesus in the Constitution.

I've been around Christians, they can't do *anything* without mentioning Jesus. You'd think that if the Founding Fathers were such big Christians, they'd have mentioned somewhere - anywhere - in the Constituion something about Jesus, or "in Jesus' name" or "through the Grace of God" or *something*.

But, nope, not even God is mentioned.

No Jesus, No God, No religious anything.

Nutty.

Cough cough

Wahabiism makes enemies out of other Muslims too.


Wahabi is great on sushi ...

oh wait ...

n/m

Special Dispatch - Egypt/Jihad & Terrorism Studies Project
October 19, 2004
No. 802

To view this Special Dispatch in HTML format, visit http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD80204

MEMRI TV Project:
Secretary-General of the Egyptian Labor Party: 'Those Who Bomb Fallujah Cannot Prevent Me from Bombing Los Angeles'

Magdi Ahmad Hussein, the Secretary-General of the Egyptian Labor (Islamist) Party, recently appeared on Al-Jazeera TV, declaring that attacks against U.S. troops and civilians in Iraq are legitimate, and that hostage taking is permitted by Islam. He also called for clerics and fighters to go to fight in Iraq, defended the bombings in Taba, and argued that the American attack on Fallujah legitimizes a future terror attack in Los Angeles. To view the MEMRI TV clip of Hussein's statements, visit http://www.memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=292 . The following are excerpts from the program:(1)


'Legitimate Violence' in Iraq and the Taba Attacks

"The violence is currently directed at the occupation. This is legitimate violence. This is Jihad against occupiers. 99% of the violent operations target the foreign occupation of the Arab and Islamic nation. Therefore, they are not included in the conflict with the [Arab] rulers.

"From the strategic perspective, the vast majority of operations are proper. As for Taba, as I've said, the entire Egyptian nation demands that tourists be banned from entering Egypt. It is inconceivable that Egypt has become a resort for the Israeli army.

"The Israeli army kills in Palestine in the morning and then comes to relax and gamble in Taba. Abominations that are forbidden in Israel, such as gambling, are allowed in Egypt. But the main issue is that Egypt has become a resort for the Zionist army."


'The Prisoners in Iraq - 99% of the Cases are Proper, According to Islamic Law'

"As for the hostages you spoke of, they are not hostages, sir, but prisoners. According to Islamic law, hostages can be redeemed, set free, or killed. When you are weak - you kill. The prisoners in Iraq, sir - 99% of the cases are proper, according to Islamic law. All those who were killed were agents and partners of the occupation. 75% of the hostages were released in exchange for political gains.

"So how come some voices in the Islamic movement and official clerics tell us that killing prisoners is un-Islamic? No, both the Koran and the Prophet's biography permit the killing of prisoners. This exists in our Islamic law and in the laws of all nations.

"Second, the war effort is not restricted to those who actually carry weapons. The war effort includes transporting supplies. Aren't supply lines part of military activity? The Halliburton company and its efforts to steal the Iraqi oil - aren't they part of the war effort, whose goal is to steal Iraq's resources? The war effort isn't simply carrying weapons. An Iraqi interpreter working for an American soldier - isn't this part of the war effort? Undoubtedly, all those killed, as far as we know, were non-civilians.

"We are witnessing a stroke of genius. Because they are weak and cannot defeat the occupation right away, they have used this weapon of prisoners - not 'hostages.' The Italian women were released and we demand the release of the French journalists. No one demands they be killed. But as for those who work for American companies and those who came to exploit Iraqi resources, they are part of the American plan and aren't innocent civilians.

"50 years ago, even before the American army arrived in Iraq, Sheik Shaltout said, 'Anyone working in the enemies' military camps and factories is one of them. He's an enemy and he may be killed.' This is what Sheik Shaltout, the great imam and Sheik of Al-Azhar in the mid-20th century, said. Whoever allies himself with the infidels and polytheists becomes one of them."


'The Mujahid Should be There [in Iraq], and the Cleric Should be There'

"The American casualties reach 47,000 dead and wounded, according to the American Veterans Association. 20% of the American forces were hurt, but the media only reports the Iraqi and Arab casualties.

"I've seen a film of the so-called 'Monotheism and the Jihad,' which is believed to be the organization of Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi. In the film, I saw that they neutralized a bomb because an Iraqi woman passed by the tank. Out of concern for one Iraqi woman's life they neutralized a bomb and this appears in a film on the Internet and anyone can watch it. I'm not claiming that there are no mistakes. There are different opinions among the Iraqi resistance. But if you want to have an opinion, you should be with them, not us, sitting in air-conditioned rooms and telling them to do this that.

"The mujahid should be there, and the cleric should be there, like Ibn Taymiyya, who set out with the mujahedeen to the front lines. But we want to issue fatwas telling them not to do this or that, not to attack so and so. It's like us telling Hamas: 'don't attack buses lest an Israeli child be killed.' Do you have another means? When the Americans bomb [in Iraq] they say they are looking for Abu Mus'ab and the casualties were killed by accident. The Americans have the right to kill civilians accidentally, while the Qassam rockets and the [suicide] martyrs should target only adults, men and women working in the Israeli army, and should tell the children to get off the bus!?"


'If We had Missiles We should have Bombed Los Angeles'

"We are the weak ones. They make demands on us that don't exist in international law. There must be reciprocity. If your city is being bombed… Those who bomb Fallujah cannot prevent me from bombing Los Angeles. Why Fallujah? Why do we always feel inferior to them? What is the meaning of this inferiority complex? If we had missiles we should have bombed Los Angeles or any other city until they stopped bombing Fallujah, Samarra, and Ramadi.

"Sir, why do the government clerics ignore the killing of the prisoners during the time of the Prophet? 600-700 prisoners were killed in the raid on the Qurayza tribe.

"Why do they conceal this? Why do they hide the fact that the Prophet gave the order to assassinate some poets - to assassinate! Not in military operations, but rather by individual assassination.

"Why did he order the assassination of K'ab Ibn Ashraf, the Jew, leader of Khaybar? And then he ordered the assassination of the leader who successive him. As a result, the Jews became fearful and terrified."

Endnote:
(1) Al-Jazeera TV (Qatar), October 17, 2004

I guess you missed that memo, it was cirulated a while ago. Pretty much 'splains who founded all our modern democracies tho.

Stamp this!

Modern Jewish believes are inundated with pagan mystic traditions they adopted from the greeks and every other civilization and politcal system theyve come across.

And Chritianity is nothing more than the old roman church system with an imitation of the truth sprinkled over it.

Islam? The intolerance and prefered ignorance of a large fraction of Islam is characteristic of all blossoming religions.

Belief in the Almighty, the creator, the one who is Love. The one who tells you to LOVE and sheath the sword, the one instructing you to walk in the way in which you should walk, the one who tells you to be understanding and compasionate and hospitable. But these religions - theyre only useful to whichever social-political administration currently grasping for power - when they should be serving the people with excellence and compassion, theyre leaning in and nealing for the support of the religions in a region that hold sway the largest proporiton of the populous that the leaders of these religous people may through he support of the people toward one politician or the next. AND GUESS WHAT - IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GOD!

God is disapointed, no doubt. Maybe this is an understatement - we will have to wait for his reaction, but by all means continue what youre doing. :D

Much of the US was based off of Greeco-roman ideas. Furthermore, it was the first republic, like I stated before.

The oldest surviving democracies are the republics of the Isle of Man and Iceland - both of whom are over 1000 years old.

This 'Greek democracy' stuff is guff. All democracy achived in Greece was to poison Socrates. They never lasted more than a few generations. The Roman republic was a minor hickup between the kings and the Emperors.

Stable democracy is a Nordic phenomonen - it was common throughout the Germanic tribes, but the southern tribes were polluted by Roman ideas, which were inherently imperialistic. If you want to maintain your deomcracy, through away thoughts of Greece and Rome and look northwards. Or do you think it's an accident that democracy is strongest in Northern Europe?

The oldest surviving democracies are the republics of the Isle of Man and Iceland - both of whom are over 1000 years old.

This 'Greek democracy' stuff is guff. All democracy achived in Greece was to poison Socrates. They never lasted more than a few generations. The Roman republic was a minor hickup between the kings and the Emperors.

Stable democracy is a Nordic phenomonen - it was common throughout the Germanic tribes, but the southern tribes were polluted by Roman ideas, which were inherently imperialistic. If you want to maintain your deomcracy, through away thoughts of Greece and Rome and look northwards. Or do you think it's an accident that democracy is strongest in Northern Europe?

Interestingly enough, I did not actually know that. Learn something new every day, I suppose.

But, to keep on topic here, were the germanic tribes and ivelanders christian? :D

Wahabi is great on sushi ...

oh wait ...

n/m

I just can't bring myself to eat raw fish.

But, to keep on topic here, were the germanic tribes and ivelanders christian? :D
initially? No.
Iceland voted to become Christian about ~1000 AD, so less than a century after being founded. They've been living peacefully ever since.

The conversion of the rest of Scandinanvia pretty much marks the end of the Viking era; whether they converted because they'd become more peaceful, or became peaceful because they'd converted, is probably a chicken and egg question. The large number of Christian slaves probably had something to do with it.
Shooting down my own argument (only fair, given we're being civilized), it's worth noting that in Norway and Denmark the local kings decreed that the countries were now Christian and expected everyone else to follow suit.

Probably the only reason they could get away with this was the pagan belief that gods were supposed to grant victory to their followers, so if the pagan gods didn't help their worshippers defeat christian armies, those gods weren't worth following. So the defeats which ended the Viking era (such as Stanford Bridge) *may* have caused large scale defections.

Hmm, reasoned argument isn't nearly as much fun as relying on prejudice and unfounded opinions! :D

Wahabi is great on sushi ...

oh wait ...

n/m


I just can't bring myself to eat raw fish.

Raw fish? That's sashimi.

Some sushi use raw fish/seafood but there are many others that don't. Some are fresh/pickled vegetables wrapped in vinegared rice and dried seaweed.

As fro the rest. All Christian. Even if one or two of the founding fathers may privately had deist thoughts, they all publically embraced traditional christianity.

Which proves what, exactly? Aside from the fact that even the founding fathers knew how to tell people what they want to hear? Wow, you mean our earliest politicians acted like... gasp... politicians??!

How does that make America a "Christian" nation?

Treaties say things all the time, and while the become federal law, they can't ever change the character of the founding, as you well know.

And exactly what do you propose to examine to determine the supposedly unified character of the founding? How about the official legal document that inaugurated the founding?

The Constitution. Which doesn't mention God, even once.

It seems to me that one can argue that America was founded by an ideologically diverse group of men- including some Christians, as well as plenty of Deists and other "free-thinkers". From what I've seen, it appears that this pluralism of ideas was expressed in the founding of the country and the formulation of its government and legal documents. To call America a "Christian country", then, is quite erroneous. America can trace SOME of its ideological principles back to Judeo-Christian ones, and SOME of its prominent Founders may have been Christians. But that does not make America a specifically "Christian" nation, anymore than the fact that it was founded by whites makes it a "white" country. Ditto for the argument that America can be considered a Christian country because the population is mostly Christian.

There is a substantial difference between a country who has a large population of people X, and a country that was specifically FOUNDED on the ideas of X. If America was "designed" to be a Christian country, it seems to me that the Founders likely would have been a tad more explicit about it. The fact that many of them also seem to have been apathetic or even hostile to Christianity doesn't help your case.

For the fellow who posted the list of quotes from MEMRI- The fact that violent Muslims exist does not in of itself prove Islam as a belief system is inherently violent, anymore than quotes by Meir Kahane or various violent Christians prove such about Judaism or Christianity. All religions are composed of spectrums, and one is bound to find people in every religion who populate the various poles. The real issue is how the religion itself, in its own internal tradition, seems to treat violence, not what the most violent extremists SAY the religion says in an attempt to justify themselves.

initially? No.
Iceland voted to become Christian about ~1000 AD, so less than a century after being founded. They've been living peacefully ever since.

The conversion of the rest of Scandinanvia pretty much marks the end of the Viking era; whether they converted because they'd become more peaceful, or became peaceful because they'd converted, is probably a chicken and egg question. The large number of Christian slaves probably had something to do with it.
Shooting down my own argument (only fair, given we're being civilized), it's worth noting that in Norway and Denmark the local kings decreed that the countries were now Christian and expected everyone else to follow suit.

Probably the only reason they could get away with this was the pagan belief that gods were supposed to grant victory to their followers, so if the pagan gods didn't help their worshippers defeat christian armies, those gods weren't worth following. So the defeats which ended the Viking era (such as Stanford Bridge) *may* have caused large scale defections.

Hmm, reasoned argument isn't nearly as much fun as relying on prejudice and unfounded opinions! :D

I think that was a mistake on the vikings behalf.

They had a good thing going with the monistaries. Run in, kill some old robed guys, grab some stuff...you know, burning looting, all that and fun.

Plus, their religion is a LOT more fun then christianity. :p

Although, the whole "peaceful before or after christianity" thing makes sense. If they were peaceful before, they might not want a religion based around the glorification of war. And burning and looting arn't the most christian things in the world.

What are you talking about? Burning and looting are as Christian as apple pie is American. Take the following, for example:

"Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." (Hosea 13:16)

"Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife." (1 Samuel 18:27)

"And it came to pass, when the letter came to them, that they took the king's sons, and slew seventy persons, and put their heads in baskets, and sent him them to Jezreel. And there came a messenger, and told him, saying, They have brought the heads of the king's sons. And he said, Lay ye them in two heaps at the entering in of the gate until the morning." (2 Kings 10:7,8)

"Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished." (Isaiah 13:16)

"Then Menahem smote Tiphsah, and all that were therein, and the coasts thereof from Tirzah: because they opened not to him, therefore he smote it; and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up." (2 Kings 15:16)

A wife is referred to as a man's property. (Exodus 20:17)

Non-virginal brides must be murdered. (Deuteronomy 22:20,21)

Females slaves can be used sexually. (Exodus 21:7*11)

Homosexuals must be murdered. (Leviticus 20:13) and (Romans 1:26*32)

Wartime booty, virgins, are to be saved and raped. (Numbers 31:17, 18)

*Note: All from the King James Version of the bible.

What are you talking about? Burning and looting are as Christian as apple pie is American. Take the following, for example:

"Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." (Hosea 13:16)

"Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife." (1 Samuel 18:27)

"And it came to pass, when the letter came to them, that they took the king's sons, and slew seventy persons, and put their heads in baskets, and sent him them to Jezreel. And there came a messenger, and told him, saying, They have brought the heads of the king's sons. And he said, Lay ye them in two heaps at the entering in of the gate until the morning." (2 Kings 10:7,8)

"Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished." (Isaiah 13:16)

"Then Menahem smote Tiphsah, and all that were therein, and the coasts thereof from Tirzah: because they opened not to him, therefore he smote it; and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up." (2 Kings 15:16)

A wife is referred to as a man's property. (Exodus 20:17)

Non-virginal brides must be murdered. (Deuteronomy 22:20,21)

Females slaves can be used sexually. (Exodus 21:7*11)

Homosexuals must be murdered. (Leviticus 20:13) and (Romans 1:26*32)

Wartime booty, virgins, are to be saved and raped. (Numbers 31:17, 18)

*Note: All from the King James Version of the bible.

Um... yeah... my KJV Bible states those verses quite differently...

Here's a couple:

Romans 1:26-32 - 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Exodus 20:17 - 17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.


(as taken from the ACTUAL King James Version of the Holy Bible)

Even if your ignorant attempts to make us hate Christianity were accurate, it wouldn't matter, because if you look at the word Christianity, you notice the word Christ. The old testament was the old Jewish covenant, written before Christ was born, and which Jesus marked obsolete in the new testament. The old testament really has nothing to do with modern Christianity.

Now, to clear up some other inaccuracies in this thread:
America is not a "Christian" nation. We are a nation of religious freedom, and claiming a religion would defeat the whole purpose, BUT, this country was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics by CHRISTIANS (and yes, I can prove that). The treaty of tripoli doesn't matter. All it says is we're not a Christian nation. Well, duh. We are founded on Christianity's principles, but to claim to be a "Christian" nation would slap our constitution in the face.

Rhellis, I officially have NO respect for you. First you call Christians thieving arsonists, then you MAKE UP verses, and quote the Bible out of context, all so you can further slander the belief of your forefathers. Fortunately, not everyone is as ignorant as you, so think before you speak.

Islam remains the only religion spread by the sword. The Arabs forced other peoples in the region to adopt Islam AND the Arab language. Unless you believe the Egyptians and Assyrians did NOT have their own religion and language before 632AD.

Turkey and Iran remain the only two middle eastern countries that accepted Islam but retained their languages.

That there are peaceful Muslims is not in doubt, there certainly are. However, Islam as a religion is hardly peaceful.

Of course the same can be said for Christianity to, but the crusades were about far more than just religion.

Um... yeah... my KJV Bible states those verses quite differently...

Here's a couple:

Romans 1:26-32 - 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Exodus 20:17 - 17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.


(as taken from the ACTUAL King James Version of the Holy Bible)

Even if your ignorant attempts to make us hate Christianity were accurate, it wouldn't matter, because if you look at the word Christianity, you notice the word Christ. The old testament was the old Jewish covenant, written before Christ was born, and which Jesus marked obsolete in the new testament. The old testament really has nothing to do with modern Christianity.

Now, to clear up some other inaccuracies in this thread:
America is not a "Christian" nation. We are a nation of religious freedom, and claiming a religion would defeat the whole purpose, BUT, this country was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics by CHRISTIANS (and yes, I can prove that). The treaty of tripoli doesn't matter. All it says is we're not a Christian nation. Well, duh. We are founded on Christianity's principles, but to claim to be a "Christian" nation would slap our constitution in the face.

Rhellis, I officially have NO respect for you. First you call Christians thieving arsonists, then you MAKE UP verses, and quote the Bible out of context, all so you can further slander the belief of your forefathers. Fortunately, not everyone is as ignorant as you, so think before you speak.

Okay, I admit, I copied and pasted that list in part from another site. I assumed that the author of that list had done her work; I can see that part of it is inaccurate. Exodus 20:17 does not say that a man's wife is his property.

"But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: / Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you."Deuteronomy 22:20, 21

Exodus 21:7-11...well, I don't know what the hell it's talking about. "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. / If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. / And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. / If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. / And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money."

From Romans 1:32, "...that they which commit such things are worthy of death...." Didn't feel like reposting that, since it's in your post.

Also, "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. / But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." Numbers 31, 17:18

And no, Jesus did not come to change all that...
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. / For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:17, 18

And, also, I should have clarified; EARLY Christianity was a history of burning and looting (Crusades, Inquisition, etc.). It's mellowed a bit over the years. I apologize for saying that modern Christians are "thieving arsonists".

http://www.faithfreedom.org/

http://www.faithfreedom.org/
Oh excellent! Let's promote freedom of faith by disparaging every religion but one!

Now, to clear up some other inaccuracies in this thread:
America is not a "Christian" nation. We are a nation of religious freedom, and claiming a religion would defeat the whole purpose, BUT, this country was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics by CHRISTIANS (and yes, I can prove that). The treaty of tripoli doesn't matter. All it says is we're not a Christian nation. Well, duh. We are founded on Christianity's principles, but to claim to be a "Christian" nation would slap our constitution in the face.
Show me what christian morals we were founded on?
Oh, and they have to be christian morals. No other religion is allowed to have them. After all, you say they're christian morals, so they're obviously mroals only found in christianity, right?


Islam remains the only religion spread by the sword. The Arabs forced other peoples in the region to adopt Islam AND the Arab language. Unless you believe the Egyptians and Assyrians did NOT have their own religion and language before 632AD.

Turkey and Iran remain the only two middle eastern countries that accepted Islam but retained their languages.

That there are peaceful Muslims is not in doubt, there certainly are. However, Islam as a religion is hardly peaceful.

Of course the same can be said for Christianity to, but the crusades were about far more than just religion.
As long as we realize that all religions are capable of having rat bastards as members, and that almost all religions can and will be spread through violence, I 'm fine :p


http://www.faithfreedom.org/
All I see on the website is "blah blah blah, we don't have muslims, we just want the religion to be irradicated"

Islam remains the only religion spread by the sword. The Arabs forced other peoples in the region to adopt Islam AND the Arab language. Unless you believe the Egyptians and Assyrians did NOT have their own religion and language before 632AD.
They probably did, just like the phillipino's and south americans probably had their own system of beliefs before Christians enforced, through slaughter and slavery, their own religion on them. You are continuing to apply different standards based upon your own bias.

That there are peaceful Muslims is not in doubt, there certainly are. However, Islam as a religion is hardly peaceful.
You clearly did not read the article.

Of course the same can be said for Christianity to, but the crusades were about far more than just religion.
Please enlighten me as to what else the crusades were about.

What are you talking about? Burning and looting are as Christian as apple pie is American. Take the following, for example:

"Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." (Hosea 13:16)

"Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife." (1 Samuel 18:27)

"And it came to pass, when the letter came to them, that they took the king's sons, and slew seventy persons, and put their heads in baskets, and sent him them to Jezreel. And there came a messenger, and told him, saying, They have brought the heads of the king's sons. And he said, Lay ye them in two heaps at the entering in of the gate until the morning." (2 Kings 10:7,8)

"Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished." (Isaiah 13:16)

"Then Menahem smote Tiphsah, and all that were therein, and the coasts thereof from Tirzah: because they opened not to him, therefore he smote it; and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up." (2 Kings 15:16)

A wife is referred to as a man's property. (Exodus 20:17)

Non-virginal brides must be murdered. (Deuteronomy 22:20,21)

Females slaves can be used sexually. (Exodus 21:7*11)

Homosexuals must be murdered. (Leviticus 20:13) and (Romans 1:26*32)

Wartime booty, virgins, are to be saved and raped. (Numbers 31:17, 18)

*Note: All from the King James Version of the bible.

nowadays not many christians act on these verses..however today i saw a woman pleading for her life..and the al-queda spiritual leaders say it is fine to chop off this womans head...a woman there to bring aid..

nowadays not many christians act on these verses..however today i saw a woman pleading for her life..and the al-queda spiritual leaders say it is fine to chop off this womans head...a woman there to bring aid..These Al Qaeda extremists are NOT representative of Islam! It's an unfair comparison, and the Koran denounces them as heartily as it denounces non-believers.

These Al Qaeda extremists are NOT representative of Islam! It's an unfair comparison, and the Koran denounces them as heartily as it denounces non-believers.
i agree...my point is quit calling out christians for verses from thousands of years ago..and if islam trully denounces this, muslims, especially those in the u.s. need to be out in the streets condemning this

What are you talking about? Burning and looting are as Christian as apple pie is American. Take the following, for example:

"Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." (Hosea 13:16)

"Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife." (1 Samuel 18:27)

"And it came to pass, when the letter came to them, that they took the king's sons, and slew seventy persons, and put their heads in baskets, and sent him them to Jezreel. And there came a messenger, and told him, saying, They have brought the heads of the king's sons. And he said, Lay ye them in two heaps at the entering in of the gate until the morning." (2 Kings 10:7,8)

"Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished." (Isaiah 13:16)

"Then Menahem smote Tiphsah, and all that were therein, and the coasts thereof from Tirzah: because they opened not to him, therefore he smote it; and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up." (2 Kings 15:16)

A wife is referred to as a man's property. (Exodus 20:17)

Non-virginal brides must be murdered. (Deuteronomy 22:20,21)

Females slaves can be used sexually. (Exodus 21:7*11)

Homosexuals must be murdered. (Leviticus 20:13) and (Romans 1:26*32)

Wartime booty, virgins, are to be saved and raped. (Numbers 31:17, 18)

*Note: All from the King James Version of the bible.

Well that certainly proves that Judaism is a violent religion. :)

Please enlighten me as to what else the crusades were about.
Actually, to be fair, Biff was quite correct about that one.

The crusades were much more political then they were religious. It was just another case of the church molesting politics.

Actually, to be fair, Biff was quite correct about that one.

The crusades were much more political then they were religious. It was just another case of the church molesting politics.
I'm not saying you're wrong but you havent said why you're right yet either.

Well that certainly proves that Judaism is a violent religion. :)
note christianity...one of the main themes..the golden rule..do unto others as you would have them do to you...christianity is mainly from the new testament..all the scriptures noted are old testament..thanx

I'm not saying you're wrong but you havent said why you're right yet either.

The main purpose of the crusades was actually for the Easter Roman Empire's safety. They had been at war for quite some time, and called on the pope to help them, disguising it as a want to take back the holy lands.

Of course, what with the crusades ending with Constantinoble being sacked by it's own defenders, you can see how well THAT worked :p

nowadays not many christians act on these verses..however today i saw a woman pleading for her life..and the al-queda spiritual leaders say it is fine to chop off this womans head...a woman there to bring aid..

No true Christian acts on any of that. The old testament is the old covenant under the old law. Jesus made a new law when He was crucified. Matthew 26:28 - For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. That wasn't the greatest verse to prove my point, but I forgot the better ones. Maybe later.

Islam remains the only religion spread by the sword. The Arabs forced other peoples in the region to adopt Islam AND the Arab language. Unless you believe the Egyptians and Assyrians did NOT have their own religion and language before 632AD.

Turkey and Iran remain the only two middle eastern countries that accepted Islam but retained their languages.

That there are peaceful Muslims is not in doubt, there certainly are. However, Islam as a religion is hardly peaceful.

Of course the same can be said for Christianity to, but the crusades were about far more than just religion.

One could make the same argument for Muslim expansion. And there are plenty of other examples of Christianity being spread violently- how about the Inquisition and Reconquista? Or the early history of America? Between the Conquistadors and then Protestant settlers, the Indians seem to have gotten pretty firmly reamed.

Also, for those who have been talking about violence in the OT- you seem to be ignorant of the significant developments in Judaism during the past 2,000-plus years. Let's just say that to base criticisms of Judaism purely on verses in the OT is ridiculous. The real test is to observe how a faith is put into PRACTICE. Between the three monotheistic faiths, the Jews seem to have been relatively nonviolent for the vast majority of their history. Part of that is most likely due to their position of subservience, but other factors were likely involved as well- in particular, the fact that Judaism is a non-exclusivist religion, that believes in the validity of other faiths, and which therefore doesn't advocate prostelitizing or forced conversion.