Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Poll

Do you consider Islam a 'Religion of Peace'?

Yes
No
Not Sure -- Let me ponder while enjoying a few dozen ice cold beers & some pork sausage off the barbi!
Topic: ISLAM -- The Religion of Peace? (Read 88092 times)

Re: ISLAM -- The Religion of Peace?

Reply #200 –
Groan.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: ISLAM -- The Religion of Peace?

Reply #202 –
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/lifting-the-veil-of-islamophobia
Quote from: Sam Harris
So the truly mortifying answer to the question of why you [Ayaan Hirsi Ali] are at the AEI is that no liberal institution would offer you shelter when you most needed it—and when your value to the global conversation about free speech, the rights of women, and other norms of civilization was crystal clear. And ever since, your affiliation with the one institution that did take you in has been used to defame you in liberal circles. Perfect.

Re: ISLAM -- The Religion of Peace?

Reply #203 –
I think I might see if I can get that Detroit Lodge to march down your street with a band and waken you really early jimbro.  :devil:
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: ISLAM -- The Religion of Peace?

Reply #204 –
The scariest aspect of that piece was...

Re: ISLAM -- The Religion of Peace?

Reply #206 –
Damn.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: ISLAM -- The Religion of Peace?

Reply #207 –





[glow=black,2,300]Christians offer safe houses to Muslim converts[/glow]


Quote from:     http://tinyurl.com/l64up48      
A Christian campaign group is launching a national network of safe houses for Muslim converts who face ostracism or violent reprisals for leaving their religion.

It says it knows of up to 1,100 former Muslims at risk in Britain but the true number could be 3,000...........continued


[glow=green,2,300]The obligation of government is to protect it's citizens from overt foreign threat, but
what about threats from within?[/glow]



[glow=black,2,300]Does Islam encourage violence?[/glow]


[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmqEsasyCUU[/VIDEO]


[glow=black,2,300]Teach Violence???[/glow]


[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tia7HoOqlH8[/VIDEO]

Re: ISLAM -- The Religion of Peace?

Reply #208 –
Geez---- Can't they get along with anybody ?
What would happen if a large asteroid slammed into the Earth?
According to several tests involving a watermelon and a large hammer, it would be really bad!

Re: ISLAM -- The Religion of Peace?

Reply #209 –
The one consistency the 3 Abrahamic religions have is that they have all been violent, and all 3 do remain so, though the youngest and most infected by fundamentalism gets the most press.

I was particularly taken aback by Catholic Supreme Court Justice A. Kennedy's ruling that agnostics, atheists, and non-religious people are to be treated as second-class citizens, per his swing vote and writing in the SCOTUS case Town of Greece v. Galloway.

Less violent and more subtle, perhaps, than Islamic terrorism, but I personally take it as an affront to the US Constitution and an act of Christian terrorism, as the majority 5 in that ruling are all Catholics, all old, and all Caucasian. None of them have a laptop or IPad either.

May the 5 of them be impeached for unethical and unbecoming behavior for a Supreme Court Justice, the bastages!  :furious:

Re: ISLAM -- The Religion of Peace?

Reply #210 –
I have just lightly perused the pleadings & summary statements of the Supreme Court in the matter Town of Greece v. Galloway, & after re-skimming the findings & majority statements, I completely concur with the findings of the Supreme Court.

Quote from:         The First Amendment of the United States Constitution         
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.


Quote from:        Thomas Paine - The Rights of Man, 1791-1792      

Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly-marked feature of all law-religions, or religions established by law. Take away the law-establishment, and every religion re-assumes its original benignity.


It was found that the government was not establishing any religion, nor was anyone being forced to accept belief in any specific religion against their will, or any religion for that matter. The complainants case was basically found to be without true merit or value.

Read the findings of the Court for yourselves.



Re: ISLAM -- The Religion of Peace?

Reply #211 –
It reads to me like they're appealing primarily to a tradition in Congress while failing to consider the differences. Most specifically, those differences are that these prayers are:

a) Not in Congress, but in a place where citizens directly interact with their representatives. Assuming tradition is as relevant as the court purports it to be, it's just not the relevant tradition to take into consideration.
b) Significantly more sectarian.

The dissenting views go into well-informed detail about how Congress (and other legislative bodies) differ from a meeting between representatives and citizens.
Quote
Contrary to the majority’s apparent view,
such sectarian prayers are not “part of our expressive
idiom” or “part of our heritage and tradition,” assuming
the word “our” refers to all Americans. Ante, at 19. They
express beliefs that are fundamental to some, foreign to
others—and because that is so they carry the ever-present
potential to both exclude and divide. The majority, I
think, assesses too lightly the significance of these reli
gious differences, and so fears too little the “religiously
based divisiveness that the Establishment Clause seeks to
avoid.” Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U. S. 677, 704 (2005)
(B REYER , J., concurring in judgment). I would treat more
seriously the multiplicity of Americans’ religious commit
ments, along with the challenge they can pose to the
project—the distinctively American project—of creating
one from the many, and governing all as united.
 

Re: ISLAM -- The Religion of Peace?

Reply #212 –
Back to those peaceful people of Mohammud PBOT, & the rest of Us infidels too.

Quote from:      thereligionofpeace.com    
Islam's Latest Contributions to Peace


"Mohammed is God's apostle.  Those who follow him are harsh
to the unbelievers but merciful to one another"  Quran 48:29


2014.05.27 (Baghdad, Iraq) - A dedicated Sunni straps explosives to his body and then detonates in a Shia mosque, exterminating seventeen rivals.
2014.05.26 (Benghazi, Libya) - A journalist is murdered for criticizing those fighting for an Islamic state.
2014.05.26 (Adamawa, Nigeria) - Boko Haram gumen shoot twenty-one villagers to death.
2014.05.25 (Homs, Syria) - 'God generously makes possible' an al-Nusra suicide bomb attack in a Christian residential district that leaves twelve dead.
2014.05.25 (Jos, Nigeria) - Eight people watching a televised soccer game are pulled apart by a Fedayeen suicide car bomber.
2014.05.25 (Kirkuk, Iraq) - Fundamentalists bomb a shop selling alcohol, killing a dozen patrons and bystanders.

Re: ISLAM -- The Religion of Peace?

Reply #213 –
Quote from: SmileyFaze on

Islam's Latest Contributions to Peace

Would you mind to enumerate the contributions to peace made by another religion during the last decades? ;)
No, those of the other religion I have in mind don't claim to act in God's name (neither they do). They don't make use of suicide car bombers. They have more adequate methods to bring peace: bombers, jet fighters or drones.
A less intrusive method to bring peace is to arm the 'good' moslems and to train them how to finish off soldiers still alive.

Re: ISLAM -- The Religion of Peace?

Reply #214 –
Quote from: krake on

Quote from: SmileyFaze on

Islam's Latest Contributions to Peace

Would you mind to enumerate the contributions to peace made by another religion during the last decades? ;)


In stark contrast to the beheadings, castrations, mutilations, bombings, & various other fun-filled activities in the name of, & at the bequest of, their Mohammud (PBOHisself) via his so called 'holy book'.


I'll name just one that comes to immediate mind.

Pope Francis urges interfaith dialogue
The Pope brings interfaith dialogue to a region plagued by atrocities committed along religious lines.


Quote from:       Al Jazeera     http://tinyurl.com/pgjdm8b    
Arriving in Jordan with old friends from other faiths, Pope Francis begins his Holy Land tour with an unprecedented move. It's the first time in Vatican history that a Pope has invited a Jewish rabbi and an Islamic leader onboard an official delegation making its way to one of the world's holiest, and most contentious cities for worship in unison.

The pontiff's invitation demonstrates how "Interfaith Dialogue" - a developing conflict resolution tool - can work in a region long affected by atrocities committed along religious lines......continued




Re: ISLAM -- The Religion of Peace?

Reply #215 –
In direct contrast to
Quote from: krake on
....They have more adequate methods to bring peace: bombers, jet fighters or drones......


What 'Religion' are you speaking of? 

Sounds as if you're disturbingly & deliberately confusing your depiction with  'secular' governments, because to date I know of no 'religion' that utilizes bombers, jet fighters or drones to gently guide anyone towards peace.


"......While rumors of a Quran desecration or a Muhammad cartoon bring out deadly protests, riots, arson and effigy-burnings, the mass murder of non-Muslims generally evokes yawns.

In the eleven years following 9/11 nearly 20,000 acts of deadly Islamic terrorism were perpetrated, yet all of them together fail to provoke the sort of outrage on the part of most Muslims that the mere mention of Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo inspires......."

Re: ISLAM -- The Religion of Peace?

Reply #217 –
Quote from: SmileyFaze on

I have just lightly perused the pleadings & summary statements of the Supreme Court in the matter Town of Greece v. Galloway, & after re-skimming the findings & majority statements, I completely concur with the findings of the Supreme Court.

Quote from:         The First Amendment of the United States Constitution         
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.


Quote from:        Thomas Paine - The Rights of Man, 1791-1792      

Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly-marked feature of all law-religions, or religions established by law. Take away the law-establishment, and every religion re-assumes its original benignity.


It was found that the government was not establishing any religion, nor was anyone being forced to accept belief in any specific religion against their will, or any religion for that matter. The complainants case was basically found to be without true merit or value.

Read the findings of the Court for yourselves.

1. I rather figured you would concur.

2. What utter nonsense. Going 20 years with only inviting Christian ministers for an invocation (which in itself is highly divisive) and refusing other religion's ministers, imams, spiritual leaders, etc, is an attempt to establish a state religion, which Kennedy's predecessor's deemed unconstitutional.

If you are being honest, you'll admit Kennedy's spineless and absolutely biased decision was a blatant act of judicial activism, the kind of which Tea people have bitched about since they hijacked the original TP movement and infected it with their own brand.


Tell me please, SF, do you not find it at all odd that the 5 who ruled in favor of the Town of Greece were all Catholics and by default, Christians (presumably like yourself, considering your comments on various other topics), and that the 4 opposed were 3 Jews and a fellow RC, who obviously did not let her own preferred religious views get in the way of her judgement?

The majority 5 rested their votes on historical precedent and tradition.
Does it not appear strange and perhaps somewhat noticeably biased to you that the the SCOTUS opts to do that now, in a time of great change and transformation for the country, when in 1865, 1869, and even earlier than that, historical precedents and traditions get chucked the hell out of the window on issues such as slavery and the right of states to secede from the federal union?

Re: ISLAM -- The Religion of Peace?

Reply #218 –
Quote from: Colonel Rebel on
...only inviting Christian ministers for an invocation (which in itself is highly divisive) and refusing other religion's ministers, imams, spiritual leaders, etc, is an attempt to establish a state religion,


Do you believe that it's a legal requirement, or should be a legal requirement, to import a diverse set of ministers, rabbis, & other various clerics --- via some sort of pre-determined numerical formula --- in order to present the invocations, even if it means going outside the localities geographical limits?

Which do you believe, that the inviting of only Christian Ministers is highly divisive, or is it the invocations themselves -- however worded -- that are highly divisive?  Why?

Quote from: Colonel Rebel on
....is an attempt to establish a state religion.....


And how is any of that you cite an attempt to establish a State Religion - where none exists, similar say to that of the Church of England --- the only State religion that immediately comes to mind?





Quote from: Colonel Rebel on
.....if you are being honest,  you'll admit Kennedy's spineless and absolutely biased decision was a blatant act of judicial activism.....


Not at all    , honesty has nothing to do with how I should, would, or will respond to your assertion. From anyone else, I would take that as an insult. From you, a disappointment.

So, while you're at it, please do explain from a legal standpoint, how does finding in favor of long standing tradition & precedent miraculously transform itself into judicial activism?



Quote from: Colonel Rebel on
....religious views get in the way....


I sincerely doubt that the panels religious views could somehow outweigh the fact that they didn't see -- because it didn't exist -- a breach of the Constitution's Establishment Clause.....simply put, they were not establishing a State Religion, merely honoring a standing tradition shrouded in precedent.

Now, if they found otherwise, then you might be able to make a case for Judicial Activism.

Quote from: Colonel Rebel on
The majority 5 rested their votes on historical precedent and tradition.
Does it not appear strange and perhaps somewhat noticeably biased to you that the the SCOTUS opts to do that now, in a time of great change and transformation for the country, when in 1865, 1869, and even earlier than that, historical precedents and traditions get chucked the hell out of the window on issues such as slavery and the right of states to secede from the federal union?


The Constitution does not change or transform 'cept thru Constitutional Amendment.

The attitude of the people might, & that's why there is a process to follow.

Slavery, & Secession ..... vs ..... Invocations     ............     Apples & Oranges.........Apples & Oranges

Besides, Slavery & Secession wasn't on the calendar in 2014.

Re: ISLAM -- The Religion of Peace?

Reply #219 –
Quote from: SmileyFaze on

Quote from: Colonel Rebel on
...only inviting Christian ministers for an invocation (which in itself is highly divisive) and refusing other religion's ministers, imams, spiritual leaders, etc, is an attempt to establish a state religion,


Do you believe that it's a legal requirement, or should be a legal requirement, to import a diverse set of ministers, rabbis, & other various clerics --- via some sort of pre-determined numerical formula --- in order to present the invocations, even if it means going outside the localities geographical limits?

Which do you believe, that the inviting of only Christian Ministers is highly divisive, or is it the invocations themselves -- however worded -- that are highly divisive?  Why?

Quote from: Colonel Rebel on
....is an attempt to establish a state religion.....


And how is any of that you cite an attempt to establish a State Religion - where none exists, similar say to that of the Church of England --- the only State religion that immediately comes to mind?





Quote from: Colonel Rebel on
.....if you are being honest,  you'll admit Kennedy's spineless and absolutely biased decision was a blatant act of judicial activism.....


Not at all    , honesty has nothing to do with how I should, would, or will respond to your assertion. From anyone else, I would take that as an insult. From you, a disappointment.

So, while you're at it, please do explain from a legal standpoint, how does finding in favor of long standing tradition & precedent miraculously transform itself into judicial activism?



Quote from: Colonel Rebel on
....religious views get in the way....


I sincerely doubt that the panels religious views could somehow outweigh the fact that they didn't see -- because it didn't exist -- a breach of the Constitution's Establishment Clause.....simply put, they were not establishing a State Religion, merely honoring a standing tradition shrouded in precedent.

Now, if they found otherwise, then you might be able to make a case for Judicial Activism.

Quote from: Colonel Rebel on
The majority 5 rested their votes on historical precedent and tradition.
Does it not appear strange and perhaps somewhat noticeably biased to you that the the SCOTUS opts to do that now, in a time of great change and transformation for the country, when in 1865, 1869, and even earlier than that, historical precedents and traditions get chucked the hell out of the window on issues such as slavery and the right of states to secede from the federal union?


The Constitution does not change or transform 'cept thru Constitutional Amendment.

The attitude of the people might, & that's why there is a process to follow.

Slavery, & Secession ..... vs ..... Invocations     ............     Apples & Oranges.........Apples & Oranges

Besides, Slavery & Secession wasn't on the calendar in 2014.

1. Both are highly divisive. If the Town of Greece had periodically (say at the minimum of once per year) invited a religious leader of another persuasion of religion, I seriously doubt Galloway would have had a problem with it. She is a Jew, after all; why not invite a Rabbi from time to time? Oh that's right, because majority rules, and to hell with minorities, amirite?  :rolleyes:

Additionally, why not mix it up from time to time? Go 3 weeks of meetings (usually at the 1st of the month, of course) with an invocation, then on the 4th, just get straight to business without one? Once again, because the majority rules and to hell with minorities; this is the repeated un-said response from many Christians throughout this country. Not all of course.

2. My goodness man; do I have to spell this out to you? Not trying to be an ass here, but when any layer of gov't, be it local, state or federal, repeats any form of religious tenant ("In Jesus' name we pray.....amen") regularly.......for 20 years.......without change, it is clear that said layer of gov't is trying to establish a state religion via endorsement from whichever layer of gov't we are speaking about. Once again, had a different religious leader of a different religion been invited to perform the invocation, it wouldn't appear as though the Town of Greece was vehemently endorsing the Christian religion. But they did not, and only began inviting other religious leaders of other religions when threatened with a lawsuit.I fully expect them to go back to the way it was for 20 years. Totally and pointlessly divisive.... I urge you to look at North Carolina's recent try to establish Christianity as the official state religion for that state. Not sure if you are being serious with your query or just merely trying to troll me, or rustle my jimmies.  :left:

3. A swerve then; so be it. You and I are usually quite frank with each other, but if you wish to not openly admit it, that's fine. A reputable Tea Party member such as yourself should lead by example for that un-organized mass of people. No one else seems to be doing so, hence the recent decline of influence?  Many within it would call Roe v Wade judicial activism..........and while I can respect a woman's right to choice.........I would thoroughly agree with the Tea People on that assertion of judicial activism.

4. A final swerve. How disappointing.  :(

Re: ISLAM -- The Religion of Peace?

Reply #220 –
There are 2 national churches in Great Britain (just to assist SmileyFaze) but the Church of Scotland is Presbyterian and the state has no control or influence over it. Indeed when The Queen sends a representative he/she has to sit up in the gallery in a seperate area and now ti the deegates to the Annual Assembly. The same applies to HM if she is there.

Anyway more importantly, I have in the past noted that some Americans give the impression their country is wonderfully free of such formal influences. Well not it isn't. The dollar note is of course an obvious example (along with Masonic stuff) but so too is the swearing in of the head of state. Religion plays a far more role in the political life of America than the national churches here. And in addition there are great parts of that religious influence in the States that is far from moral, competent or to boast about. The Republican Party is a good example.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: ISLAM -- The Religion of Peace?

Reply #221 –
Quote from: Colonel Rebel on
1. Both are highly divisive. If the Town of Greece had periodically (say at the minimum of once per year) invited a religious leader of another persuasion of religion, I seriously doubt Galloway would have had a problem with it. She is a Jew, after all; why not invite a Rabbi from time to time?


That's your biased opinion, is it not. Where does it say in the Constitution that it's anti-invocation, anti-prayer, anti-religion?

Nowhere, that's where. Seriously, the First Amendment is first because the founding fathers wanted it there....in a place of prominence.  It specifically says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

It specifically tells the Government what it can't do & must do ...... don't force us all to honor any one State Religion,  like England did with the Church of England, & don't keep us from freely practicing our own religious practices -- whatever they may be.

If anything it's not a freedom from religion, it's a freedom for religion.

It doesn't present even the suggestion of a quota system, or how any religious person or group must practice......just the freedom to do so completely free of government proclamation or legislation.

But, in the end I agree with you that your suggestions are nice, & if presented properly to their legislature, maybe they might adopt some of your nice ideas.

That's what freedom is about, having the right to agree or even disagree.


Quote from: Colonel Rebel on
....Once again, because the majority rules and to hell with minorities.....


That's a democracy. We have a Constitutional Republic, whereas it's based on democratic like principals that need to adhere to specific laws.

If they broke the law, then they would have been ruled against. 

They didn't break the law, therefore the majority has the right to it's invocation as it sees fit. 

If someday they choose to change how they open their sessions, as long as they don't break the law, they are at liberty to do so, knowing full well that some might not appreciate the proceedings as much as others.

That's life.


Quote from: Colonel Rebel on
2. My goodness man; do I have to spell this out to you? Not trying to be an ass here, but when any layer of gov't, be it local, state or federal, repeats any form of religious tenant ("In Jesus' name we pray.....amen") regularly.......for 20 years.......without change, it is clear that said layer of gov't is trying to establish a state religion via endorsement from whichever layer of gov't we are speaking about.


Once again I agree that that is your personal opinion, which you have the right to, you are at liberty to have, & I respect it even though I may not agree with it. 

Some day maybe you can don the black robes, & then you can come to a different decision based on your own minority opinion & interpretation of the First Amendment, but until then I doubt your opinions in this matter will see themselves expressed in a majority decision of any Supreme Court.

In my own personal opinion of what the First Amendment is, & what it controls, & as long as the Supreme Court Justices rule the same consistent way they have for the so many years ---200+/- --- things  won't change & rulings like this will stand.

Now, I think you should wrap it up so we can return to the topic at hand   .....   [glow=black,2,300]ISLAM  --  The Religion of Peace?[/glow]

If you want we can open a new thread just to discuss the pros & cons of the Supreme Court.

Take note, as always, you will probably find that on better than 60% of the rulings we will probably agree, & if not, we will  respect each others right to disagree --- as in this case. As always you will have my completely honest opinions either way.  I know you would expect nothing less. ---- Same here.

PS......I like agreeing, as opposed to disagreeing.


Re: ISLAM -- The Religion of Peace?

Reply #222 –
Quote from: rjhowie on

There are 2 national churches in Great Britain (just to assist SmileyFaze) but the Church of Scotland is Presbyterian and the state has no control or influence over it. Indeed when The Queen sends a representative he/she has to sit up in the gallery in a seperate area and now ti the deegates to the Annual Assembly. The same applies to HM if she is there.

Anyway more importantly, I have in the past noted that some Americans give the impression their country is wonderfully free of such formal influences. Well not it isn't. The dollar note is of course an obvious example (along with Masonic stuff) but so too is the swearing in of the head of state. Religion plays a far more role in the political life of America than the national churches here. And in addition there are great parts of that religious influence in the States that is far from moral, competent or to boast about. The Republican Party is a good example.


Thanks for clearing that State Religion thing up for me, but in honesty I wasn't talking about GB, I was only talking about England.

As far as us here having more religious overtones in our government dealings & such, it only goes to the founding of our 'New World'.

People came to the 'New World' primarily due to religious persecution in Europe, & our United States were founded on & based on what some call Judeo-Christian Principals & Values.

So it stands to reason we Americans take our religious heritage, values, & principals a little more fervently than most Europeans do, so it shows in a lot of what we do, much to the chagrin of the non-religious minority amongst us.

Can't please everyone you know.

Quote from:        Thomas Paine - The Rights of Man, 1791-1792      

Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly-marked feature of all law-religions, or religions established by law. Take away the law-establishment, and every religion re-assumes its original benignity.

Re: ISLAM -- The Religion of Peace?

Reply #223 –
Glad I was able to inform you a bit more than known SmileyFaze. However the Church of England down south does not have the influence that religion has in America even without it having a national church. Just loo espeically in the Republican Party corner at how involved religion is in that area. We over here have nothing like that thank goodness. Spiritual neo-cons is an American phenomena.

As for quoting the early Americans and the Constitution the sad truth is that they may well for the sake of arument have been reasonable men but what their country did after is something else. Persecution of the native Indians in vast numbers. Persecution of the Negroes in vast numbers. When immigrants from Europe arrived in droves they were cowed and kept subjugated as well. Any country on Earth that does not accept the will of America is in for persecution so Thomas Paine and others have been ignored. If those who assemble in Philadelphia came back today they would be shocked and greatly saddened by what came after them.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: ISLAM -- The Religion of Peace?

Reply #224 –
Back on topic:




Mentally handicapped exploited as human bombs in Iraq


Quote from:         ANSA            http://tinyurl.com/nnhkubm    

(ANSA) - Baghdad, May 29 - An Islamic militant group linked to al-Qaeda is using mentally handicapped people as unwitting "human bombs" to carry out attacks in Iraq, an Iraqi government source said Thursday.

The interior ministry source said there have been seven such attacks carried out in recent months by militants of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS). "They kidnap mentally ill people in the streets, make them wear explosive vests, then they make them detonate with remote control devices," said General Saad Maan, spokesman for the interior minister..........



What do you think of this maleficent development in the name of the Allah?

Is this the Religion of Peace, or is it the Religion of Pieces (as in body parts)??