Yousufi, you said "My question is muslim kids know all these famous Judeo-Christian Scientists/Inventors, how come the Christian children do not know about all these trend setting muslim scientists and whether it has something to do with the intellectual dishonesty of the west who wouldn't give credit to the people whose research they relied upon because of religious differences". Oh really they just teach them world's pioneer scientists course. Whom are you kidding. The reason that the your kids know about western scientists is because, more than likely the only text books available are the imported ones. Also because the theorems and laws bear the names of their discoverers. The westerns discoveries are the ones that are taught world over as they are the most relevant today. Don't brag that this is some great exercise in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. You are pathetic.

Secular Part I

You wrote, "Thomas Paul Moses Baum, I salute you sir, for not taking my responses personally."

First off, if you want to you can refer to me as Tom since most do, I only sign with my full name for the simple reason that it is my name.

Second, I fully understand that what I write on here as far as some of the things happening to me is quite outrageous even tho they really have happened and when some have referred to me as psychotic and/or delusional, my reply is that I am either psychotic and/or delusional or I am speaking of actual events happening to me there is no middle ground.

Then, "Of course, I am not one to shy away from responding in kind."

And I thank you for it.

You then wrote, "That said my reference to AOEIIEOA was referring to your characterization of "MO's hallucinations", as Satan talking to him."

I, most definitely, can not give you "evidence", not in any scientific sort of way, that it was satan and for that matter I don't know it for a fact but the reason that I said that it was satan was because the "messenger" claimed to be Gabriel, who was the "messenger" to Mary, and the "messenger" to Mohammed was quite simply a liar.

Of course, even tho I know that you do not believe in either of these "messengers" as actually happenings in history it is quite clear that what the "messenger" brought to Mohammed is a "lie" if what is purported to have happened to Jesus, really did happen.

You then wrote, "I was taking exception to the existence of a Satan."

No problem, I can understand that and there are many that do not believe that satan is real, but I have met satan and I do not like satan, but there is a reason, probably more than one, why God created satan.

satan can come across as 'mister nice guy' but he isn't and also not only would I say that satan is smarter than any human being, he is probably smarter than the entire human race and besides being a liar and a thief like Jesus told us, satan is also a sore loser.

You then wrote, "When I was talking about Religious characters, I was being restrictive to the originators of religion etc. I am still wrong and stand corrected, As Buddha, Mahavira & Zarathustra are real historical beings."

I am not a history buff but I believe that Jesus was mentioned somewhere other than the bible from someone or someones back then.

You then wrote, " I do see the difference but hardly makes much difference given that a deity itself is a myth."

This is merely your opinion even with your "AOEIIEOA", there are things that we have discovered in science that we do not have "direct" evidence on but only "inferred" evidence on but nevertheless, I most definitely believe that we will never "prove" that God Is but one day God Will.

Secular Part II

You then wrote, " until 7th century AD. But since then for a period of about 5 centuries may be longer those atrocities have been enacted in the name of the Koranic deity."

As I have said, islam is about world domination and subjugation whether it is brought about thru war, terrorism, ballot boxes, lies, whatever.

This is spoken of in the Koran and those that say otherwise are ignoring what the Koran says.

Just as those that attempted and are still attempting to set up a "Christian" theocracy are going against what Jesus taught us and told us to Proclaim, from what is written in the Bible.

As I have said, I can not prove or give evidence that God Is only God can and God in His Way has proven it to me.

I am pretty sure you have heard me, so to speak, say it on here that even tho I refer to God in the masculine pronoun that even tho God-Incarnate was a Male that God is neither a Male, a Female nor an It but a Being of Pure Love.

Thank you for replying.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thomas Paul Moses Baum, I salute you sir, for not taking my responses personally. They were not meant to insinuate you at all, and only meant to express my opinions on scripture, the mythical deities and their prophets, often equally mythical. Needless to say that has not been my experience. Of course, I am not one to shy away from responding in kind. That said my reference to AOEIIEOA was referring to your characterization of "MO's hallucinations", as Satan talking to him. I was taking exception to the existence of a Satan. When I was talking about Religious characters, I was being restrictive to the originators of religion etc. I am still wrong and stand corrected, As Buddha, Mahavira & Zarathustra are real historical beings.

Coming to the deities of Koran, & OT - and by extension the deity of NT, I do see the difference but hardly makes much difference given that a deity itself is a myth. I would also venture to say the atrocities of ethnic cleansing and massive and unspeakable atrocities and described in OT were just myths, until 7th century AD. But since then for a period of about 5 centuries may be longer those atrocities have been enacted in the name of the Koranic deity.

Secular

You wrote, " As to your characterization of MO's hallucinations, I would not share your view at all for the same reason AOEIIAOE"

There is also no evidence of hallucinations.

You also wrote, "Off all the religious characters only two are real persons, Mohammed and Joseph Smith - one a tyrant another a Charlatan. The others are all mythical characters,"

I could be wrong but I believe that Jesus is mentioned other places beside the bible and also maybe Peter, Paul, Pontius Pilate, Herod and probably others.

You also wrote, "I have to agree with Richard Dawkins characterization "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully"."

Sounds like a description of the human race but seeing as you have not met God, this is merely your opinion of Someone or Something that you do not believe is real and you are looking at it thru human eyes.

Can you imagine trying to raise the whole human race that has been given "free will"?

Even tho you do not believe that satan is real, he can come across as 'mister nice guy' and look at how many thru the ages seemingly started out with "good ideas" and degenerated into some of the worst "blood baths" of history, just a fluke?

You then wrote, "Now coming to the god of the Koran, I cannot fathom taking any of the adjectives away. As a matter of fact I can few more adjectives to add, quite a few more."

So you do see a difference between the two.

I would like to say something about two of your adjectives: jealous and filicidal.

Jealous: if God's jealousy was even remotely like the petty jealousy that we humans have then I would look at it totally different that I look at it.

Filicidal: I suppose you are speaking of Jesus's death and since according to the "story" Jesus is sent by the Father and Jesus said, "I and the Father are One", therefore not only was He sent but He sent Himself and it was not God who killed Jesus but human beings.

I suppose that in the adjective-laden description given by Richard Dawkins, he also took into account that Jesus extented the invitation to "Come follow Me", sounds like a crazy invitation after what Jesus went thru doesn't it?

And yet there have been many thru the age who have done just that even tho Jesus flat-out told us that we should not be surprized at how we are thought of or treated if we take Him up on His invitation.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Secular you whiny old Hindu, do you ever read the posts or the articles before posting your pre fabricated anti islam posts all over this website? The topic of the article is keeping Christian children of Texas away from knowing things that shed a better light on Islam. My question is muslim kids know all these famous Judeo-Christian Scientists/Inventors, how come the Christian children do not know about all these trend setting muslim scientists and whether it has something to do with the intellectual dishonesty of the west who wouldn't give credit to the people whose research they relied upon because of religious differences.

So the Hindus discovered 0 and Plastic surgery? good for you! Something for you keep your head up. But do those 2 inventions equal 500 years of inventions and discoveries by the muslim scientists who just about started from scratch. I suggest you read my posts clearly before posting your idiotic one-size-fits-all bigoted responses.

Muslims are pioneers of Sciences of Astronomy, Astrophysics, Alchemy, Geography and Earth Sciences, Mathematics, Neuro Sciences, Medicine, Surgery, Agriculture, Architecture, Sociology and every other thing that has shaped western societies. Muslim kids all over the world are familiar with the names of Newton, Einstien, Edison, Plato etc. They read of their exploits in their text books from an early age. The fact that Christian children all over the world are not familiar with the achievements of people like AL-Khwarzimi, Ibnal-Haitham, Ibne Rushd, Jabir bin Hayyan and hundreds of others whose studies and research was relied upon by the Western Civilization and Scientist, just points towards innate bias and moral bankruptcy of the so-called Christiandom towards the Islamic world and dates back to the Crusades.

Posted by: yasseryousufi
___________________________________________

Hindus conceived zero, they introduced plastic surgery, so on & so forth 1500BC. What has that got to do with the price of hashish in Peshawar today. What matters to people of today is whether they can put bread on the table or not achievements of some distant past in distant lands. Why is it that the poorest of nations are also the members of OIC. You guys cannot bring yourself up until you throw the mullahs, imams, maulanas on their a$$es along with the musty tomes of 1400 years and introspect. Bragging about the past, alone will not feed your billion.

Muslims are pioneers of Sciences of Astronomy, Astrophysics, Alchemy, Geography and Earth Sciences, Mathematics, Neuro Sciences, Medicine, Surgery, Agriculture, Architecture, Sociology and every other thing that has shaped western societies. Muslim kids all over the world are familiar with the names of Newton, Einstien, Edison, Plato etc. They read of their exploits in their text books from an early age. The fact that Christian children all over the world are not familiar with the achievements of people like AL-Khwarzimi, Ibnal-Haitham, Ibne Rushd, Jabir bin Hayyan and hundreds of others whose studies and research was relied upon by the Western Civilization and Scientist, just points towards innate bias and moral bankruptcy of the so-called Christiandom towards the Islamic world and dates back to the Crusades.

Thomas Paul Moses Baum, I strongly subscribe to the view that "Absence of evidence is, indeed evidence of ABSENCE" (AOEIIEOA). Off all the religious characters only two are real persons, Mohammed and Joseph Smith - one a tyrant another a Charlatan. The others are all mythical characters, just that. As to your characterization of MO's hallucinations, I would not share your view at all for the same reason AOEIIAOE.
You also said, "Whether or not someone believes in God or not, it should be pretty obvious that the God mentioned in the Bible and the god mentioned in the Koran are not one and the same". To this I need to beg to differ with you again. Based on what Jesus purported to have said that he was not come to rewrite the scripture, in fact he admonished his followers to adhere to every tittle of the law. Given that I cannot imagine there is much difference between the two. Reading the old testament I have to agree with Richard Dawkins characterization "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully". Now coming to the god of the Koran, I cannot fathom taking any of the adjectives away. As a matter of fact I can few more adjectives to add, quite a few more.

Secular

You wrote, "But then when I started to read the book it was obvious from the moment he starts getting the hallucinations that this guy was pure evil and cunning."

You believe that Muhammed was having hallucinations and it is a belief because you do not know whether it was hallucinations or something else.

I happen to believe that it was something else and it, most definitely, was not from Gabriel as the Koran says it was but from satan who happens to be the god of islam.

The god of islam also says that Jesus is his prophet and merely a person and not God-Incarnate and is that not just like what satan would do and that is to put himself above God.

Whether or not someone believes in God or not, it should be pretty obvious that the God mentioned in the Bible and the god mentioned in the Koran are not one and the same.

What is spoken about Jesus in the Bible is, to put it mildly, very different than what is written in the Koran even tho some of it is in sync but isn't it also obvious that the best liars use some truth?

I have met God and it doesn't matter if anyone believes me or not, someone's belief does not change the truth, and I have also met satan and I do not need to know much of what is contained in the Koran to know that it is in contradiction to what is in the Bible not just about Jesus but also about Isaac and Ismail among other things.

Whereas Jesus said, "My Kingdom is not of this world", the god of islam and the Koran are about world domination and subjugation.

Either the Bible is about God or the Koran is or neither one is because both can not be and yet the Koran claims the prophets of the Bible.

I am thankful that God has a Plan and I am thankful that God is not even remotely like what some who know God's Name think God to be.

God is a Being of Pure Love and I know that this is beyond my comprehension and that is why God had to reveal Himself to me for me to know this and also that God Is a Trinity.

I know a little and I know that I do not need to know it all.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

That is quite an astounding claim to be made of Islam, even from teh 7th century perspective. i had read the biography of MO, by a western author, whose name fails me today. The bylines on the inside 7 back covers of the book were glowing about MO, including the synopsis by the author. But then when I started to read the book it was obvious from the moment he starts getting the hallucinations that this guy was pure evil and cunning. This is from a biography which was supposed to be presenting him in the best possible light. I shudder to think what would this fiend's description would be if the author were a detractor. It is really beyond me how the author thought highly of him in the first place. Then I read some of the Hadith and a large portion of the Koran too, which do not paint him in any better light either. It is beyond me that this pervert would go into the details of type of sexual activities that are permissible, when aunt flo visits the woman. And the details of the level of body a woman can expose to whom is just gross. To read who can fondle what of the woman is plain perversion. I cannot imagine why muslims do not find it revolting. Any mention of them passages ina nay other book would invite a complete villification of teh author.

The following is from the resolution being discussed:
"In a third instance, spending 139 student text lines on Christian beliefs, practices, and holy writings but 176 on those of Islam; claiming Islam "brought untold wealth to thousands and a better life to millions," while "because of [Europeans' Christian] religious
zeal … many peoples died and many civilizations were destroyed;" and contrasting "the Muslim concern for cleanliness" with Swedes in Russia who were "the filthiest of God's creatures" (see documentation in Appendix I-C); and,"

It is not the words and line counts and how often the word bible or church appears that is offensive. It is lies like Islam "brought untold wealth to thousands and a better life to millions," that are beyond offensive to the millions killed and to the millions still living in subjugation to Islam around the world. Is that bias? Yes it is. Islam hates non-muslims. Muslims countries at present have hateful laws against non-muslims. Islam killed millions just in South Asia. Islam enslaved millions in africa and destroyed much of the african civilizations. Telling the truth about Islam is dangerous but let us cave and start congratulating ourselves on being "unbiased". Please!!

Akafir, I agree with all that you said in your response, vis-a-vis Islam. i agree that there is certain degree of bending over backwards to appease the Islamists. This is to great extent western expiation for the western colonial history. The Islamists have exploited that shamelessly. They have simultaneously played the victim, the righteous, different but not inferior, etc, etc. They along with the western liberals seem to have overcome with collective amnesia about the Islamic colonization. As I mentioned in Aseem Shukla's thread, western colonization was walk in the park relative to Islamic colonization. The wanton pillaging, destruction is the islamic signature, compared to infrastructure building,education are the legacy of the western colonization.

That said, i fear the christian bigots of the bible belt too. These fellows are every bit as regressive as the taliban, with their xenophobia, anti-knowledge, homophobic agenda, I feel we need to be ever vigilant. In this context I am skeptical about the TEB, as it has been politicized and religion has crept too much. They have marginalized Jefferson and glorified that sorry excuse for human being Phyliss Schlafly, etc, etc. The list goes on. They renamed slave trade to some b&&lS$#t call tri-lateral trade, etc.

Secular,

Have you read the original resolution. If not do so. They give specific examples of where the killings by christians is highlighted but killings by muslims is swept under the rug. A disease that infects the very humane, liberal elite of this country is that it is considered right to present the "ours whatever" in a slightly shabby light (we must not boast you see) and try to make "theirs whatever" in as a good light as possible without appearing as outright lies.

Take yesterdays example: How many papers blared that Daisy Khan received death threats? Now compare that to how many non-muslims writing about Islam get death threats and do the newspapers even consider it news worthy? How many death threats do you think Daniel Pipes or Robert Spencer, or even Franklin Graham have gotten? Has any paper found that worthy news?

The simple fact is that as the politics and culture of USA stands, the simple facts that I listed before can NOT be published in a textbook. The US newspapers could not even publish the Muhammad cartoons out of fear. The yale press censored a book on muhammad cartoons out of fear. A silly romance novel that had muhammad in it was not published out of fear.

So is there a bias? Sure there is. It is safer to self censor. Think about it, Molly Norris life has been destroyed because she tried to stand up for free speech. And how much anger, how much distress, how much ire do you see in Washington Post that muslim threats were able to rob an american of her freedom in America? Why? It is hand wringing and how can we blame anyone for what the "extremists" do. Don't you think that paper should be educating the public about how to really interpret what Alweki is saying or what Faisal Shahzad said today in the court. Instead, I will bet, we will get some more Islam means peace nonsense from the very literate journalists of this paper.

Akafir, I usually agree with your posts on all issues Islam. But this particular issue isn't really about Islam, as I see it. It is really about the domestic Talibanesque Christian bigots trying to pollute public education. We rationalists have two frontal attack from the parties of god. First is the Islamists, the second is Robertsons, Dobsons & Grahams etc in the US. If you go to India, we the BJP, RSS et al.

Susan,

Show me one textbook in USA that deals honestly with the treatment of non-muslims in Islam. A textbook that even remotely mentions that in all muslim majority countries in the world the laws discriminate against non-muslims.

Show me one text book that tells the kids that the Quran sanctions marriage and sex to infants. This is not what Islam haters say but what the Muslim scholars of Islam say.

And I know that such statements will not even come close to being accepted for text books.

Is that a bias? Sure it is. We play the game of everyone is nice and every religion is good and every culture is as nice as any other. Moral equivalence and multiculturalism are worshipped. A thoughtful and honest pro and cons is never presented.