Muslims, not minarets, were targeted by the Swiss

Dear Mrs. Jacoby
As much as I, a Swiss citizen, am gutted about the Swiss vote on minarets ban (which, that I'm certain, is unconstitutional), I do not agree with your comment that exhibits little understanding of Swiss democracy and history. Switzerland has been a place of refuge for the persecuted for centuries (one shameful exception: Switzerland could and should have saved much more persecuted jews during WWII). This was also the case for the Muslims from the Balkans which represents the large majority of the Swiss Muslim communiy; they came as war refugees in the last 20 years.
It is wrong (and very easy) to explain the Swiss vote with primitive fear or even with stubborn xenophobia. Switzerland has a long democratic history, and it represents the successful attempt to integrate people of several ethnics, languages, and religions into one community. Switzerland has succeeded in the long term - certainly not all multiethnic states can say that.
While it is elsewhere still going strong to measure the degree of civilization of a society at the highest possible proportion of migrants, many Swiss feel quite differently. They think that living together is more worthwile than living in parallel (in "ghettos"). This conception has ensured utmost freedom for every single person in Switzerland. That's also why Swiss are not reluctant to look at immigration from the perspective of whether it fits the community with their shared values (e.g. democracy, principle of equal opportunities, equal rights for women, etc.) or not.
Of course, fears have been conjured and some might have voted in favor of the minaret ban because they see in every Muslim a potential terrorist. And that grieves me.
For small states, so said Montesquieu, direct democracy fits. Switzerland has the direct democracy and practices it with passion and conviction. Swiss citizens take their political responsabilities very seriously in all wha matters the public affairs of the community. The fact that 57.5% of participants have expressed themselves in the vote against the further construction of minarets, is an information about which one should take enough time to think.

daniel ITLD - Thanks. I promised I wouldn't question your response and I won't.

I do have another question though, if you don't mind. Is your "Providence" supernatural?

yes, no or not sure - elaborate if you wish

"And a leading Muslim cleric, Sheikh Ramathan Shaban Mubajje, has called for gays to be rounded up and banished to an island until they die."

Ah! A suggestion made by a Muslim cleric, in Uganda! The perfect solution to dealing with Islam in the US! And suggested by a Muslim, no less! I'd suggest Puerto Rico. Very nice place.

Farnaz:

"a lot of outside help that they didn't really need, apologies to B.B. King."

Ah! Are you also a BB King fan? I considered naming my previous scottie Lucille. Then settled on Leah.

Apropos of scotties: I've always known that things like garlic and chocolate are poisonous for dogs. I never knew that peanuts were. Now I do. Very early morning trip to an emergency vet clinic in Roanoke! Today I get to wash out the interior of the car.

DITLD:

"I think your expressed fears of radical Islam are irrelevant with regards to how almost everyone lives their lives."

This is a startling generalization. In what way are you competent to speak to "how almost everyone lives their lives"? Are you personally familiar with the details of the lives of "almost everyone"? Can you in any way quantify or support this assertion with facts?

Farnaz:

"And you will get married, as well!"

Yeah. Originally we planned to drive to Mass and do it there. Now that DC is close to allowing gay marriage, I've been thinking we might do it there, and hire a JP to meet us at the Jefferson Memorial, at night, to do the deed. I love that monument, with its inscription around the ceiling line: "I Have Sworn Upon the Altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Maybe we could invite Politically Correct Pam to be best man. That place, that quotation...and Pam. Supreme irony!

DITLD:

"But, the suicide bomber phenomonon of Islam is a very bad sign for Islam, that it is approaching complete nihilistic collapse."

Clearly you have an opinion. I am curious: was your opinion formed while living in/with/around an Islamic country, or Islamic peoples?

Schaum

I think your expressed fears of radical Islam are irrelevant with regards to how almost everyone lives their lives.

At one time, the existential enemy was "Communism." Of it, it was said that once it wrapped its Satanic tentacles around a society, it was lost and forever doomed, FOREVER, for all eternity.

What is left now? Cuba? North Korea? And China, which has transformed into garden variety fascism.

And this is because Communism was not a thing, but merely a collection of uhnappy people with cheap consumer goods.

I do not know how Islam will change in its interaction with the West. But I believe that Arabic Islam, at least, is really an unhappy symptom of shattered societies, the remains of the old Ottoman Empire, and that as a religious outlook for modern people to live by, it is brittle and will crack and crumble more quickly and more easily than European society.

Will people be killed by radical Islam in this assimilation process and the gradual collapse of Islam? Yes. But, the suicide bomber phenomonon of Islam is a very bad sign for Islam, that it is approaching complete nihilistic collapse.

yasser,
go to the thread you mentioned. i've re-posted my last few posts (the ones you hadn't commented on yet) from the old thread. "see" ya there.

Clearthinking1:

Thank you. I rest my case.

Colinnicholas: maybe Cialis would give you some relief.

Colinnicholas:

"To taunt and mock a persom for not wanting to approve your savage and stupid quest, you are beneath contempt."

You are a bigger idiot than I thought. I don't give a damn who agrees with me. Especially not a manipulative twit like Politically Correct Pam. Did I use small enough words so you have no problem understanding me?

Farnaz:

"Also, he might consider ending covert operations in the interest of oil, geopolitics. Har!"

Oh, yeah. That will happen!

I lost the tail end of that somehow. However, I would like to conclude....

Anyone wishing to go back over it in greater detail than I did, is welcome. After doing all this work it's clearer than ever that Pam was easily the most abused, and she was abused for makine the most sense.

Susan Jacoby was making the same point. You simply cannot ban a religion. Schaum never got close to explaining how he would be able to do the impossible, and actually ban it. The point has been made over and over - the Germans failed to do the same thing to the Jews that Schaum wlould do to the Muslims. Obliterate them.

We are atheists here. Like Pam, I would wish that all religions would go away. But it's madness to even consider such a thing.
Schaum, you are one scary dude, and nasty.
I wouldn't want you for a neighbor.

We all agree that it's a very scary religion, and there may be trouble ahead.

To taunt and mock a persom for not wanting to approve your savage and stupid quest, you are beneath contempt.

Have you no idea what you put Pam through?
Have you no decency?

Part 4

Pam says;

"Schaum, you can call me hysterical all you want, but Baby, I'm the voice of sweet reason compared to you. You are fair frothing at the mouth."

She continues "None of what I'm saying has the least to do with "political correctness." It's about the knowledge that when you ban and suppress something, and drive it underground, you make it a hundred times stronger and more lethal."

"And yes, we were indeed talking about Muslim Americans - who else do "we" have the authority to ban? Go back and reread the posts."

Schaum says;

Pamsm:

You ARE hysterical. And we were NOT talking about American Muslims, you were. I was talking about ISLAM. If you are the voice of sweet reason, then we are all doomed.

Part 3

Schaum says his argument is about tolerance.Says Jacoby seems to think that to have any tolerance for religious freedom - one must be tolerant of all religions - including those religions that are intolerant of other religions. Said he thought it was a ridiculous point of view.
12:17pm Pam writes "Wow. I'm as amazed by the commenters as Susan is. and I think she's exactly right". Tells Schaum she's "disapponted" with him and says that there are secular laws that religion may not supersede. Says that if we start banning religions we don't like, we'll have real trouble.

Schaum writes "Laws only work when people agree to obey them". Tells Pam to "get your head out of the sand", and "What are you thinking of?" Says that the bizarre assertion that anything that calls itself a religion deserves to be tolerated as such is BS.

Pam agrees that laws don't prevent all crime, but is a deterrent. She argues that Hasan the shooter was a sick and lonely guy, caught up in Islamic fundamentalism, and writes about home grown religious Christian fundies.
Says the only way to end religion is educate, educate, educate.

Daniel Redmond writes "Let's start a movement to ban Islam from our shores, the sooner the better".

Pam says that this is the kind of thing the Nazis tried against the Jews. It does not have the desired effect.

Schaum writes to Pam;"I don't want to lay too much on you, in your present ADD condition, but certain forms of religion already ARE banned in the US. Specifically, religions incorporating ritual human sacrifice, ritual animal sacrifice and, in some states if not all, those religions involving the handling of poisonous serpents

Pam responds;

No, Schaum. The acts are banned (i.e., illegal), not the religions.

That snake-handling one...? Christianit

Schaum writes that it's pure lunacy to allow Muslims in large groups to live in the West. Says that this may prove to be the undoing and destruction of our civilization. Adds "Islam is vile to its core, and vile in it's ideology.

Schaum tells Pam to soft peddle the hysteria. Pam reacts asking him "Do you honestly believe that Muslims are after your blood

Part 2

At 4;07 Schaum wrote;

'I am not convinced that the "founding fathers" could have forseen every event that the First Amendment would be called upon to tolerate. For instance, atomic weapons have been mentioned prominently as figuring in massive death and destruction if they should fall into the hands of certain religious fanatics bent on the destruction of the West. Could the FF have forseen that? I don't think so."

Jacoby wrote;

"And if you had read Jefferson carefully, all of you who are twisting yourselves into ideological pretzels, you would know that he was perfectly aware that religious liberty permitted the spread of all sorts of downright evil ideas and practices. He simply through religious repression was worse. That atomic weapons hadn't been invented makes no difference to the principle. Furthermore, prohibiting the display of religious symbols has always encouraged the aggrieved passions of True Believers. Only someone blind to history would think that suppressing a particular form of religious architecture is likely to inhibit the practice of a particular religion. If only it were that easy! Guess what? Burning books doesn't work either."

Schaum responds; quoting her.

"He (Jefferson) simply thought religious repression was worse"

"You are growing progressively more shrill, Susan. 'religious repression' is not the same as 'anihilation of those with different religious views.' And that is exactly the aim of Islam."

Part 1

I've spent the last few hours going over the disagreements between Pam and Schaum, and what preceded it.

Early on Schaum was writing about how he felt about Muslims, and wanted the religion banned. Jacoby commented that anything that calls itself a religion is protected by the Bill of Rights, and says that putting up with religion is the price we pay, and that the Founders considered the alternatives to be hideous.

Dec,1.9:35am Jacoby; " Only criminal acts committed in the name of a religion are prohibited, and they are prohibited not because they were committed in the name of religion but because they are crimes".

Schaum. Agreed.

Dec 1.9:45am; Schaum asked "Did the Founding Fathers anticipate a religion that openly advocates the murder of those who do not share its beliefs?'

12:40pm Jacoby comments;"I find some of these comments truly astonishing, in that they imply that the Koran is the only religious screed that advocates killing nonbelievers. Please. If we were to ban all religions, and religious symbols, whose "sacred" books contain some very, very nasty ideas, there would be no end of banning".
She goes on, "I cannot believe that atheists, who rightly reject all religions as supernatural fantasies are talking of setting up a hierarchy dictating which religions ought to be tolerated by law and which not."

She concludes that there's a stupidity gene distributed amply throughout the population of both religious believers and atheists.

Schaum asks "Can a tolerant West risk extending its tolerance and acceptance to this (Muslim) kind of ideology?"
And at 12;52pm says; The world needs to recognize that even if political concessions are made with Islam, for the sake of peace, the Muslim campaign to destroy any in opposition will continue"

"Did the "founding fathers", in writing first amendment, anticipate the existence of a religion that openly advocated the murder of those who do not share its beliefs? Could the 'founding fathers' and the first amendment have anticipated all possible threats and dangers?"
Posted by: Schaum |

TO ALL "MODERATE" MUSLIMS:

BE TRUE TO YOUR RELIGION AND STOP TRYING TO COMPROMISE WITH THE WEST AND INDIANS.

THE HOLY KORAN CH.9 VERSE 5: "SO WHEN THE SACRED MONTHS HAVE PASSED AWAY, THEN KILL THE IDOLATERS WHEREVER YOU FIND THEM, AND TAKE THEM CAPTIVES AND BESIEGE THEM AND LIE IN WAIT FOR THEM IN EVERY AMBUSH."
[9.14] FIGHT THEM, ALLAH WILL PUNISH THEM BY YOUR HANDS AND BRING THEM TO DISGRACE.
[9.29] FIGHT THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN ALLAH.

FORTUNATELY, THE HISTORY AND THE CURRENT BEHAVIOR OF MOST TRUE MUSLIMS ESPECIALLY IN PAKISTAN IS CONSISTENT WITH THE KORAN. THE VIOLENCE IS NOT NEW AND IS NOT ACCIDENTAL. IT IS AT THE CORE OF OUR BEAUTIFUL RELIGION. GOD IS GREAT.
BIN LADEN, LASHKAR-E-TAIBA, TALIBAN, PAKISTANI ISI ARE TRUE TO THESE BELIEFS.

IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN THE KORAN, JUST WALK AWAY. BUT REMEMBER THE FOUR MAJOR SUNNI MADH'HAB (SCHOOLS OF ISLAMIC JURISPRUDENCE) AND THE TWELVE SHI'A JAFARI MADHAB AGREE THAT A SANE ADULT MALE APOSTATE MUST BE EXECUTED.

THE KORAN SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. THAT IS WHY TRUE MUSLIMS FOLLOW THE KORAN AND KILL NONBELIEVERS.
A LOT OF ISLAMIC TERRORISTS LOOK QUITE PEACEFUL WHILE THEY KILL. FOR EXAMPLE, THE MUMBAI TERRORISTS OR DANIEL PEARL'S BEHEADER, ETC... LOOK QUITE CALM. THIS IS ALL THAT IS MEANT BY "RELIGION OF PEACE."
DO NOT BE FOOLED BY WESTERN PROPAGANDA.

Walter,

You can post your response on this thread

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/katharine_henderson/2009/12/bring_on_the_cacophony_of_sound.html

Thanks~!

Walter,

Sorry man~! I had written my long response to your post but my computer got shutdown accidentaly before I could put it on. And by the time I rewrote it the thread was closed. Do you want me to paste my response on this thread? Wont make much sense but I can still do it if you want~!

Schaum,

So, now, your health insurance problem will be solved! And you will get married, as well!

2. Re: Islam
Look, for instance, at Kosovo. And consider Pakistan. Despite Zia (much our doing), the majority still wants a secular state. Look at the march protesting the dismissal of the judiciary.

Things are a mess there now. It is a failed state as my Pakistani friends continually say. BUT the US created the Taliban. We armed them. We trained them. The Saudis assisted.

We stood by and watched as the animal Zia brought in the Saudis, the maddrassas. WE watched him radicalize Pakistan, and we did nothing. We wanted him to win the war against Russians in Afghanistan, a war we provoked.

We have created monsters. NOt the first time. Then we wanted to bring back Benazir who did not want to go, arguably was not fit to rule. The prevailing opinion is that she was killed by her corrupt, criminal husband, who previous to his re-election, had spent eleven years in jail.

I, in no way, excuse Pakistan or any other country for its evil doings. However, they had help, a lot of outside help that they didn't really need, apologies to B.B. King.

The majority who want a secular democracy will not get it, not in my lifetime, I don't think.

And the barbarity will go on and on and on.
That is a horror.

Pakistan is one case. There are others. Look at Mubarak. WE fund that bastard. We know exactly how he has played the radical element in Egypt. Yet we fund him. He pockets the money while Egyptians starve to death, literally.

Then there are those states that became monstrous all by their lonesomes.

I'm not defending any of them. Just pointing out that there is context. If we don't want them exiling Jews, spreading Jew hatred, persecuting Christians, B'hai, Hindus, et al, killing women, etc., then it behooves our prez to say so.

Also, he might consider ending covert operations in the interest of oil, geopolitics. Har!

Farnaz:

"There are such Muslims as do not wish to kill us. (You know this.)"

Indeed! And that is precisely why I repeatedly, and to no avail, told Politically Correct Pam that I was speaking of/objecting to ISLAM, not muslims. The religion, not the people.

Farnaz:

I think, in my various postings, I have sufficiently referred to radical Islam as the problem. I can't speak to what others understand. Radical Islam is the problem. The offshoots and 'progressives' in Islam are a very small minority.

Actually, its pretty easy to live anywhere in the EU without detection. There are no longer border checks/passport presentations/etc to bother with. The problem is what to do when/if you need medical services. They are impossible to get in Europe without insurance, which is astronomically expensive if you go to buy it on your own. Thats why I came back to the US, because I developed blockages in cardiac arteries, and needed a lot of medical attention until the problem was resolvedd.

Schaum,

There are such Muslims as do not wish to kill us. (You know this.)

Then, there are the miserable rulers. I once saw an interview with the God forsaken prince of Saudi Arabia, in which he was confronted with pages from a standard textbook, demonizing Jews. I mean it literally did, endowed us with supernatural powers, etc.

Caught off guard, he giggled! The bastard knows exactly what he's doing. Some of the bastards do not, however. I suspect Nejad is of the latter type. A simple fanatic. Wanting one thing. An Islamic world, his style.

Schaum,

1. I tried to stay clear of the fireworks, but are you sure all parties involved understood you to be referring to radical Islam, per se?
That is not to Islam, in general?

2. You lived in Austria illegally? You are a brave soul.

Farnaz:

DITLD's naivety is evidently compounded by an unawareness that radical Islam is REQUIRED to kill those 'progressive' Muslims who associate with Christianity, Judiasm, etc....just as it is required to destroy all religions but Islam. For this, I told him he was clueless. Now his feathers are all bent.

Farnaz:

Yes, we lived together in Austria for four years. Illegally, of course, since I could only lawfully be there for 90 days without a resident visa, which in those days was very difficult to get.

Farnaz:

"But, who is saying this? By definition, radical Islam cannot."

DITLD evidently believes that Islam is changing and one day Islam and Judiasm and Christianity and Buddhism and Hinduism, ad infinitum, will all be comfy in bed together.

Schaum,

So, then, have you and Christian ever lived together?

Farnaz:

Christian is Austrian, and lives there, not far from Salzburg. Germany was our ultimate destination point because it recognizes gay marriage, which Austria does not. Such recognition includes the right I would have to buy insurance through his work insurance. And health insurance, expensive for individuals in the US, is PROHIBITIVE for individuals in Europe.

Plans are open to change, now, however...Evidently Austria is enacting gay marriage/partnership rights, identical to those in Germany, on Jan 1. If this actually happens, we'll stay in Austria. So oder so, ich habe noch Deutsch zu lernen! I'll probably go there for a couple of weeks in early March. And he's coming back here in July to help with the packing and move in August.

Schaum,

"It will explain to you why you are, indeed, clueless if you think radical Islam will ever allow other religions to coexist with it."

But, who is saying this? By definition, radical Islam cannot.

Vishnu,

One other thing. There are democratic impulses in Iran. This is simply a fact. Ditto, Pakistan, where the majority would dearly love a return to the pre-Zia days. Zia was our man in Pakistan, he who brought in Islamic law, he who won the war we provoked in Afghanistan, he who brought in the Saudis and Maddrassas. Now, look at what we have done.

Read the Hanif book. Things aren't always as they appear. The barbarity of the Middle EAst, most of Asia, I'm well aware of. I don't excuse it.

But if you want to know who played a large part in bringing it about, including the Taliban, look at old glory and a map of Europe.

DITLD:

Go online and order a copy of the DVD, "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West." It will explain to you why you are, indeed, clueless if you think radical Islam will ever allow other religions to coexist with it.

Vishnu,

I'm sorry Christian is leaving. Will you go to Germany for a visit?

Daniel2

Thanks for the compliment. It is getting a little weird, isn't it?

A word in quotation marks can indicate skepticism, sarcasm, or irony, at least in colloquial communication, which is what this is, isn't it? And colloquial usage is valid and accepted usage,and does not indicate substandard illiteracy. So, am I the only one that thinks this?

DITLD:

(When I posted this, it did not work, so I am posting it again. Now it will probably appear twice, making me look like a fool.)

You don't look like a fool; you never do. Yes, there are protests. Part of the problem is that there are also foreign agitators, notably the Brits (as ever) and us.

Nejad knows this and uses it to full advantage. This is not to say that there isn't unrest, only that we are s.c.r.u.i.n.g. ourselves and putting Iranians at risk. Again.

Nejad is one step ahead of us, not difficult in this day and age. Every time we "secretly" freeze assets, he unfreezes them. If he can't intercept our agents, and he often does, he finds another way to drive them out.

This does not help. When will we ever get it right. Regime change starts at home.

DITLD:

Go here for an explanation of how to use quotation marks:

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/quotation.htm

Yesterday, I referred to Iran teetering on social upheaval because there is a mass-movement in Iran that opposes the Islamic dictatorship.

I was trying to point out that there are many facets to Islamic culture in different countries. And even in Islamic countries, there are mass movements demanding reform.

And for this, I was called clueless and said to know nothing of history.

Yet today, the very next day, unknown to me yesterday, there were more anti-government demonstrations in Tehran, big enough, so that even, I, a clueless person heard of them.

(When I posted this, it did not work, so I am posting it again. Now it will probably appear twice, making me look like a fool.)

Bruria:

"The end of the world is upon us. Though I take care, I am not ready."

Well, shake a leg! Dec 21, 2012 isn't that far off.

Schaum,

Yes, I'm going to look at the Dummies book too, when I have time. The Scholem books are classics.

Really, you've got to check out the Hanif book. It's funny, sad, insightful, has beatiful man-man love. It was recommended to me by every Pakistani I know, and then was given me as a gift. See if they have it in the library.

If you don't like it, you can always describe it on Waters' current thread, offering to send it to one of the bloggers to burn along with the rest of civilization.

Schaum (Vishnu)

Yes, you are right. They are Anglicans.

"As Episcopalians in America were electing their second gay bishop, their Anglican cousins in Uganda were embroiled in controversial legislation that would make would put those bishops in prison for life, or condemn them to death."

These benighted lunatics, evil (apologies to ColinNick) men, are just following the lead of their former British masters and doing them one turn better. Damn them all to the hell they envision.

May I add that the bloggers on Waters' thread are a few cells short of a brain?

The end of the world is upon us. Though I take care, I am not ready.

Farnaz (Bruria/Superman?)

Farnaz:

Thanks for the tip. I'll go to Barnes & N tomorrow and get (or order) a copy of 'Dummies'. I'll check the U library for the others.

Schaum (Vishnu),

Kabbalah for Dummies! LOL! Probably exists. Good grief, it does exist!

Arthur Kurzweil. Kabbalah For Dummies

Also, look at--

Gershom Scholem. Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism

Scholem. On the Kabbalah and Its Symbols

Moshe Idel. Kabbalah: New Perspectives

"Episcopalian bishops in Uganda"

I'm not aware of the Episcopal church having bishops outside the United States and its territories. I suspect you mean Anglican bishops. And those in Uganda have been a thorn in everyone's side for years. The Anglican church in Africa is riddled with problems. This new wrinkle isn't really a surprise, just another horror.

Bruria:

No, I do not have asubstantial knowledge of Kabbalah. Can you recommend something for the novice, 'Kabbalah For Dummies' perhaps? Christian returns to Austria two days after Christmas, so I have the long New Years with plenty of time to read.

I hate to interrupt; however, Episcopalian bishops in Uganda are seeking to execute persons of the gay persuasion. Like the Yemeni Jews, this would seem to cry out for all of our pent-up energy.

Despite our many differences, I would imagine that the bishops' perspective is one upon which we might all disagree.

DITLD:

"No, I am being clear."

If you say so.

Vishnu,

This is rather advanced, if I recall correctly, assumes substantial knowledge of Kabbalah. Have you read Gershom Scholem, et al?

Pinchas Geller. Shalom Shar'abi and the Kabbalists of Beit El

Politically Correct Pam:

Nice try. You got caught with your panties twisted up again.

No, I am being clear.

DITLD:

Just to be clear, the use of quotes (" ") is intended to indicate a DIRECT reference to something written or stated. Your "anti-Islam" appeared to be a direct reference to legislation that claimed to be anti-Islamic.

DITLD:

"Are you deliberately misconstruing everything that I say?"

Are you deliberately saying everything in a way that can be misconstrued?

Onofrio (Väinämöinen),

In coursing code we curse and bless
and crises into bytes compress,
to catapult through space and time
as though a phrase could fell a crime.

Truer verse....A fitting epigraph for OnFaith.

Sincerely,
Bruria/Superman*

*I'm torn between the two.

Bruria:

Yes, please. I'd like your suggestions for reading, particularly in re: Kabbalah

Alles,

If you are in search of real "debate," a place to go is Waters' column. There you will read what the morally bereft religionists are up to these days (murder).

Check out the comments. Perhaps, I've been wrong. Maybe, the end of time has arrived.

Schaum (Vishnu),

If you want references for books on Yemen and the Kabbalah, let me know. They're very dense though.

Bruria

Schaum

You quoted me:

"there was a very strong campaign urging people to approve this "anti-Islam" measure."

Then you criticized the quote:

"Right off the bat you are off on the wrong foot. There was/is no attempt to remove Islam/Muslims from Switzerland. This was not an "anti-Islam" measure."

So, why don't you tell me, what do you think the quotation marks around anti-Islam meant? They have a meaning. It is quite a bit of extra work to insert them when typing. I certainly would not use them if I were not meaning to convey something. The quotes should have a clear meaning to anyone reading this.

Are you deliberately misconstruing everything that I say?

Sorry Onofrio, forgot to add you along with Pam and Lion's Den in the sensible person's club.

Schaum,

Re: books on the Yemeni Jews

Below are a couple of recommendations if you'd like to pursue the topic of Yemeni Jews. I think they've both been reviewed. There are also a couple of books that deal exclusively with their unique contributions to the Kabbalah.

Still recommend Mohammed Hanif, A Case of Exploding Mangoes. I think you'd find it err "interesting."
----------------------
Tudor Parfitt. The Road to Redemption: The Jews of the Yemen 1900-1950 (Brill's Series in Jewish Studies, Vol 17)

Michael Weingarten. Changing Health and Changing Culture: The Yemenite Jews in Israel

Hi Efavorite

If I assume that the poll is refering to the "standard Christian God", I would say, "No" I do not believe in that God.

But really the true answer is "Yes" I believe in (a god of) Providence, which I interpret to be a benvolently impersonal provider of all things. But, I can't really say that, right? I have to say "yes" or "no", so to avoid all that extra thinking and conversation, I would have to be in the "no" column.

I do not think that Providence is benevolent because I am optimistic; I think that Providence enables a person to feel optimism. The fact of existence is a sign of benevolence but I do not believe in traditional plattitudes such as "God is love" or "God has a plan for you." At least, that is my spin on it.

Abraham Lincoln said (I'm paraphrasing) that "everyone is happy when a baby is born, but why? the baby has nothing to look forward to but unending tragedy and disaster, ending in death, but still everyone is happy when a baby is born."

Of course, I just think these things; it seems right to me. But I am not the expert who knows any better than anyone else. I also do not think that Christians, Moslems, or atheists are any more or less certain than I am; we are all in the same small box. People say they are certain in their beliefs, but saying it with the vocal chords is differnt than the truth of inward certainty.

"I KNEW if I gave Politically Correct Pam enough rope, she'd hang herself! She has, by her own efforts, exposed her politically correct lie that she "never called him anything."

Nice try, Schaum, but it still stands - all I did was ask you a question.

YES!!!!

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/susan_jacoby/2009/10/advance_oct_26.html

I KNEW if I gave Politically Correct Pam enough rope, she'd hang herself! She has, by her own efforts, exposed her politically correct lie that she "never called him anything."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Pam, try not to get too upset. You and Lion's Den are consistently the most sensible people posting here. The rest of us tend to get a little nuts sometimes.

Farnaz:

"Your library might have them, but it doesn't sound like you're on the lookout for new reading matter."

Actually, I AM looking for reading matter, now that all my books are gone and I have no TV -- just NPR. I still have access to the university library, so if you can recommend anything I'll look for it.

"I hasten to assure you that your comment did not offend me, which is why I've never said anything about it."

Actually, this is the third time you've brought it up. But who's counting?

"You are. Your selective memory is failing you. You responded to my statement, in answer to a third party's question, that I would save my own child from destruction, if the choice was between that and saving a carload full of strangers. Your one-word response was 'sociopath'."

Are you doing drugs, Schaum? Those were cut and pasted directly from the thread in question. Check for yourself:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/susan_jacoby/2009/10/advance_oct_26.html

Yours on Oct. 29 at 1:22 PM, mine the same day at 3:44 PM.

My memory is fine, thanks. Yours, not so good.

Schaum,

Thanks for the links on the Yemeni Jews. There are a couple of very good books, very pricey. Your library might have them, but it doesn't sound like you're on the lookout for new reading matter.

I'll see what else I can dig up about them. You know it's all so sad. These Jews of the Middle East, whose cultures go back thousands of years, these disparate civilizations are all lost to us now. As was the case in Europe.

I wonder what excuse the media that be have for themselves this go round, as they witnessed decades of expulsions, murder, pogroms, etc.

I'm just wonderin'. So sad. All the lost peoples.

Schaum,

"what is your profession?"

None, Schaum. I edit ad copy for a book retailer (who may be reading this ;^) ).

Okay, so we've got Vishnu and Väinämöinen. I'm torn between Bruria and Superman, but will probably go with the former.

Onofrio:

If you can state it without giving away information you'd like to keep private, what is your profession?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/07/yemen-jews-exodus-arab-countries

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/yemenjews.html

Onofrio:

Had to look that up too!

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/Religions/Avatars/Narasi.html

Farnaz:

"You are free to have the last word on this discussion of "civility." IMHO, it's a waste of time."

You are right. On to other things. Again, thanks for the information on the Yemeni Jews. I'm trying to find more information on the net. There doesn't seem to be a lot.

Pleased to e-meet you, Vishnu (I would guess avatar no.4, Narasimha)

Onofrio:

I had to look it up!

"Väinämöinen (Finnish pronunciation: [ˈʋæinæˌmøinen]) is the central character in the Finnish folklore and the main character in the national epic Kalevala. Originally a Finnish god, he was described as an old and wise man, and he possessed a potent, magical voice."

Väinämöinen

yasser,
you still out there? i'm anxious to continue our islam conversation. tell me where, and i'll re-post my last few comments from our expired thread to make your responding easier.

Farnaz:

Avatars? Will we be required to convert to Hinduism? If so, I get to be Vishnu.

Politically Correct Pam:

I hasten to assure you that your comment did not offend me, which is why I've never said anything about it.

I can only be insulted by someone whose mind I respect. And you are -- can I say this with appropriate political correctness? -- not on the short list.

Politically Correct Pam:

"So who's being revisionist?"

You are. Your selective memory is failing you. You responded to my statement, in answer to a third party's question, that I would save my own child from destruction, if the choice was between that and saving a carload full of strangers. Your one-word response was "sociopath".

Get your facts, if not your lies, straight.

Re: Avatars

Here are a few I thought I'd toss out.

Richard the Lionhearted, Lawrence of Arabia, Deborah, Shakespeare, Cuchulain, Superman

Re: Avatars--my previous post

We could all choose an avatar. Schaum? Pam? Onorio? Colin? Et al?

From then on, all snide remarks, etc., would have to be avatar specific.

Gee, maybe we should invent a video game, choose avatars, and duke it out. :(

"Name-calling is never productive of dialogue. If you want to be legalistic, yes, you called Schaum a name. As for me, you merely slandered me..."

It's not slander when it's the truth, and I can prove it. And you're being awfully high-minded suddenly, for someone who regularly uses ad hominem tactics. And I can prove that, too.

Look, Farnaz, I would much rather engage in a discussion of ideas, than in this ugly back-and-forth. But it's difficult to do when others don't respond in kind.
---------------------------
Sorry, Pam, but everything I wrote was truthful, including the ganging up on me with three of your minyons. (There, are you happy? Do you really like this sort of thing? Because I don't, and use it as a strategy of last resort, which, I, too, "can prove.") There is nothing I wrote in my post that I cannot prove.

Frankly, I would suggest you try a little of the "high-mindedness" that you accuse me of. You might, then, get the exchange of ideas you say you're after.

And, in fact, there are ideas in my post, but you chose to ignore them.

When I finally posted on this in reply to Colin, I foresaw what is occurring, replete with threats of adducing evidence, pastings from previous threads, etc.

For someone who says she's after engaging ideas, you have a hard way of showing it.

You are free to have the last word on this discussion of "civility." IMHO, it's a waste of time.

If you'd like to engage on a different level, why not consider the remarks I made in my post or someone else's comments, or raise a topic yourself.

Farnaz

"Name-calling is never productive of dialogue. If you want to be legalistic, yes, you called Schaum a name. As for me, you merely slandered me..."

It's not slander when it's the truth, and I can prove it. And you're being awfully high-minded suddenly, for someone who regularly uses ad hominem tactics. And I can prove that, too.

Look, Farnaz, I would much rather engage in a discussion of ideas, than in this ugly back-and-forth. But it's difficult to do when others don't respond in kind.

Thank nongod we have peace and pause
enough to clatter keys indoors,
fixed in seats to cheat the knell
that sounds our fall to routine hell.

Like limestone worthies, carved in crypt,
upon our thrones we hide in script,
that parcels ocean, bridles breeze;
that sections boles and robs the bees.

Interred in cubes of air, we’ve slung
our sigils back as barbs have stung
through skein of wire and gaping screen,
our gazes breached with jetting spleen.

In coursing code we curse and bless
and crises into bytes compress,
to catapult through space and time
as though a phrase could fell a crime.

The sudden otherness of blood
is ruminated slow as cud,
or blazoned sharper than a star
on brows that holy spite would scar.

"Another of your revisionist, politically correct lies. No? Well, scroll down an earlier thread and look at the post in which you called me a sociopath, simply because I would prefer to save a child of my own from destruction than to save a train-car full of strangers."

I didn't call you anything. I asked you a question. And you misremember the circumstances.

You wrote:
"New movie that is coming out is based on the premise that you can get 1,000,000 immediately if you push a button. The "downside" is that if you push it, someone, somewhere, dies. My only question would be 'how many times can I push it??'"

To which I replied:
"'My only question would be 'how many times can I push it?'
Fair to characterize you as a sociopath, then?"

So who's being revisionist?

A perfectly fair question, I think, given that you'd just said you'd commit a presumably unlimited number of murders for money.

Farnaz:

"I took him on quite a few times myself."

Careful. Her revisionist myopia may be something beyond her control.

"IMHO, it's... more constructive than a condescending tone and name-calling."

You'll say this to me, but never to Schaum. I rest my case.

BTW, I didn't call you any names. And the only "name" I have called Schaum, after many abusive posts, is "pit bull." Undeserved?
--------------
Name-calling is never productive of dialogue. If you want to be legalistic, yes, you called Schaum a name. As for me, you merely slandered me, yet what I said was truthful. Further, I would have preferred not to get into this as I wrote to Colin. If you prefer that Schaum not use certain words with you, why don't you ask him not to? He, for his part, could, if he wished, as you to moderate your tone.

That said, I think that the discussion needs to be reframed. Clearly, the notion of passing a law against Islam is untenable. Schaum is not the first to have suggested something of the sort on this blog. There was another highly educated, Deb Chatterjee, very knowledgeable of the Quroan who felt that the text should be outlawed.

I took him on quite a few times myself. However, I must say that the concerns of these bloggers are not trivial. The recommendations, however, are impractical.

I would like to know what is to be said or done about the synagogue firebombings in New York, Florida, Los Angeles, Chicago, France, Germany, Venezuela, Sweden, Holland, etc.

I would like to know why it is somehow acceptable for synagogues to require police protection against Islamists, police protection and weapons dectectors!

The persecution of Jews and Christians in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan, Yemen--Oh, that's right. Soon there will be no Yemeni Jews. And there are four left in Egypt. A few left in Syria.

The arrest in the last two weeks of two terrorist cells right here in the US.

Frankly, I think that some outspoken protests on the part of Muslims worldwide would do a great deal to assuage fears.

Meanwhile, the worry is minarets. Hard for me to follow the priorities here.

Yes, Daniel ITLD, I’m still here. Thanks for your response. What you describe sounds like personal optimism. You generally feel good about life, despite your own bad experiences and the bad things you’ve seen happening to others. You have a positive outlook and call that “indifferent benevolence.” Is that right?

One more question – If you were responding to a survey and there was a question, “do you believe in God?" and your choices were yes, no or not sure – how would you respond?

I promise not to question you about your response.

Politically Correct Pam:

"He thinks I deserved the vitriol, yet all I did was disagree with him. Not allowed?"

Another of your revisionist, politically correct lies. No? Well, scroll down an earlier thread and look at the post in which you called me a sociopath, simply because I would prefer to save a child of my own from destruction than to save a train-car full of strangers.

Your problem, PCP, is that you can dish it out but you can't take it without whining and revising the truth to suit your agenda.

You are tedious.

"IMHO, it's... more constructive than a condescending tone and name-calling."

You'll say this to me, but never to Schaum. I rest my case.

BTW, I didn't call you any names. And the only "name" I have called Schaum, after many abusive posts, is "pit bull." Undeserved?

He thinks I deserved the vitriol, yet all I did was disagree with him. Not allowed?

How about weighing in, Farnaz - do you agree that the US should pass a law against Islam?

Politically Correct Pam:

"Reading comprehension skills slipping a tad, Schaum?"

Did you get that impression PCP? Then it must be another Great Truth which you can incorporate into your next Great Teaching.

"And popular vote/majority rule is a democratic process."

Right, but it's not a democracy. Reading comprehension skills slipping a tad, Schaum?

The following is worth reading. Kept almost out of sight on OnFaith's menu, oddly. More hope than cause for it, except, perhaps, in the case of Abdulrrahman Wahid, former president of Indonesia, who has a history of advocating secularism and tolerance. See also, my reply.

Jewish and Muslim Profiles in Courage

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2009/12/jewish_and_muslim_profiles_in_courage.html

Schaum

Re: Language of the Yemeni Jews

The speak Arabic and Temani:

"The Yemenite Hebrew language or Temani Hebrew language is a descendant of Biblical Hebrew traditionally used by Yemenite Jews. It is believed by some scholars that its phonology was heavily influenced by Yemeni-spoken Arabic. Yet, according to other scholars as well as Yemenite Jewish Rabbis such as Rabbi Yosef Qafah the Temani Hebrew dialect was not influenced by Yemenite Arabic, as this type of Arabic was also spoken by Yemenite Jews and is distinct from the liturgical Hebrew and the coversational Hebrew of the communities."

Farnaz:

"They do not speak English or contemporary Hebrew"

They continue to speak biblical Hebrew?

Schaum

Re: Yemeni Jews

The departure of the Jews in Yemen was, in part, sparked by the murder of Rabbi Al-Nahari, thirty-one (31) years old. His murderer, an army officer, bragged about the killing. After an outcry from the Yemeni Jews, the murderer was arrested, deemed mentally unstable, fined, and released. His "mental instability" did not result in loss of his post.

The outcry continued from the villages in which the Jews lived. They demanded justice for the rabbi. He was tried and sentenced to death for the murder.

In the meantime the threats by Islamist gang militias continued. They were threatened. Gunmen screaming "convert or die" said they would kidnap and kill them if they didn't convert or leave.

I was incorrect about the numbers pre-exodus some decades ago. There were originally an estimated 60,000.

The Yemeni Jews have never been known for timidity as their protests against the light sentencing of the rabbi's murderer showed. Most of them are families with children, some very young. They have demanded compensation for their property!
Good for them! However, I don't think they have gotten it.

Thus far an estimated 50-to-60 have been deported in "clandestine" operations, some to Israel, some to the US. There is a community of Orthodox Jews in Upstate New York whose practice has some parallels with the Yemeni Jews. They are Satmar Hasidim, and it is they who initially sounded the alarm throughout the Jewish community on the immediate danger to the Yemeni Jews. They have opened their homes to the refugees.

These Yemeni are villagers, who, before this crisis, had been scattered in disparate villages, following earlier crises. They do not speak English or contemporary Hebrew. They have never been in a huge metropolis.

The young wife of the young rabbi refuses to leave until her husband's murderer is executed.

There are numerous books and articles on their culture and civilization. Here is a Wikipedia link. I'll see what else looks informative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemenite_Jews

Islam, known for denying for others the same tolerance it demands for itself, has carried out 14,479 deadly acts of terror since 9/11.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Farnaz:

The link you provided on the Jews of Yemin and their fate has piqued my interest. Any links to follow which will describe the uniqueness of those Jews, to which you refer?

Colin,

RE: MY early post to you. Case in point. Case made. Pamsm had thtree options: to ignore my comments, which would have been the wisest path, to deal with their substance, or to dismiss their merits and attack. She chose the third option.

In fact, as I point out, her tone with Schaum was provocative. Tone isn't always as easy to detect as labeling, but it is as much an obstacle to dialogue.

In her comments to you about me, Pam heads straight for name-calling. To use Pam's word, "Disappointing."

At all events, this is precisely the sort of thing I'd hoped to avoid. Even with the best of intentions, which I know you have, one cannot win in this sort of thing, not for anyone.

"Appealing to Farnaz was never going to work. Schaum is the pit bull that she calls in to savage whomever disagrees with her - she'll never say a word against him. Wouldn't want him turning to bite the hand that feeds him - as pits often do.

Angry" and "passionate?" No, he's rude and ugly. There's a difference."

Hmmm...."Rude and ugly." As I reread Pamsm's post, I wonder if there isn't a bit of projection here.

And there sure has been whining, has there not. If Pam objects to specific words on Schaum's part, she could ask him to forgo them. IMHO, it's worth a try and is more constructive than a condescending tone and name-calling.
-------------------
But, now, Colin, we must get back to the earth-shattering topic of minarets, while the remnants of the Jews of Yemen, an ancient civilization, await deportation, due to Islamist extremism.

Farnaz

DITLD:

"You said that Islam does not change or accomodate to change.

But people do."

Almost never, except at the point of a gun. And in discussing Islam, we are discussing an ideology cum religion, NOT people.

PCP:

"Colin,
Again, thanks for your support."

Aw, cum'on! I support you, PCP! I wouldn't for a moment deny, or interfere with, your right to rant as much as you want. Your Great Teachings are high entertainment. I would sorely miss them. Keep em coming!

DITLD:

"there was a very strong campaign urging people to approve this "anti-Islam" measure."

Right off the bat you are off on the wrong foot. There was/is no attempt to remove Islam/Muslims from Switzerland. This was not an "anti-Islam" measure.

Dear Susan and anybody, or everybody else,

I would like to take a look at all of this from a more pragmatic point of view, and forget about what is moral or what is right or what is good and proper, for the sake of this argument.

There was a referendum in Switzerland to ban minarets. So I understand, there was a very strong campaign urging people to approve this "anti-Islam" measure. Was there a strong campaingn to oppose the ban? I do not think there was. That would have been the responsibility of the Moslems who live in Switzerland, and of Moslems who live elsewhere.

When the cartoons of Mohammed were published in Denmark, Moslems rioted all over the world. But they do not seem to care about this Swiss problem and their minarets. If Moslems are upset about something, it is usually obvioius, and in this case, it is not obvious.

I am opposed to the death penalty, but it is hard for me to defend individuals on death row, for the crimes they have committed. This is how I feel about Islam. Islam is not well-thought in any place where it does not dominate the culture. Why is that?

That is Islam's problem, not Europe's. That is something for Moslems to think about and try to solve. If there are anti-Islamic referenda in European countries, it is up to Moslems to counter the arguments, not with violence or threats of violence, and not by peppering their speech with plattitudes and cliches about how peaceful Islam is, but by presenting themselves as reasonable people who are not a threat and who are not religiously obsessed. It is a problem of PR. If they do not care, then that is their problem.

The President of Iran says that the holocaust never happened. But it did happen. And the same people who sought to exterminate the Jews would also exterminate the Moslems. The President of Iran should stick that in his pipe and smoke it.

Schaum

You said that Islam does not change or accomodate to change.

But people do.

Schaum

Why do you call me clueless?

You understood what I meant, didn't you?

Public proclamations from an entrenched hysterical government is not what I was referring to.

Protesters being shot in the street was my point.

PCP:

"Well, far be it from me to deprive you. Like the US, Switzerland is a federal republic, not a democracy."

And popular vote/majority rule is a democratic process. No wonder Mary Cunningham has such an easy time blowing you out of the water.

Curious: what were you doing int he Middle East? Being fitted for burkas?

Politically Correct Pam:

""Angry" and "passionate?" No, he's rude and ugly. There's a difference."

Ummmm...I guess the midol isn't working.

Colin,
Again, thanks for your support.

Appealing to Farnaz was never going to work. Schaum is the pit bull that she calls in to savage whomever disagrees with her - she'll never say a word against him. Wouldn't want him turning to bite the hand that feeds him - as pits often do.

"Angry" and "passionate?" No, he's rude and ugly. There's a difference.

"I think that is what happens in a democracy: the majority rules.
Oh, non-god...I can just feel another Great Teaching coming from PCP, on the True Nature of Democracy!"

Well, far be it from me to deprive you. Like the US, Switzerland is a federal republic, not a democracy.

Farnaz,

Thanks for your remarks, You make a lot of sense.
But Don Quixote beckons. Talk to you later.

Consider the word "ideology." A certain discourse, or groups of discourses, develop to privilege this or that minority. These discourses, in our case, also serve fabulously powerful interests such as British Petroleum, which has gotten away with murder (literally) on US soil.

NONE of this is to say that we should not be concerned about discrimination against Muslims, of course. But a minaret is not a person. It is not the three hundred fifty Yemeni Jews facing exodus from a land in which they've dwelled for three thousand years. Not long ago there were fifty thousand Yemeni Jews.

How is it that we here nothing of these Yemeni Jews upon whom I posted below? They are the last of a three-thousand-year old civilization! With their deportation it will END. Just as the Egyptian Jewish culture died out. Just as Jewish culture all over the Middle East died out with ethnic cleansing. And of the Turkish Jews and Christians? The Egyptian Christians? (Egypt is all but Juedenrein now.) The Iraqi Christians (Iraq is all but Judenrein now.)

The firebombings of synagogues in French, Turkish, Sweden, Holland, Venezuela?

And closer to home: the synagogue attacks in Chicago, Florida, Los Angeles, New York City?

The outcry from Muslims in the media? Ah, from ANYONE in the media?

farnaz,
the proper term is "judeochrislamic".
--------------------
That BECAME the interim proper term, after Onofrio objected to "jucrhislamic." However, in the end we decided--all of us--to leave two of the religions' names alone. We, including you, came up with a wealth of alternatives for Christianity, but I can't recall what we left off with, can you?

(I recall we considered the Resurrectionists, the New Testifiers, but that's about it.)

At any rate, time to move on. There is a minaret crisis.

farnaz,
the proper term is "judeochrislamic".

DITLD:

"And they have made this psychological conversion from traditional Islam all on their own."

You imagine that the public assertion that Israel should be wiped of the map is some kind of conversion from traditional Islam???

Farnaz:

"As for minarets, they offend the Swiss aesthetic sensibilities. "

I agree with your earlier posting: why, when people are exterminating each other for ethinc/racial/religious reasons, is WAPO bothering with superfluous discussions about architecture. The Swiss majority don't want minarets, so the voted them down. I think that is what happens in a democracy: the majority rules.

Oh, non-god...I can just feel another Great Teaching coming from PCP, on the True Nature of Democracy!

DITLD:

"Islam cannot migrate, unchanged, to Europe. In a free Europe I am sure, very sure, that Islamic estrogen will more than counter-balance Islamic testosterone."

Upon what, aside from more magical and wishful thinking, do you base this anticipation of yours? You seem to think islam changes and accommodates. You are wrong.

Hi Colin,

Thanks for the reply. No need to apologise--please! I know you are well intentioned. The dynamics of disputes and spats are not always easy to see. One person may offend with words, another with tone--Do you see?

You've made Schaum aware that you have objections to some of his language. I don't want to turn this into anything more than it is, but tone does count:

"And Schaum, I'm disappointed in you. It doesn't matter what the religion "calls for" - we have secular laws in this country that religion may not supersede."

When you begin this way, admonishing the erring, you have already accelerated. I've been subject to much the same with a group of three that at one point included Pam. Why? I objected to the privileging of one sacred text over another. I also took exception to one blogger's offensive language, one of the "gang of three," and to his use of "juchrislamic."

When I tried to exit the thread, having been asked to do so, I was pursued! By Pam and another blogger! I think that sometimes Pam just enjoys arguing.

Still, I enjoy Pam's posts, for the most part, think she has a good mind, and would prefer not to be writing of this with her absent from the thread.

Again, Schaum, I've had to deal with months and months of ugliness, Colin. Transparent ugliness. Schaum was one of two who could readily detect what it was.

He's okay in my book, even if he gets a bit testy from time to time. His offensive rhetoric, in the present case, may be more SALIENT than his interlocutor's. That doesn't make it any more detrimental to the discussion.

As for minarets, they offend the Swiss aesthetic sensibilities. The Swiss are having a difficult problem with multiculturalism. I regret the whole referendum affair; it is divisive.

However, I find it ironic that there was no media cry of the heart when these same people refused again and again to return the money they'd stolen from Holocaust victims. They only agreed when New York City, and then New York State declared that all business with the Swiss would end if they didn't address the matter. Can you believe it. They still got away with millions.

And then there are the few remaining Yemeni Jews about to be deported forever. Ending a three thousand year old civilization. See my posts, below.

And we are enthralled by minarets.

The biggest problem for Islam, and what has been driving the unrest in Iran, is Islamic cultural mistreatment of women.

Islam cannot migrate, unchanged, to Europe. In a free Europe I am sure, very sure, that Islamic estrogen will more than counter-balance Islamic testosterone.

Colinnicholas:

"But I felt Schaum needed to know how his persistent name calling came across to me, "

Interesting. I apologize. I certainly did not mean to leave you with the impression that your opinion was of value to me.

Schaum

That was my point, that Islam cannot co-exist with any outside influence, and remain unchnanged.

FOR EXAMPLE (if you need an example):

Iran.

While it is true, that Iran is currently ruled by a conservative Islamic government, it is teetering on the brink of social upheavel, due to the fact that millions of Iranians have simply turned their backs on traditional Islamic culture.

This is millions of people, who are not going away, and who are not changing their minds, even though for now, they are being forced into silence; but it an unhappy silence of smoldering resentment.

And they have made this psychological conversion from traditional Islam all on their own.

Hi Farnaz;

You make some good points as usual. However, it's not about Pam being able to look after herself. I know she can, and is why I hesitated before jumping in. I knew she might regard it as an insult; as if I thought she was just a child. But I felt Schaum needed to know how his persistent name calling came across to me, another - and a not unfriendly - commenter.
And it's not about gang warfare. That's outrageous. It's about feedback. It's about letting others know how you feel about what's happening. I felt his name calling was kinda ugly and unjustified.
Maybe it's the social worker in me. I used to run therapy groups, Daily Intensive. That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.

Please note. Pam felt better for my intervention. So it did some good. But pulling you into it was a mistake.

My apologies.

DITLD:

"To me, Christianity and Islam are mirrors of each other. God mirrors Allah; the Bible mirrors the Koran; churches mirror mosques; steeples mirror minarets; Jesus mirrors Mohammed."

Don't know a lot about history, do you. There has NEVER been a mirror of christianity -- or anything else -- in islam. Your magical thinking is that islam can/will peacefully coexist with christianity and judaism, and other religions/atheism. You just don't have the first clue. It CAN'T coexist! That is what islam is all about. Absolute control/rule/supremacy/suppression of anything that is non-islamic -- which means demonic.

In a very short while, Yemen will be officially Judenrein. Coming under increasing attack from violent Islamist gangs, Yemen's 350 remaining Jews are under heavy guard, prior to departure. These Yemeni Jews practice a unique form of Judaism, which will soon be lost to our culture.

They, like all Middle Eastern Jews, have been in the Middle East since long before Mohamed set foot upon the earth. The Jewish presence in Yemen dates back to the Solomonic era--3,000 years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/24/AR2009112403898.html

I think that the plight of living human beings is a little more important than architecture. The murders of Jews in Yemen, however, is not of interest to OnFaith. WaPo bid them a hurried fairwell. Where is the outcry? The protests?

Synagogues have been firebombed in Florida, France, Sweden, etc., for months, and where is OnFaith.

Jews are unsafe in the streets of Europe. Will, it, too, soon be Judenrein like the MIddle East?

Where is the outcry from Muslims?

I understand Schaum's point of view.

HOWEVER, alot of stuff is beyond our control. Historical trends happen, without anyone making them happen, and that no one can stop.

I am not exactly sure how the power of Islam operates and is exerted. There does not seem to be any kind of central authority. It is really more of a psychological or emotienal coercive authority that the "Priestly Class" seeks to impose on individuals, rather successfully.

This kind of power depends on a closed society to work. In an open, plural society, it looses its hold over people.

To me, Christianity and Islam are mirrors of each other. God mirrors Allah; the Bible mirrors the Koran; churches mirror mosques; steeples mirror minarets; Jesus mirrors Mohammed.

I know that Christians and Molsems will scream bloody murder at how simplistic I am to say such a thing; but I am right; these two religions are not just siblings, they are almost twins.

The only difference, is that historically, they are out of sync, by about 700 years. If you take a look at Christianity 700 years ago, there is not much that you can say about Islam now, that would not also have been true of Christianity, then.

My hope and my belief, which I hold to pretty firmly, is that Islam will change a great deal over the next few generations, as it collides with modernity and collapses; there is really nothing that can stop this from happening.

Hi Colin,

Doesn't this bother you? Why do you not say something? Or is it none of your business?
----------------------------------

Colin, there is a list of persons who have called me names. Some of these people, eg., CCNL1, were endlessly persistent, going on for months and months on end. Others less persistent. You might find the names of one or two of them on this thread. Being a J and insisting on the right to identity is not easy.

I defended myself. After quite awhile, Schaum and Onofrio cane on board, and they fully comprehended politics of what had been occurring. I was glad of it, since if they had not, I would have thought we were back in the 1950s. ONce, you chimed in, after having been absent for a long time. I was glad to see you.

Schaum is angry, I see that. However, he has seen things which we have not. In Asia and the MIddle East, my comings and goings have always been guarded. And I never was in Saudi Arabia.

My own politics are left of center, but I eschew dogma. I understand that at times, blind adherence to doctrine cam make others crazy. It can also prove fatal. Schaum has posted on what he has seen. No one has engaged him on it. This is a topic on which he feels passionate....

I respect Schaum's thinking, intellect.
I'm not afraid of Schaum's attacking me from a "sexist" perspective. LOL! Two can play....

I think, at this point, Pam can take care of herself. I think that gang warfare will prove fatal to this discussion.

I wonder what Daniel Redmond and ShlomoFisher and Mindy McMicrosoft think.

تمتص الأعضاء التناسلية للذكور الخنازير ، في حين سخيف والدته. والده الملاعين الإبل.yasseryousufi

yasseryousufi,
our thread
( http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2009/11/what_the_islamists_and_islamaphobes_dont_want_you_to_know.html ) ran out before you could comment. if you would like to continue we could do it here or at another thread?

Efavorite;

I can hardly wait for you to respond to Ditld. I had to restrain myself from doing it for you. I'm very good at restraining myself, even under the most trying conditions. Besides, I have one more hour on this computer before 'she who must be obeyed' takes over, and I have to go read a book or something.

Regards

Farnaz1Mansouri1, my uncle Bennie.

Radical Islam: Terror in Its Own Words

Part-4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYWu2v_FY_4
Part-5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBgT35YO5dQ

Radical Islam: Terror in Its Own Words

Part-3a http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYASn6oXkUc
Part-3b http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCTTAR_IeBA

Radical Islam: Terror in Its Own Words

Part-2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCUlslaXSzk

Radical Islam: Terror in Its Own Words
Part-1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXFYH5ckDKQ

Well, I've finally completed my Christmas shopping. Books for my grand-children, even the toddlers. The parents buy the toys, I buy the books.
It doesn't get to be fun until they're older and can enjoy books like "Catcher in The Rye", or "Catch 22", or the magnificent "Persepolis" by Marjane Satrapi. I bought the latter for my teen grandaughter a few years ago, and she still talks about it. I like it when they want to discuss what they've read. Unfortunately it doesn't happen often enough, but it does happen sometimes, and brings me great joy.
"The Hitchikers Guide to The Galaxy" was another hit with my 17 year old grandson a year or two back. I see that somebody has written a part six to this series, since Douglas Adams died several years ago. I'll check the library copy before actually buying it for anyone.

Efavorite

Are you still following this thread?

I do not have any good justiciation for regarding "Providence" as "benevolent" or as "good;" only that at times, I personally feel very well and very good, and all things seem good and right, and in those moments, it seems that the world is under the influence of a benevolent Providence.

But of cource, there are all of the contrasting experiences against which we measure good and feel good and understand good, all that is bad, that we call call evil, all of the suffering of humanity.

I sometimes think, everything good in the world is worth all that is bad. For the happiness that some of get to expereince, it is worth the sadness. Other times, I am not so sure, and think, it would be better if the world did not exist, and none of us had ever been born, to suffer as we do.

But whatever I think, whatever my mood, that it irrelevant to the fact that I am here; I am compelled to exist against any choice or free will that I may think that I have.

Overall, my personal experiences and feelings in life are good.

"and see no way to avoid a war in the Middle East, eventually involving all of us."

You are not only barking up the wrong tree, you're in the wrong forest. The war in the Middle East is not the issue. I am concerned about the war that is already started in the US.

While looking for something else completely, I stumbled upon
the following video on YouTube of Carl Gustav Jung talking about
death. I didn't even realize that he was still alive in the days of television! Apparently the tail end of his life overlapped with the beginning of the TV era:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOxlZm2AU4o

I love how, when the interviewer asks him, "do you 'believe' xxx",
he replied "I have a problem with the word 'believe'. If I know
something, then I have no need to 'believe' it, because I know it.
And if I do not know it, then I do not believe it, because I refuse
to 'believe' things just because I want to".
The quintessential INTJ!

Colinnicholas:

I am not in the habit of saying or doing things for which I think I need to apologize. I am no more impressed by your political correctness than I am by Politically Correct Pam's.

By the way, you would not be allowed to build a minaret in Washington, DC either. No private building is allowed to he higher than the Capital Dome. We put it in law, the Swiss vote on it. Same result!

Schaum;

You say, "I tend to ridicule what I find ridiculous, and expose what I consider to be fraudulent and dangerous. And, frankly, I think the West is in substantial danger from which it is taking no action to protect itself".

So do I Schaum. I'm very concerned about how the future will play out. I am very pessimistic, and see no way to avoid a war in the Middle East, eventually involving all of us. And yes, I will do my share of disagreeing and arguing and may sometimes insult folks in the heat of battle.
I have great respect for Farnaz, and would not wish to insult her. Maybe I'd like to give her a wake up call - to at least comment when she sees another woman being attacked with cracks about Midol and Jack Daniels etc.just for disagreeing with you.

Farnaz. I apologise if I insulted you. I retract my remark "Or don't you think?" I know only too well that you DO think. Schaum was right to call me on it.

Wouldn't it be fine if Schaum could do the same with Pam? Just apologize and move on. It's easy if you try.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18224475.900-the-making-of-a-suicide-bomber.html

I can do no better than to quote YOU, Colin: “I show up here is to say my piece - one way or another - and hopefully influence someone somewhere. “

I tend to ridicule what I find ridiculous, and expose what I consider to be fraudulent and dangerous. And, frankly, I think the West is in substantial danger from which it is taking no action to protect itself. I’m not overwhelmed with concern about whether I annoy sacred cows. Its an INTJ thing.

"Or do you think?" Correct me if I'm wrong...didn't you just insult Farnaz?

You are an old hypocrite.

Please look around at the six reported "honor deaths" which have already occurred in this country. Moslems who kill their daughters or wives because they mildly displease them. The Ft.Hood massacre should have been a wake-up call, but WAPO didn't hear it. Here comes this article criticizing a peaceful nation, Switzerland, which is only trying to protect their population from barbarians. Too bad our leaders don't act responsibly and protect our population. Instead, we get political correctness.

Farnaz;

What's your take on Schaum's name calling and abuse of Pam?

If you say something he doesn't approve of - you might be the next one to be slandered and mocked by the great man.

Doesn't this bother you? Why do you not say something? Or is it none of your business?
I think Schaum is behaving like an angry child. He should have the maturity to let it go, don't you think?

Or don't you think?

Schaum.
You might be mature intellectually, but emotionally you're still in diapers. Do us all a favor; grow up.

Politically Correct Pam:

“I was merely pointing out that in Islamic countries, where you think the people are so lethal, I managed to survive - in fact, there was no trick to it - no one threatened me.”

Praise Allah!!! Politically Correct Pam has given us the Third Great Teaching: If It Doesn’t Happen to Politically Correct Pam, It Doesn’t Happen To Anyone. Without a doubt the persecution of non-Muslims, to say nothing of the assorted cruelties to women -- wives, and daughters -- in Islamic countries are all myths and lies. Thanks be to PCP for opening our eyes to this profound deception!!!

From this Third Great Teaching we are able to infer the corollary Fourth Great Teaching: What is Good For Politically Correct Pam Is Good For The Universe. Blessed be the name of Allah! What a wonderful day of Enlightment for all! Two new Great Teachings!

THE DILEMMA
a play in one act by David Dyer

dramatis personae:

TRIXIE: a housewife from New Jersey
YASMEEN: a housewife from Tehran

Act 1, Scene 1: Trixie and Yasmeen sit next to each other on a plane flight from London to NY. Trixie looks grim, and after the plane takes off, she starts to cry softly.

YASMEEN: Excuse me, but I see that you are crying. Is there something I can do?
TRIXIE: Maybe if I had someone to talk to......... I just don't know what to do!
YASMEEN: I will help if I can. Tell me what is wrong?
TRIXIE: It's my daughter, Janet. She was on a school trip to London. She's a junior in college, studying nursing. She...she... went to a bar with her friends. She met a boy there, and....well... he raped her!
YASMEEN: Oh, no!
TRIXIE: They caught him. He's in jail now. But it's Janet! I don't know what to do. She won't talk about it, but I can tell that its affected her deeply. I can't just sit and watch her fall to pieces, I need to do something, but ....what?
YASMEEN: Well, the answer is really simple, praise Allah!
TRIXIE: It is?
YASMEEN: Yes, very simple. You'll have to kill her. That's the only thing to do. Honor demands it.
TRIXIE: Did you say, kill her? Kill Janet?
YASMEEN: It's a tragedy this happened, but think what will happen if the honor of your family is stained! Your neighbors will shun you! You won't be allowed to worship in the Mosque, and, worst of all, Allah will be angered.
TRIXIE: Allah will...... Errrr, ahhh, actually, I was thinking more along the lines of therapy, you know, help her with her trauma? That sort of thing.
YASMEEN: You Westerners, you have no idea about honor. I remember telling my oldest son Amir, as I strapped the explosives around his waist before sending him out to become a martyr, "Amir, your family is proud of you! You will bring great honor to us with this act of heroism!".
TRIXIE: You strapped explosives around your son and sent him out to murder and die? How could you do that? You're a mother! Don't you love your children??! I could never kill my own daughter, or send my son out the door to commit suicide, smiling and waving at him!
YASMEEN: (Smiling) And that is why Islam will, one day soon, conquer all peoples, praise Allah.

As a dual national Swiss-American living in the USA, who voted in this initiative after giving it careful thought, I believe I have something to say to my fellow Americans who may find this decision by the Swiss people puzzling. For me, my vote in favor of the initiative was about preserving culture -- NOT religious intolerance. Muslims remain free to worship as they wish. Switzerland is a very small country, maybe a little bigger than Massachusetts with a population of 7 million people. It has distinctive cultures that have been around for hundreds of years. If it were to become a melting pot like America, in a generation or two there would be no Switzerland.

Susan Jacoby says:

"Some Swiss officials were actually denying that the vote represented widespread anti-Muslim sentiment. I guess too much mountain-climbing in rarified air can bring on reality deficit disorder."

To which I have to reply to her: Pot is calling the kettle black. Don't self-righteously project your values on another country without really understanding its culture and ways of thinking. This vote was ultimately a domestic issue that caught the attention of the world. The Swiss should be able to live however they wish, and they have a very good history of minding their own business.

ShlomoFisher, my Aunt Tillie.

Daniel Redmond:

"So everyone who thinks Tel Aviv is safe is making a grave mistake."

So whats the problem? Just make laws forbidding murder and mayhem, and the overthrow of the government. Thats all you need. We are assured of this by Politically Correct Pam, who has given us the Great Teaching about the protections that laws provide for us. Just hang in there. Everything will be blue skies and bright sunshine for Israel. PCP assures of of this.

Schlomo Fisher:

"These evil people exploit the freedoms given to them here in America and other democracies when their goal is to extinguish ALL freedom!"

Not to worry, guy. Politically Correct Pam has given us the Great Teaching that assures us we are protected by our laws. (Well, maybe not in Manhattan or Fort Hood...) You have nothing to fear. Calm yourself.

Colinnicholas:

Politically Correct Pam’s exact words were:

“but Baby, I'm the voice of sweet reason compared to you. You are fair frothing at the mouth.”

Frothing, foaming…tomato, tomahto…

Perhaps if she took a few midol and opened a bottle of Jack Daniel’s she’d be able to control her hysteria and give us some more of her Great Teachings.

She no longer respects my mind. What a crushing blow, coming from a chronic hysteric!

Hi Pam;

I think religion has to go eventually. We are becoming educated beyond the need for superstition. I guess I'm relying on the increasing flow of knowledge along the information highway to spread the good news eventually, that gods are mythical and all living things die.
The reason I show up here is to say my piece - one way or another - and hopefully influence someone somewhere. It also acts as a kind of release.

I think non-believers should stick together to some extent. We should save the venom for the weirdly religious. You are obviously a very smart woman, and I've learned a lot from your posts. I even googled Mr Deity after you'd asked EFavorite about it. It wss hilarious wasn't it?
Keep smiling Pam. You're special.

"With all due respect Schaum I don't hear Pam say half the things you accuse her of. And why call her names? She's trying to dialogue with you but you think it's a wrestling match."

Thank you, Colin. I'm glad to know there's at least one reasonable person left here. I agree with you that all religion needs to go, but outlawing it isn't the way to accomplish that.

Schaum zwischen den ohren,

"Actually, Colinnicholas, PCP set herself up as The Authority by stating that she was the voice of reason, and that by disagreeing with her I was 'foaming'...."

Actually, I said neither of those things, but you're too busy screaming to hear.

I said a couple of threads ago that I thought you had a good mind - I'm retracting that.

Tell me, Schaum, how would your outlawing of Islam in the US work, exactly? It's impossible, after all, to legislate thoughts and beliefs out of existence. You can raze the mosques, but you can't stop people from dialoguing online (this is how Hasan developed his ideas, after all), or meeting in their homes or in rented halls. And when people feel persecuted, their hatred grows.

Would your law include deportation of Muslims? How would you determine who they were? There are, after all, many native born converts - some with the lovely yellow hair and blue eyes of the true Aryans. And what about all those, like Hasan, who are native-born?

And after the pogrom, what happens when congress, representing "we the people," with its new-found powers to outlaw beliefs, decides to round up the atheists? After all, its the majority who votes them in, and the majority doesn't much care for non-believers. Or anything other than Christians, for that matter. Let's get rid of all the others and truly make this the Christian country that all the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells have always said it was. But Catholics can go...

And then, what if they decide that unholy "lifestyles" should go next? Good thing you're getting out to Germany. Hope you don't ever want to come back.

ShlomoFisher;

Maybe non-Muslims everywhere should open their windows, or go out into the streets and join hands and join voices and altogether shout "We're as mad as Hell and we are not going to take it anymore".

Let's take off our clothes and get serious about out-populating Muslims. Let's make babies, lots and lots of babies, big babies little babies girl babies and boy babies, babies babies babies and more babies.

If we tried really hard we could do it. We could have a hundred times more babies that those Muslims ever dreamed possible.
If we want to out number them, we have to get serious about it.

I'm going to do my bit, I'm gonna roll up my sleeves and make a baby right now. And you should too. We gotta win this thing.

Every year huge numbers of Arabs/Muslims from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Kuwaitis, Syria, Egypt, Albania and dozens of other ethnic Muslim states who hate America swarm into the United States and add to the already increasing numbers of Arab/Muslim. And every year hundreds of mosques, which preach the extermination of all non-Muslims and the Islamization of America, are being added to the thousands already pointing their minarets skyward. Militant Islam is rapidly spreading its tentacles across America. One of the few Islamic moderates in this country, Muhammad Hisham Kabbani of the Islamic Supreme Council of America, estimated that "extremists" have taken over 80% of the mosques in the US, nearly all funded by Saudi Arabia. These extremists are working single-mindedly to turn America into an Islamic state, with the Koran as its foundation.

Many mosques, "Islamic Learning Centers" and Arab/Muslim Student Unions are distributing large numbers of pamphlets and leaflets attacking Judaism, Christianity and other non-Muslim religions and urging young Americans (esp. angry black Americans) to convert to Islam! Not surprisingly, a large number of African-Americans convert to Islam while in the prison systems! The National Islamic Prison Foundation, which coordinates a campaign to convert inmates to Islam claim an average of 135,000 such conversions per year.

These evil people exploit the freedoms given to them here in America and other democracies when their goal is to extinguish ALL freedom!

WAKE UP AMERICA!!! The threat is real and expanding!

France is faring no better. In 1945, there were 100,000 Muslims in France. A fifty fold increase since then now has them numbering 7 million out of a total population of 60 million! Muslims are already 25% of all French under the age of 21. If present birth trends continue, by 2030 a quarter of France's people will be Muslim, more than enough to determine who controls the national parliament and executive. The nuclear-armed French military is already 15 percent Muslim. And if the French-Muslim birth rate continues as projected, France will have a Muslim majority in less than 25 years! Another telling statistic is that although the Muslims are 12% of France's population, 70 percent of a total of 60,775 prisoners in France are Muslims! All of France's urban suburbs are being roamed by Muslim black African or Arabic gangs. One-fifth of all births in France are Muslims! Mohammed is one of the most common names next to Pierre! And Paris has the largest Arab community outside of the Middle East! This is a result of a lenient immigration policy, high Muslim birthrate and conversions. A very high proportion of French Muslims are in the underclass, that segment of the population that relies not so much on education and work as on welfare and predatory activities. In fact, over one thousand Muslim neighborhoods are under monitoring throughout France. Seven hundred of those Muslim neighborhoods are listed as "violent" and nearly 400 hundred are listed as "very violent." Violence ranges from rape (95% of rapists are Muslim), murder (85% of murderers are Muslim), theft and looting of cars (58% committed by Muslims) and street fighting to assault on teachers and civil servants.

In 1970 there were an estimated one-hundred thousand Muslims in the United States. Today, a mere 34 years later, the number is approximately 7-10 million! More than a quarter of a million people of Arab descent live in southeastern Michigan, making the area the second-largest Arab community outside the Middle East (after Paris, France). One frightening example of their prolific growth in American is Dearborn, Michigan. Of a total population of 90,000 Dearborn residents, 25,000 are now Arabs! And of all the Dearborn children under the age of 18, a full 58% are Arab children! Other developing centers of Arab/Muslim growth are Florida, Texas, New Jersey and California. God Bless America!

Sweden: Cold temperatures have not discouraged Muslim immigration. One out of every 22 Swedes are now Muslims and Islam is the nation's second largest religion. Farewell to the blue-eye, blonde hair Swedish beauties! Of the nearly 9 million people in Sweden, 400,000 are Muslim, leading to a drastic increase in anti-Semitic acts against Sweden's 17,000 Jews.

In Holland [The Netherlands], because of its total lack of anti-terrorism laws and its very high level of religious, cultural and judicial tolerance, Muslim-fundamentalist terrorist groups are allowed to thrive. The Muslims now number about 15% of the population. In 20 years' time the majority of Holland's under 18 year old children will be Muslim. In fact, 50 per cent of the newborns during the next twenty years will be Muslim! In Amsterdam, the most popular name for a newborn boy is Mohammed, and a majority of residents will be Muslim within 10 to 15 years. A finger in the dike won't work this time, folks!

Two million Muslims have soaked into Germany; one million into Italy; 200,000 in Spain; 500,000 in Belgium...1/10th its entire population and 1/4 of Brussels, its capitol city. Half of all babies born in Belgium are now Muslims! In total, 11,000,000 Muslims have saturated Western Europe! It now becomes clear just who is organizing and marching in Europe's anti-Israel and anti-American demonstrations!

In Italy, 95% of all rapists are Muslims. Eighty-five percent of all murderers are Muslims. Ah, such a wonderful religion of peace! What does the Pope and the rest of the Vatican Church have to say about this? Nothing! And what will the ordinary Italian say when, in ten years, Muslims will be the majority in Italy!!!

Even non-Muslim Christians under Palestinian-controlled areas ["West Bank" and Gaza] are not faring so well. Bethlehem was 70 percent Christian in the 1970s. Today it is close to 70 percent Muslim. The growing Islamization of Palestinian society makes Christians very uncomfortable. The size of the Christian Arab community in the West Bank may have fallen as low as 10,000, a drop of 50 percent since the mid-1990s.

Two of Europe's most legally tolerant regions...namely, the Dutch-language areas around Europe's most important west coast harbors, Antwerp [Belgium] and Rotterdam [Netherlands]... as the main breeding ground for Muslim-fundamentalist terrorist groups. Osama bin Laden 's organization even runs shipping companies as fronts from Amsterdam.

Something rotten in Denmark? How about the 200,000 Muslim immigrants trying to dictate their anti-Israel, anti-America and anti-Western values upon 5 million Danes? Even though they represent only 4% of the population, the Muslims consume upwards of 40 percent of welfare spending. They also account for 65-75% of the country's convicted rapists... with almost all victims non-Muslim Danes! Demographers have predicted that in just 40 years, one out of every three Danes will be Muslim. At this point, we're sure the Danes wish it were their Jewish population which was growing faster than rabbits on a hot tin roof. Jews are almost always model citizens! But the Danish Jews only number 6,000. Click here to see Danish Muslims in action!

WAKE UP AMERICA, while there is still time!

Other examples: Algeria is wracked by bitter fighting between Islamic Fundamentalists and the military. Death toll, 100,000 over a ten year period! Nigeria is in the midst of a war in which Muslims are murdering Christians and burning down their churches. Moslems against Christians. It doesn't take much to trigger an angry mob of Muslims. The Miss Universe Pageant was held there at the end of 2002. Muslim opposition to the pageant boiled over after a local journalist wrote that the prophet Mohammed would have approved of the contest and might even have wanted to marry one of the contestants. The ensuing riots in Kaduna left 220 dead and 400 wounded. In Kenya the Islamic Party has declared Holy War on the government. In Turkey the secular Muslim government is being challenged by the militant Refah Islamic Party. A civil war rages in the Sudan between Muslims in the north against the Christians in the south. Sudan's militant Muslim regime is slaughtering Christians who refuse to convert to Islam. In recent years, more than two million Sudanese have been killed out of a population of 35 million as its government used bombings and famine in its war on its own people.

Will non-Islamic nations be forced to build a "Giant Wall" as China did to keep out the Islamicized Monguls? Will the electronically-enhanced, concrete wall the Israeli I.D.F. recently erected keep out the Arab-Palestinian terrorists?

ISLAM: "Religion of Peace?"

Ten thousand Lebanese Christians were massacred in 1860s, while over 100,000 were killed in the Lebanese civil war of 1975-1990. Thousands of women were raped. That war was provoked by Yasser Arafat's PLO. Damour was once a thriving Christian Lebanese village until 500 (primarily young boys) were massacred and its population was expelled. This sort of violence and intolerance symbolizes treatment of Christians by Muslims in the Middle East. And, instead of an international arrest warrant Arafat received a Nobel Peace Prize!

Until a nation has embraced Islam, it is legally considered a battlefield (Dar-ul-Harb). Once it has converted to Islam (or all its citizens have been slaughtered or driven out), it then becomes a Land of Peace (Dar-us-Salaam). For those who think that the threat of Islam is only a phenomenon of the Middle East, think again! Although the Jewish State of Israel has been fighting a brave and fierce battle against Islam for over 50 years, there are many other "hot spots" in the world.

For example, the supreme Taliban's hard line leader in Afghanistan, Mullah Mohammed Omar, issued an edict that Buddhist statues insulted Islam. Apparently no one clued in Mullah Mohammed Omar that Islam is an insult to humanity! In any event, within days of his edict, all Buddhist statues, including a giant 5th century Buddha at Bamiyan carved out of sandstone (see photos), were destroyed as the "civilized" world could only stand by and watch it happen.

ISLAM: "Religion of Peace?"

Unfortunately, most people aren’t aware of Islam's murderous philosophy or they find it too monstrous to believe. However, a brief review of recent history and current events should make you doubters out there re-think your position. Two articles in the L.A. Times wrote about Muslims in Indonesia forcing Christians of all denominations to convert to Islam or get their throats slit. Thousands upon thousands of Christians were first converted and, according to rigid Islamic religious dictate, forced to undergo sexual mutilation of their foreskin or clitoris (with kitchen knives and razor blades) to make them conform to Muslim standards. Then they were are enslaved to their local Muslim chieftain. This was not some aberration of Islam but rather business as usual for all but the so-called "moderate" factions. This is Islam's sad legacy of murder, terror, lies and brainwashing to advance their cause of global conversion and subjugation... their so-called "personal struggle"... THEIR "Jihad!"

ISLAM: "Religion of Peace?"

While much of the world fixates on its usual obsession... setting up Jews for a second Holocaust, Islam is also hard at work laying waste to major portions of the world and preparing to impose Islamic rule over everybody and extinguishing their respective non-Islamic civilizations.

"Are you nuts," you might ask? " After all, is not Israel their primary enemy?" But to think that all Islamic issues spring forth from the Arab-Israeli conflict and that only Israel is a target shows a naivety that only invites disaster down the road! After Islam finishes off Israel, their "Little Satan," all the other larger Satans will meet up with the Sword of Islam! America has already seen the spillover of Islamic terrorism... the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut with the loss of hundreds of U.S. marines, the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole naval ship off Yemen, the 9-11-01 World Trade Center bombing in New York, and now the murders at Ft. Hood. Yet America has received but a small taste of what Islam has in store for them!

The world "ISLAM" is Arabic for "surrender" or "submission" to the will of Allah [God]. In the language of the Holy Qur'an, Islam means the readiness of a person to take orders from God and to follow them through. It is not derived from the word, "peace," as Muslims would have us believe! Look it up in any dictionary and see for yourself! Seeing a Muslim praying nearly flat on his face five times a day even projects the appearance of a master-slave relationship... a submission of sorts. And while the Muslim is submissive to Allah, all "non-believers" (Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Catholics, etc.) MUST submit to the Muslim. That's how THEIR God wills it to be!

ISLAM: "Religion of Peace?”

Islam is today being portrayed as a peaceful and tolerant religion. History proves otherwise! Though there were certainly periods of relative tranquility and tolerance, minorities and non-Muslims have always been prosecuted under Islam. In fact, Islamic ideology is based upon an intense hatred of the non-Muslim. For Muslims, there exist two kinds of non-Muslim enemies... kafir (non-believers in Islam) and ahl al-kitab (People of the Book). Kafir, such as Buddhists and Hindus, must either convert to Islam or face execution. People of the Book include Jews and Christians. These people need only submit to Muslim authority to avoid forced conversion or death. Although they may keep their original faith, their status becomes dhimmi (a "protected," yet inferior non-Muslim status). So instead of outright forced conversion or slaughter, the Christians and Jews would be allowed to remain somewhat unmolested as long as they acknowledged the superiority of the Muslim. However, as 100,000 dead Lebanese Christians and Israel's beleaguered Jewish population have discovered over the years, these guarantees have proved worthless!

As Europe is beginning to understand, wherever you have Islam, you will have war. It is therefore highly important to understand how a civilization sees the end of days. In Christianity and in Judaism, we know exactly what is the vision of the end of days. In Judaism, it is going to be as in Isaiah, peace between all nations, not just one nation, but between all nations. People will not have any more need for weapons and nature will be changed - a beautiful end of days and the kingdom of God on earth. Christianity goes as far as Revelation to see a day that Satan himself is obliterated. There are no more powers of evil. That's the vision. I'm speaking now as a historian. I try to understand how Islam sees the end of days. In the end of days, Islam sees a world that is totally Moslem, completely Moslem under the rule of Islam. A complete and final victory. Christians will not exist, because according to many Islamic traditions, the Moslems who are in hell will have to be replaced by somebody and they'll be replaced by the Christians. The Jews will no longer exist, because before the coming of the end of days, there is going to be a war against the Jews where all Jews should be killed. I'm quoting now from the heart of Islamic tradition, from the books that are read by every child in school. The Jews will all be killed. They'll be running away and they'll be hiding behind trees and rocks, and on that day Allah will give mouths to the rocks and trees and they will say, "Oh Moslem come here, there is a Jew behind me, kill him." Without this, the end of days cannot come. This is a fundamental of Islam.

The question which we in Israel are asking ourselves is what will happen to our country? Is there a possibility to end this dance of war? The answer is, "No. Not in the foreseeable future." What we can do is reach a situation where for a few years we may have relative quiet. But for Islam, the establishment of the state of Israel was a reverse of Islamic history. First, Islamic territory was taken away from Islam by Jews. You know by now that this can never be accepted, not even one meter. So everyone who thinks Tel Aviv is safe is making a grave mistake. Territory, which at one time was dominated by Islamic rule, now has become non-Moslem. Non-Moslems are independent of Islamic rule; Jews have created their own independent state. It is anathema to Moslems.

And (this is the worst) Israel, a non-Moslem state, is ruling over Moslems. It is unthinkable that non-Moslems should rule over Moslems. I believe that Western civilization should hold together and support each other. Whether this will happen or not, I don't know. Israel finds itself on the front lines of this war. It needs the help of its sister civilization. It needs the help of America and Europe. It needs the help of the Christian world.

Farnaz:

Interesting.
-----------------------------

Imam's e-mails to Fort Hood suspect Hasan tame compared to online rhetoric

12:00 AM CST on Sunday, November 29, 2009

By BROOKS EGERTON / The Dallas Morning News
begerton@dallasnews.com

E-mails between a U.S. Army officer and a radical Muslim cleric did not worry anti-terrorism investigators, they said, because nothing in the correspondence presaged violence. But elsewhere on the Internet, the imam was urging people to kill soldiers and others.

After accused Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan started e-mailing in December, the cleric increased the pace of his fundamentalist rhetoric on the Web, a Dallas Morning News investigation found.

"I pray that Allah destroys America and all its allies," Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born cleric with suspected ties to al-Qaeda, wrote in a February blog entry. ... "We will implement the rule of Allah on Earth by the tip of the sword whether the masses like it or not."

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-shooterimam_29pro.ART.State.Edition2.4b91281.html

I must correct one mistake I made: Hasan was not born in the Middle East -- his parents were. He was born in the US, which is additionally frightening -- another home-grown Islamist. But, not to worry. We have PCP's Great Teaching about how our laws will protect us.

Farnaz:

Sorry. Late evening trip to the airport. Christian is here for a month. Sebastian's first snowfall...midnight grocery shopping at WalMart. I wasn't ignoring you, just not at the computer.

Lieberman. Lets see...he's in what, his 4th term from CT? I guess his constituents think he's ok. I think he is a media hog, seems self-aggrandizing to me. Seems willing to stonewall health care reform while a lot of Americans are suffering.

Should he have a free-hand with this investigation? I doubt it. But I'm not sure any professional politician should be conducting this investigation. The government investigating itself doesn't seem wholly unbiased, to me -- especially if the FBI is going to be contributing evidence about its own part in this mess.

Saw a 12-year old pic of Hasan. He may be a cut-throat murdering Islamic jihadist, but he sure was a handsome one.

SCHAUM,

I posted this to you (below). What do you think of Lieberman's investigating? Do you think he should have a free hand?
--------------

Ah. Thank non-god. Lieberman is out of his coma and on the case. I feel so much safer, you know?
---------------
His hands are not exactly free, as you know. He's been warned by no less than the prez to go slow.

Slow is how the FBI went in handling the Nidal matter. Or, better put, no is how they went. They dropped the ball, big time.

Jolting Joe's not the same guy since the Big Al fiascos, but he's what we've got. Better to let the Committee investigate than leave it to the folks who scrued up to begin with, since, quite evidently, it was not their first time.

"Judaism speaks about national salvation - namely that at the end of the story, when the world becomes a better place, Israel will be in its own land, ruled by its own king and serving God"
------------------------------------------

No. It doesn't, although one might find this sort of thing on a web site or in this or that single book.

It says that the mission of those adhering to the tenets of Judaism is "Tikkun Olam," variously translated as "healing," or "redeeming" the world. The tools for redemption are provided in Tanakh and later documents. They include ending injustice and poverty. The commitment extends to all peoples, regardless of their professed faiths.

Judaism holds the Hashem (Name = deity) has a covenant with ALL peoples.

It most emphatically does not have "its own God."

Christian civilization has not only been seen as a religious opponent, but as a dam stopping Islam from achieving its final goal for which it was created. Islam was created to be the army of God, the army of Allah. Every single Moslem is a soldier in this army. Every single Moslem that dies in fighting for the spread of Islam is a shaheed (martyr) no matter how he dies, because - and this is very important - this is an eternal war between the two civilizations. It's not a war that stops. It is an eternal war that was created by Allah. Islam must be the ruler. This is a war that will not end.

The reason that we have what we have in Yugoslavia and other places is because Islam succeeded into entering these countries. Wherever you have Islam, you will have war. It grows out of the attitude of Islamic civilization. What are the poor people in the Philippines being killed for? What's happening between Pakistan and India?

Furthermore, there is another fact that must be remembered. The Islamic world has not only the attitude of open war, but there's also war by infiltration. One of the things which the western world is not paying enough attention to is the tremendous growth of Islamic power in the western world. What happened in America with the Twin Towers and Fort Hood is not something that came from the outside. And if America doesn't wake up, one day the Americans will find themselves in a chemical war and most likely in an atomic war, inside the U.S.

The essence of Islam was born with the idea that it should rule the world. Let's look, then, at the difference between the three religions. Judaism speaks about national salvation - namely that at the end of the story, when the world becomes a better place, Israel will be in its own land, ruled by its own king and serving God. Christianity speaks about the idea that every single person in the world can be saved from his sins, while Islam speaks about ruling the world. "Allah sent Mohammed with the true religion so that it should rule over all the religions." The idea, then, is not that the whole world would become a Moslem world at this time, but that the whole world would be subdued under the rule of Islam.

When the Islamic empire was established in 634 AD, within seven years, 640, the core of the empire was created. The rules that were taken from the Koran and from the tradition that was ascribed to the prophet Mohammed were translated into a real legal system. Jews and Christians could live under Islam provided they paid poll tax and accepted Islamic superiority. Of course, they must alwlays to be humiliated.

The Quoran and the laws are very clear - Jews and Christians have no rights whatsoever to independent existence. They can live under Islamic rule provided they keep to the rules that Islam promulgates for them. What happens if Jews and Christians don't want to live under the rules of Islam? Then Islam has to fight them and this fighting is called Jihad. Jihad means war against those people who don't want to accept the Islamic superior rule. That's jihad. They may be Jews; they may be Christians; they may be Polytheists. But since we don't have too many Polytheists left, at least not in the Middle East - their war is against the Jews and Christians. A few days ago, I received a pamphlet that was distributed in the world by bin Laden. He calls for jihad against America as the leader of the Christian world, not because America is the supporter of Israel, but because Americans are desecrating Arabia with their filthy feet. There are Americans in Arabia where no Christians should be. In this pamphlet there is not a single word about Israel. Only that Americans are desecrating the home of the prophet.

Schaum,

Ah. Thank non-god. Lieberman is out of his coma and on the case. I feel so much safer, you know?
---------------
His hands are not exactly free, as you know. He's been warned by no less than the prez to go slow.

Slow is how the FBI went in handling the Nidal matter. Or, better put, no is how they went. They dropped the ball, big time.

Jolting Joe's not the same guy since the Big Al fiascos, but he's what we've got. Better to let the Committee investigate than leave it to the folks who scrued up to begin with, since, quite evidently, it was not their first time.

Colin

So when I said that who knows how you or I would have scored in the same situation, I meant in the lab situation, if one obeyed the orders and continued to supposedly hurt someone. It would feel awful the next day.
-------------
Yes, Colin, I thought you meant that the teachers were the authority figures....
I don't know how they felt the next day, but some, after they had participated, were anxious to know whether they'd done a "good job."

Milgram did debrief the subjects, who expressed appreciation for having participated in the experiment. However, at the time, though it was not so long ago, social psychology was in its infancy. It is difficult to know how effective the debriefing was, what may have motivated the subjects to express gratitude. Could they admit to themselves what they had done? What percentage were sadists? ETc.

Still, the experiment was, of course, brilliant, as was its amazing designer. It has been repeated worldwide with stronger safeguards for subjects, those protections developed post Milgram and Zimbardo.

The nation least willing to comply is still Onofrio's, Australia.

Farnaz;

I was right when I said;

"I thought it was Milgram who ran tests to determine how far an authority figure could push a supposed underling to send ever stronger electric-shocks into a man in an adjoining room, just by being ordered to."

From Wikipedia;

"The experimenter (E) orders the teacher (T), the subject of the experiment, to give what the latter believes are painful electric shocks to a learner (L), who is actually an actor and confederate. The subject believes that for each wrong answer, the learner was receiving actual electric shocks, though in reality there were no such punishments. Being separated from the subject, the confederate set up a tape recorder integrated with the electro-shock generator, which played pre-recorded sounds for each shock level."

"The Milgram's experiment on obedience to authority figures was a series of social psychology experiments conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram, which measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience." etc.

Maybe you were referring to other things that Milgram did later. But your link supported my comments.
So when I said that who knows how you or I would have scored in the same situation, I meant in the lab situation, if one obeyed the orders and continued to supposedly hurt someone. It would feel awful the next day.

Schaum, Daniel Redmond, et al,

On the matter of Nidal. Yes, he was decompensating and yes he was becoming increasingly extreme in his views. Whether he might have gone on to commit violence had he been released from the army, we will never know.

What we do know is that red flags were up everywhere and that the first consequence was a transfer from prestigious Walter Reed to Fort Hood. Have a problem with a possibly psycho killer (or child abuser), send him somewhere else.

The "demotion" no doubt did not help Nidal. At the new post, problems were observed at well. The FBI had and dropped the ball.

It is fairly common knowledge that one of the primary signs of the intent to commit suicide is the surrendering of one's possessions.

Simply put: The FBI messed up. Walter Reed messed up. Fort Hood messed up. There was no free flow of communication among the vitally interested, no significant follow up on Hasan.

All personnel needed much better training. Persons like Hasan's neighbors who live around military bases need to be aware of the fact that military personnel may be under extreme stress and to watch for certain signs. Even at the very last minute with F. ups abounding, the thirteen might have been saved, the thirty unharmed.

Farnaz;

I didn't follow the link, so perhaps I screwed up somewhere. I thought it was Milgram who ran tests to determine how far an authority figure could push a supposed underling to send ever stronger electric-shocks into a man in an adjoining room, just by being ordered to.

Maybe I should follow your link and discover what you were really talking about. It's almost 5pm, and chicken curry is simmering behind me, so I'll eat first, and then check it out.

Daniel Redmond:

" that is just so much easier than facing the implications of a hostile ideology nearly exclusive to Muslims."

Did you get approval for this thought? It may not be...you know...politically correct.

"references to "violent Islamists" by Sen. Joseph Lieberman"

Ah. Thank non-god. Lieberman is out of his coma and on the case. I feel so much safer, you know?

Part one.

Swiss ban on minarets?

The Swiss belong to Western civilization. Minarets come from a different civilization, the Islamic civilization. Minarets are associated with a severe and demanding religion. Western civilization seems able to do without a severe and demanding religion, and some would say without any religion at all.

Part two.

It seems so easy to just blame Islamic civilization for being backward and a perfect example of the harm of religion, that it stifles thought and even damages man as a moral human being, but a bit of history is in order. Things are not so easy as all that.

First, especially in the more advanced parts of the world, we seem to have lost all sense of what religion is, what it primarily deals with, why such a thing has existed for millennia. We seem to have forgotten that for thousands upon thousands of years man did not so much have a powerful orientation toward the pursuit of knowledge (as in science) as a relationship to existence in which he felt himself not very powerful and always expectant of some sort of answer out of the mystery of existence.

Part three.

Man prior to the powerful orientation toward the pursuit of knowledge we see today could only respond to the difficulty of existence by a moral stance--he posited Gods in the sky who demanded a moral response as the answer to the difficulty of existence, and there is probably some truth as psychologists say that these Gods were erected out of the constant demand to behave by fathers toward sons over the course of millennia.

In other words, the more advanced societies today seem to forget that we owe our capacity for morality and cooperation to thousands upon thousands of years of religion, the view of the world which does not ask that we have knowledge as in science in order to be saved, but that we have morality, that sort of knowledge. Many people in the more advanced societies are fond of ridiculing religion, saying it retards progress, stifles thought, and even destroys the very thing it seems to mention so much, namely morality, but it so happens that religion for thousands upon thousands of years was synonymous with progress, was man learning to behave himself without which any higher pursuit of knowledge was impossible.

Part four.

It is just plain wrong for someone such as Bertrand Russell to say that religion has always retarded human progress, that essentially there never was let alone now is a significant reason for religion to exist. Russell would never have been able to articulate his words if not for millennia of religion restraining men from breaking the skinny arms and legs of men like him. How that cannot be seen I have difficulty understanding when so obviously the subject of religion is morals, that worshipping Gods so they would bring rain and/or crops or enable some other technique than morals such as metal working or writing has always been secondary.

All, really, we have to do is look into the past to understand the problem of the West with respect to Islam. First of course man needed religion--it was identical to method of cooperation for millennia. And in precisely the more violent parts of the world religion was needed most. And what part of the world is the most violent and the prime candidate for religion? Try the Middle East. For Millennia men have rioted back and forth from East to West and West to East. It would be foolish not to expect that precisely there morality would be the thing of all things brooded upon, and most certainly made harsh. And it should be no surprise that Monotheism took root precisely there, where for millennia order depended on one man after another taking absolute power and ruling with authority.

Part five.

So essentially what we have with the West in respect to Islam is a society that has almost forgotten what religion was, what it was for, faced with a society which still not only owes its existence to religion, but a harsh form of such. The West can call Islam backward all it likes, but imagine what the Middle East would have been like if Islam had not arisen at all. It would have been a constant battleground between this tribe and that, this people and that. There never would have been a silk road. What? Travel from here to there? Through thousands of hostile tribes and peoples? Madness!

And it should not be overlooked that without Islam the West and the East would have had a large part in the battling in that area. In fact the East and West did riot there anyway. Try Greece, Macedonia, Rome. Try Genghis Khan not to mention Tamerlane, a mongoloid man who ruled a vast territory right in the middle of the Islamic world. The Middle East has been a battleground for millennia. One tyrant here, another there--succession after succession. Periods of order held only by ruthless authority. And it is this world which the West is faced with--brought face to face by modern methods of communication and travel.

In a sense the Islamic world is infecting the rest of the world with its religion/politics (they are so often one and the same). As if the rest of the world which had been mercifully free of the Middle East and was therefore allowed to develop in relative peace is now part of the Middle East--and with the project of trying to make the Middle East like the relatively peaceful East and West--not of course that the East and West have been really peaceful what with two world wars. But the meaning should be understood. East and West dropped into a world which still needs primarily religion, morals, over any other sort of knowledge.

Part six.

And of course the East and West fail to understand this. Or rather I should say the West. The West actually believes it can go into the Middle East and have it become secular, more oriented toward knowledge in the scientific sense than oriented toward religion.--There in the Middle East where for millennia order has depended on the iron fist! How pathetic to see the West with all its good intentions (read with absolutely no sense of how to rule in age old fashion) trying to change the Middle East! We should just talk to them so many say!

Amazing no one really reflects on why exactly there women go covered, that houses are built with a really strong facade against the street, that even relatively harmless crimes are dealt with harshly. Try for pure survival purposes, that if such iron rule did not exist it would be a place of sheer chaos. Strange how the West does not understand this when it can easily look at the horns of this animal, the hard carapace of that, and say that such is needed to enable the animal to survive.

So what must be done? Obviously somehow get the Middle East to become modern. But how exactly? How much religion is still necessary for order there? How much knowledge in the scientific sense can be introduced without disrupting a still needed religious sense? Actually no questions need to be asked at all. The West is pouring all it is into the Middle East and the Middle East is overflowing to the East and West. Past, present and future. As Yeats put it in another context, what is past, passing and to come.

ColinNicholas,

Caught your comments. I'm not big on words like goodness and evil. They feel religious. I think there are better - more specific words.
Yes I'm very familiar with the Milgram experiments. They made a big impression on me when I was younger. I guess we all figure that only bad guys torture others, but who knows how you or I might have scored in such a situation. But I do think it helps us to understand the Holocaust, wartime behaviour, and many other dreadfu
l events.
-----------------
I don't quite follow you here, Colin. Actually, Milgram's findings were intended to show that anyone was capable of "torture," anyone sufficiently idoctrinated, which included, for Milgram, the average American. Of course, the closer the "teacher" got to the "student," student the less capable s/he was of performing his/her task. This, IMO, is one of the many areas left unexplored by Milgram, since there is no parallel among nazi torturers, neither with German nazis nor nazis of other nationalities.

Knowing Milgram's brilliant Renaissance mind, however, I would imagine if he could have held onto his interest in the obedience problem, he would have pursued the question, along with a host of other matters, he'd left unexplored.

He left them unexplored because the whole community of Prandialists, New and Old set out to destroy him, but that is another matter.

Good and evil, IMO are worthy notions that, in no way, exclude other ways of explaining immoral conduct, including Milgram's.

The Altruism studey was significant because MIlgram could find no common denominator among those who refused to cooperate, regardless of how pressured they were. One was a young German immigrant.

The altruism study showed what we would expect it to. There are those who are trained from early on in life, shown by example, that goodness is the highest value. Of course, goodness is a relative term. The nazis were, in fact, ethically fastidious, although their ethics and ours are not the same.

Still, the French Protestant minister felt he had no choice, had no consciousness of choice because he had been raised in a certain community with certain precepts. His congregants had complete faith in his moral leadership since long before the Jews went on the move to escape from the Germans and their fellow French countrymen.

Thus, when that good man said we're going to help, they helped.

Cont.

Hasan contacted jihadi web sites via multiple e-mail addresses and screen names. He traded 18 e-mails between Dec. 2008 and June 2009 with Anwar al-Awlaki, Al-Qaeda recruiter, inspiration for at least two other North American terror plots, and fugitive from U.S. justice. Awlaki had been Hasan's spiritual leader at two mosques, Masjid Al-Ribat Al-Islami in San Diego and the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center outside Washington, D.C., and he acknowledges becoming Hasan's confidant. Awlaki speculates that he may have influenced Hasan's evolution and praises Hasan for the massacre, calling him a "hero" who "did the right thing" by killing U.S. soldiers before they could attack Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In those e-mails, Hasan asked Awlaki when jihad is appropriate and about killing innocents in a suicide attack. "I can't wait to join you" in the afterlife for discussions over non-alcoholic wine, Hasan wrote him. One Yemeni analyst calls Hasan "almost a member of Al-Qaeda." On the day of his rampage, Hasan wore Pakistani-style clothing to a convenience store, where he was photographed on a CCTV. "My strength is my financial capabilities," Hasan boasted to Awlaki, and he donated $20,000 to $30,000 a year to Islamic "charities" outside the United States, some of it going to Pakistan.

That Hasan, of Palestinian extraction, wore Pakistani clothing on the morning of his rampage points to his jihadi mentality.

Hasan had "more unexplained connections to people being tracked by the FBI," other than Awlaki, including some in Europe. One official characterized these as "Islamic extremists if not necessarily al Qaeda." Duane Reasoner Jr., the 18-year-old Muslim convert whom Hasan mentored in Islam, calls himself a "extremist, fundamentalist, mujhadeen, Muslim" who outspokenly supports Awlaki, Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban, Omar Abdur Rahman (the blind sheikh) and Adam Gadahn (Al-Qaeda's top American figure).

These symptoms in the aggregate leave little doubt about Hasan's jihadi mentality. But will the investigations allow themselves to see his motivation? Doing so means changing it from a war on "overseas contingency operations" and "man-caused disasters" to a war on radical Islam. Are Americans ready for that? It probably is too late anyway. Clearly it is already upon us.

Cont.

Hasan informed at least one patient at Walter Reed that "Islam can save your soul."

So apparent were Hasan's Islamist proclivities, reports National Public Radio, that key psychiatry authorities at Walter Reed met to discuss if he was psychotic. One official told colleagues of his worries "that if Hasan deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, he might leak secret military information to Islamic extremists. Another official reportedly wondered aloud to colleagues whether Hasan might be capable of committing fratricide," recalling Sergeant Hasan Akbar's 2003 rampage.

Then followed Hasan's record at Ft. Hood: His supervisor, Captain Naomi Surman, recalled his telling her that as an infidel she who would be "ripped to shreds" and "burn in hell." Another person reports his declaring that infidels should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats.
In his psychiatric counseling sessions with soldiers returned from Iraq and Afghanistan, Hasan heard information he considered tantamount to war crimes. As late as Nov. 2, three days before his murderous spree, he tried to convince at least two of his superior officers, Surman and Colonel Anthony Febbo, about the need legally to prosecute the soldiers.

Hasan routinely signed his e-mails with "Praise Be to Allah." He listed his first name as Abduwalli, rather than Nidal, in the e-mail address in his official Army personnel record. 'Abd al-Wali is an Arabic name meaning "Slave of the Patron," where Patron is one of God's 99 names. It is not clear why Hasan did this, but Abduwalli could have been a nom de guerre, this being a common practice among Palestinians (Yasir Arafat even had two them - Yasir Arafat and Abu Ammar).

Finally, Hasan's extracurricular activities revealed his outlook: He designed green and white personal business cards that made no mention of his military affiliation. Instead, they included his name, then "Behavior Heatlh [sic] Mental Health and Life Skills," a Maryland mobile phone number, an AOL e-mail address, and "SoA (SWT)." SoA is the jihadi abbreviation for Soldier of Allah and SWT stands for Subhanahu wa-Ta'ala, or "Glory to Him, the Exalted."

As the Pentagon and Senate launch what one analyst dubs "dueling Fort Hood investigations," will they confront the hard truth of the Islamic angle? Despite encouraging references to "violent Islamists" by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (Independent of Connecticut), chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, there is reason to worry about a whitewash of the massacre that took place on Nov. 5; that is just so much easier than facing the implications of a hostile ideology nearly exclusive to Muslims.
Indeed, initial responses from the U.S. Army, law enforcement, politicians, and journalists broadly agreed that Maj. Nidal Hasan's murderous rampage had nothing to do with Islam. Barack Obama declared "We cannot fully know what leads a man to do such a thing" and Evan Thomas of Newsweek dismissed Hasan as "a nut case."

But evidence keeps accumulating that confirms Hasan's Islamist outlook, his jihadi temperament, and his bitter hatred of kafirs (infidels). I reviewed the initial facts about his record in an article that appeared on Nov. 9 but much more information subsequently appeared; here follows a summary. The evidence divides into three parts, starting with Hasan's stint at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center:

He delivered an hour-long formal medical presentation to his supervisors and some 25 mental health staff members in June 2007, the culminating exercise of his residency program at Walter Reed. What was supposed to be on a medical topic of his choosing instead turned into a 50-slide PowerPoint talk on "The Koranic World View As It Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military" that offered such commentary as "It's getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims" and the "Department of Defense should allow Muslims [sic] Soldiers the option of being released as 'Conscientious objectors' to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events." One person present at the presentation recalls how, by the time of its conclusion, "The senior doctors looked really upset."

Colinnicholas:

"Your statement that laws don't stop crime would have been better stated if you'd said that laws don't stop ALL crime - something everybody knows already."

Not everybody. It was PCP who, several posts back, asserted that in the US we are protected by laws. She offered the fact that she files tax returns as proof of this. My assertion is that laws offer no protection from crime...only punishment/revenge after crimes have been committed.

PCP:

"Fortunately, cooler heads prevail."

There are 13 VERY cool heads in Ft Hood.

Actually, Colinnicholas, PCP set herself up as The Authority by stating that she was the voice of reason, and that by disagreeing with her I was "foaming"....

I think she's gotten what she earned.

And you are wrong: laws do NOT prevent crimes. If they did, we would not need police.

As further evidence of the insanity of allowing Islam to be practiced in the US, I remind you that the good doctor who did the trigger-pulling in Ft. Hood had become a citizen, had worked his way into the government (military no less) -- and was a deadly jihadist. Further proof of the dangers of tolerating all religions equally.

If anyone is ranting, Schaum, it's you.

But suit yourself - go ahead and petition your congressman to outlaw Islam in the US, and see how far you get.

Fortunately, cooler heads prevail.

Schaum;
With all due respect Schaum I don't hear Pam say half the things you accuse her of. And why call her names? She's trying to dialogue with you but you think it's a wrestling match.
Your statement that laws don't stop crime would have been better stated if you'd said that laws don't stop ALL crime - something everybody knows already.

Pam is correct when she says that to outlaw a religion would drive it underground, and create new problems.

I am not a fan of any faith. I wish they'd all go away, and maybe one day Zeus willing, they will. I attack religions right here on line. what else can we do? We don't want to take it to the streets, do we?

PCP:

Your vision is of a society in which virtually ALL ideologies calling themselves religions must be equally tolerated, if ANY ideology/religion is to be tolerated, regardless of how oppressive, violent and deadly they are even to those who are tolerant – or face a dystopian future in which all human rights are abridged., resulting in widespread unhappiness, suffering, and other kinds of pain. Such an absolutely equally tolerant society is, she believes, the driving philosophy of the founding fathers. Your thinking is much more lucid when you are not in hysterical rant mode.

I mean, we have the First Great Teaching of Politically Correct Pam that clearly states we are protected from harm by LAWS.

The Second Great Teaching of Politically Correct Pam is that if ANY religious ideology is to be tolerated, ALL religious ideologies, including those which promote themselves as cornerstones of human government and are murderously intolerant of other religious ideologies, must be tolerated as equals; that failure in this Teaching will result in the collapse of the Republic and the dimming of the sun.

My guess is that I have greater faith in Americans than you do.

And, I don't want to completely overwhelm you with the obvious, but US laws did not protect the people at Ft Hood... Laws ONLY work when people agree to abide by them. Otherwise they don't. Is that too difficult for you to understand? You file tax returns because you obey that law. Plenty of people don't obey that law. There is nothing to prevent them from disobeying that law. Sometimes they get caught, sometimes they don't. But they get caught AFTER the fact. Laws do NOT prevent crime.

Politically Correct Pam:

"Oh, STFU, Schaum. I told you that political correctness has not the slightest thing to do with my position."

Sadly, your words speak louder than...your words. You are obsessed by political correctness.

And they were attacking other Islamists because they are terrorists and extremists...and their religion calls for it.

And why were Islamic militants attacking mosques?

"I mean, we have the First Great Teaching of Politically Correct Pam that clearly states we are protected from harm by LAWS. So this story simply cannot be true."

Oh, STFU, Schaum. I told you that political correctness has not the slightest thing to do with my position.

Of course US laws will not protect people in Rawalpindi. YOU are the one that said "we the people" through our representatives in Washington, should outlaw Islam. Last I heard, such a law would have no bearing on events in Rawalpindi, or on foreign nationals who wish to attack the US.

US Muslims commit less violence than say, Tim McVeigh, or abortion clinic bombers, or the KKK - good Christians all.

Yes, I am for very thorough screening of would-be Muslim immigrants, and I have no problem with profiling in this case. I also believe in careful tracking of suspected Muslim extremists, and for hunting down and capturing (or killing) known offenders.

But I don't believe that it's wise to single out and outlaw a religion in a country founded on religious freedom, and I think that religious suppression never works the way it was intended. Drive it underground, and you make it stronger.

"I am disinclined (though " =
"I am disinclined to believe (though..."

Colinnicholas:

Sorry, I thought you were here for this discussion earlier.

I am disinclined (though not yet perfectly convinced) that there is no such thing as "evil", and probably no such thing as "good"; that what we call "good" is really clarity (in thinking, perception, action), and that "evil" is really the absence of that clarity. It is possible, therefore, to have "good" without the necessarily inevitable existence of "evil".

Farnaz;

Caught your comments. I'm not big on words like goodness and evil. They feel religious. I think there are better - more specific words.
Yes I'm very familiar with the Milgram experiments. They made a big impression on me when I was younger. I guess we all figure that only bad guys torture others, but who knows how you or I might have scored in such a situation. But I do think it helps us to understand the Holocaust, wartime behaviour, and many other dreadful events.

Schaum;
Are you saying that goodness is clarity? Could you elaborate?

Actually, I do have a bottle of 1974 Cabardes, but I've kind of been saving that for Armenius's final farewell.

I may not live long enough to drink it.

WalterIFC:

"i'd say eating "americans""

Done. Lets start with the US bishops. With a nice Chateau Neuf d'Pape.

schaum,
interesting thought. i hadn't considered the carbon emissions avoided by practicing human prandialism. by that measure, i'd say eating "americans" - perhaps young ones - would be the most moral choice. a modest proposal...

WalterIFC:

"lost in the discussion on human prandialism is the environmental impact of feeding/raising the entrees. "

Perhaps not, if we confine our dining to roman catholics and thereby reduce the surplus supply of them. This would have a positive impact on the carbon footprint, I would think.

lost in the discussion on human prandialism is the environmental impact of feeding/raising the entrees. it's like cows but 100 times worse, carbon footprint-wise.

Farnaz:

"You might be too squeamish for right-wing New Prandialist fundamentalism."

I don't want to be too hasty here. Let me see the wine list before making up my mind.

Farnaz:

"What is goodness?"

Clarity.

"Islamabad, Pakistan (CNN) -- Militants armed with guns and grenades attacked a mosque during midday prayers in Rawalpindi on Friday, killing dozens of people, authorities said.

At least 36 people were killed and another 45 were wounded, said Gen. Athar Abbas, a Pakistani military spokesman. Rawalpindi's police chief said 40 were killed.

Four militants carried out the attack, Abbas said. Two were suicide bombers who blew themselves up inside the mosque; the other two were shot and killed by security forces outside the mosque.

"These are terrorists who killed innocent worshippers," he said."

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

Well, REALLY!!!

Imagine CNN telling such a bald-faced lie as this story obviously is!

I mean, we have the First Great Teaching of Politically Correct Pam that clearly states we are protected from harm by LAWS. So this story simply cannot be true.

Unless, of course, Pakistan has no laws against murder and terrorism.

I wonder.......

Breaking News......

At least 40 muslims(perhaps much more) killed by other muslims in House of Allah/Mosque in Pakistan/Fictive Country created by England.

*Muslims,not minaret,were targeted by the Swiss* Correct Headline;
Muslims were targets by the Muslims.

What kind of a Cult of Blooddrinking this is........
*Blame Hasan,not his Cult*
*Freedom of Religion*
*Small minority doesnt represent whole majority*(who represent those peaceful majority)

And then Alices will do Timothy Mc Veigh,Jim Jones etc.(all of them local) Demogogues...... Alices in United States of Alice will critisize Swiss....

Cult of Blood will come to Swiss or anywhere and will build 100 yard height Minarets and will equip with High Volume Loudspeakers and will challenge in Arabic from Sunrise to Sunset to all Contemporary Values in Host Countries and some Alices will compare Muslim Bayonets(such as said)/Minarets with Historical Steeples and will critisize and blame Swiss.

Dear Alices,
You will critisize/blame sooooo much,soooo much.......

Schaum,

"I could never eat anyone I had not been introduced to."

You might be too squeamish for right-wing New Prandialist fundamentalism.

Hi Walter,

Got your post! I have posted my response~!

Thanks!

Hi Colin,

Yes, I shivered a bit at "goodness," very nineteenth century, but is it a word to balk at when one sees and hears its opposite everywhere. The word "evil" is once again current.

The book on the altruistic personality was a response, the first with any "empirical adequacy," to Milgram's brilliant study, "Obedience to Authority."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

What is goodness?

A minister in occupied France got word that refugee Jews were on the march, fleeing, and would be in his village shortly. He immediately notified his congregation, held meetings about how best to conceal the Jews, etc.

After the war, when asked why he did it, he said he did not know he had a choice.
---------------------
Schaum, my gifted brother has been thoroughly Ayn Randed. The very word "altruism" causes him to reach for the antibiotics. Therefore, I try not to use it in his presence. :0

Novel: IB Singer, "The Certificate"

Read about de Waals, and will put book on list.

Farnaz;

You might want to read Franz de Waal's "Primates and Philosophers" where he studies reciprocal altruism in bonobos and chimps.

Psst,don't mention altruism to Schaum. Not only does he not believe in it, he'll clobber anyone who does.

You say. "A study on the Altruistic Personality found that those who demonstrated altruistic behavior during the Holocaust had been raised to value goodness above all else."

What's goodness Farnaz? One man's goodness is another man's badness, don't you agree? Did that study really use the word 'goodness'?
Didn't you mention that you were reading a novel? You didn't mention the title.

Hi ColinNicholas,

Welcome back! Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, something seems to be amiss with the volume on my computer, so I can't access the site right now.

The buffalo slaughter does not seem immensely appealing to me. Whence this unquenchable thirst for sacrifice--symbolic, real, animal, and human?

Ah, well.

At some point, I'm going to try to scan in part of an article by Steven Jay Gould an altruism. Contra some, he did think that it existed in the animal kingdom, that life in the wild supports self-sacrifice. We, however, do not exist in nature, but in culture; therefore, we must build in social forms that nurture unselfish conduct.

A study on the Altruistic Personality found that those who demonstrated altruistic behavior during the Holocaust had been raised to value goodness above all else.
No big surprise on the one hand, much, much food for thought once one starts cogitating.

Colinnicholas:

"The carnage was a unbelievable. Blood and guts everywhere. Religion 2009.Hindu style."

Really. Blood sacrifices in this day and age. I despair. But no, I did not see it on TV. I don't have TV.

Farnaz:

" it seemed that cannibalism had all but died out, in favor of human sacrifice. "

I could never eat anyone I had not been introduced to.

Farnaz. Schaum. Anybody.

Did you see (on TV) the recent slaughter of buffalo in India? Out in the open with knives and swords and axes - men were decapitating buffalo - thousands of them, in sacrifice to some god whose name I'd never heard before,(and immediately forgot). The carnage was a unbelievable. Blood and guts everywhere. Religion 2009.Hindu style. Bet it used to be people sacrificed once upon a time, long ago when the world was young, and demented superstitions ruled.

Hi Schaum;

Thanks for the welcome back; yes, it was a good trip. went to Seattle where I have a few friends. Weather was fine, wine was good, and the Panama Red was almost as smooth as the BC Bud. And then there was the salmon.

Glad you liked the link. Not a bad debate but the previous one was better, with Hitchens and Stephen Fry mauling the opposition to the delight of the audience.
They debated that "The Catholic religion is a force for good in the world." Few in the audience believed such twaddle, and the atheists won easily.It's interesting to see the expressions on the faces of the religious debaters, a kind of sweaty fear and hopelessness. A pulpit is more comfortable than a debating forum if you're peddling superstition. I enjoy watching them squirm.

Schaum,

I like your letter to the Times! But fear that your addressing the editors as "bobble heads" might be off-putting to some among them.

Schaum

"Wouldn't cannibalism qualify as post-Prandialism?"

Actually, cannibalism was part and parcel of earliest Prandial observance, dating back many thousands of years, if we are to believe the OP (Old Prandialist). In the NP
(New Prandialist), human sacrifice was substituted for cannibalism, with the sacrificed deposited in a cave.

Of course, doctrine and ritual have changed since then and, from time to time, it seemed that cannibalism had all but died out, in favor of human sacrifice. At all events, the numbers of those cannibalized were always very small, their bodies devoured only during times of famine, since the Old Prandialists never much cared for this sort of thing.

The New Prandialists, of course, have made human sacrifice a way of life. Right-wing New Prandialist Fundamentalists have brought back cannibalism to support standard human sacrifice, most notably in Washington DC, Texas, of course, Bismark ND, and Palo Alto.

Many go abroad to conduct their observances, or, if they can, deploy others to do so in their name. This is an especially popular practice among the rich and powerful in Washington DC.

Colinnicholas:

"and Arminius retiring yet again, as if anyone cared."

The definition of an optimist is pretty much anyone who thinks he's seen the last of Arminius, or that Nicholas Cage has made his last movie.

Welcome back. Did you enjoy your trip?

And thanks for the link. Interesting.

Farnaz:

Seen the current issue of New Yorker? Major article about Ayn Rand.

I wrote a letter to the editor, which I'm sure won't get published:

"Dear Sir or Madam:

Coincident with the regular resurgence of interest in Ayn Rand, during times of "leftward lurching of the body politic", is the regular resurgence of leftward lurching 'intellectuals' who refuse to learn the lesson of past resurgences of Miss Rand: that she can't be sneered away by obvious and snarly hints that only the young, the uninformed, or the terminally un-hip appreciate -- even like -- Ayn Rand.

I know that it's easy to impress your 'intellectual' friends, as you wonder aloud to each other how anyone can take her ideas seriously. But, deep down, as you pray that your frowns and sneers are working on someone, somewhere, somehow, is the very real fear that comes from the "never less than robust", and now significantly increasing, sales of her books, filled with ideas that you've never really understood, but that you know are powerful enough to threaten your little world of mutually nodding and agreeing bobble-headed party friends who are absolutely certain, because you tell each other so, that Ayn Rand is not to be taken seriously.

Dream on, bobble-heads.

Regards,

David Dyer"

Volkmare:

When I was living in Riyadh, I happened one morning to be in the vicinity of the public square in front of the main mosque. My western dress identified me immediately. I found myself literally pushed to the front of a large gathering of people at the edge of the square, in front of the mosque. Two men, Philippinos, were kneeling there and a third man, with an absurdly large sword was standing nearby. I knew instantly what was going to happen, and tried to leave. I was hemmed in on all sides. I witnessed the execution of the two men, who had been discovered in the act of sodomy. The Saudis believe their system of justice is THE one to emulate, and were anxious that I, a Westerner, got a birds eye view of the double-header.

It was interesting. Islam is a bloodthirsty religion.

Yes, Daniel ITLD, I follow what you’re saying about the unknowable. My question was about the term “impersonal benevolence” that you mentioned.

To repeat, Where or what is the benevolence? Or another way of saying it, is - to your way of thinking, what is “good” about it? How does the benevolence manifest itself so that you view it that way?

"Hi Pam – the series you recall is “Mr. Deity.” You can find all his episodes, including some new ones, on his website, www.mrdeity.com and all over the web on youtube."

That's it! Thanks!

Schaum

I did leave.

I was in Jakarta when the US attacked Libya, a Muslim country.

All eyes were on me at the Suharto international airport as I left.
I didn’t feel relaxed until I returned home to LA.

It was a shame that because of me not being Muslim in Jakarta that they looked upon me with disdain.

That is why when I hear their call to prayers from their minarets I have the feeling of oppression.

Mark
Always seek the truth.

US-conscience

You wrote:

"Religion : Mans attempt to work his way ( by rituals or good deeds ) into a right standing with God.

Christianity : God reaching down to reconcile us to himself.

Works righteousness based : Islam, Hinduism, Budhism, Mormonism, Jehova's witnesses, Catholicism, Hare Krishna....(all others)

Grace based : Christianiy"

So do you think that "God reaching down to reconcile us to himself.", will result in the reconciliation of God and All of Humanity or not?

I am here to tell the world that God's Plan is "GOOD NEWS", not the 'good enough news' that some think it to be and much sadder to say, that some seem to want it to be as long as "they" get to the "good place".

FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD, have you ever heard this phrase?

WHATEVER YOU DO TO THE LEAST OF MY PEOPLE, YOU DO UNTO ME, sound familiar?

See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Efavorite

I do not believe we have free will, or at least very little free will. We do not choose very much in the outcome of our lives.

That bothers people because they think that then the opposite must be true, that everything in our lives is predetermined.

But I do not believe that either. I believe in neither free-will nor in predestination.

But what is left? I cannot give the answer to that. This is an example of the unknowable. It makes since that something like this would be unknowable, the ultimate causation of the succession of our experiences and thoughts; that seems pretty reasonably unknowable, doesn't it?

Farnaz;

Hi Farnaz. I was out at the coast for a few days; away from all computers. Nice to see the same old faces here, and Arminius retiring yet again, as if anyone cared.

Watched a debate with Dawkins and A.C.Grayling taking on a couple of believers at;

http://www.intelligencesquared.com/iq2-video/2009/atheism-is-the-new-fundamentalism

Good to see EFavorite back, who I remember from my Yoyo days. I disagree with those who look back at a so called golden age on this thread. This is about as good as it gets with very articulate atheists like Pam, Schaum, Onofrio, Persiflage and you, Farnaz, and now EFavorite back again for a spell.
It doesn't get much better than this.

Efavorite

I am not really influencing the way you think, am I? I cannot imagine that I could ever change the way a person thinks. At least so far, I never have.

Efavorite

Anything "good" is good.

I suppose that you are getting at suffering, that there is alot of suffering in the world, and what is "benevolent" about that?

Just that I know there is alot of good in the world.

And I believe that only through the contrast of experiences can we experience anyting at all. And that the experience of suffering enables the experience of happieness, "... pleasure and pain, all mingled together, like sunshine and rain... "

Do I like it to be this way? Not really. Is this really "benevolence?" I am not sure. But do I have a choice in any of this, that I find myself in a world of happy and sad experiences? Not really.

I am here in the world, and I have to take whatever comes to me.

yasser,
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2009/11/what_the_islamists_and_islamaphobes_dont_want_you_to_know.html

Daniel ITLD, Sorry, “impersonal benevolence” then. Where or what is the benevolence? Or another way of saying it, is - to your way of thinking, what is “good” about it? How does the benevolence manifest itself so that you view it that way?

Arminius:

1.

I am an anti-Muslim racist? That is an oxymoron, and an impossibility. Islam is a “religion” with followers of every race and pigmentation; where, then, might race enter the picture? Dictionaries agree that racism concerns race, not religion:

American Heritage: "The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. Discrimination or prejudice based on race."

Merriam-Webster: "A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. Racial prejudice or discrimination."

Oxford: "The belief that there are characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to each race. Discrimination against or antagonism towards other races."

Even the notorious United Nations anti-racism conference at Durban in 2001 implicitly used the same definition when it rejected "any doctrine of racial superiority, along with theories which attempt to determine the existence of so-called distinct human races."

If you understand the meaning of the term racist, it cannot be ascribed to me, as I neither believe that race defines capabilities nor that certain races have greater capabilities than others. Also, nothing I have written touches on issues of race.

Does that mean the word racist merely serves politically correct Leftists and Islamists as an all-purpose pejorative, a magical insult that discredits without regard to accuracy? If so, I have to tell you it does not phase me even slightly.

2.

Once racism is un-moored from racial characteristics, it is a small step to apply it to Muslims. Indeed, Liz Fekete of IRR discovers "anti-Muslim racism" in the legislation, policing, and counter-terrorist measures deriving from the "war on terror" (her quote marks). She also sees the French banning of the hijab in public schools, for example, as a case of "anti-Muslim racism." Others at IRR allege that "Muslims and those who look like Muslims are the principal targets of a new racism."

The Reverend Calvin Butts, III, of the Abyssinian Baptist Church of New York, opined recently at a United Nations conference on Islamophobia: "Whether Muslims like it or not, Muslims are labeled people of color in the racist U.S … they won't label you by calling you a n----- but they'll call you a terrorist." To the manipulative Rev. Mr. Butts, counterterrorism is racism.

When Rep. Tom Tancredo, a Republican of Colorado, raised the idea of bombing Islamic holy sites as a form of deterrence, a Nation of Islam leader in Denver, Gerald Muhammad, idiotically deemed his comments racist.

Note the evolution: As belief in racial differences and racial superiority wanes in polite society, some parties expand the meaning of racism to condemn political decisions such as worrying about too much immigration (including poor whites), preferring one's own culture, abhorrence of radical Islam, and implementing effective counterterrorist measures.

I reject this attempt to delegitimize political differences. Racism refers only to racial issues, not to views on immigration, culture, religion, ideology, law enforcement, or military strategy. I am an anti-Islamist. That has nothing to do with race. It has only to do with my opposition to Islam’s devotion to the murderous destruction of any and all who do not embrace it.

ok.....got ya! Wow this angry old man has to be Christianity's equivalent of rabid muslim hate preaching mullah who would try to paint whole Christianity as evil. Something about his face tells you he wouldn't even wanna sit beside a muslim. Didn't quite follow your posts though~!

Hey Walter~!

Welcome back! What islamophobe thread are you talking about?? I didn't get you.

EFavorite

As I said, some Christian traditions refer to "Providence" as well as to God. But in referring to Providence, there is an implication of impersonal benevolence (not benign indifference) and acknowledgement that the traditionally defined God of the older Catholicism, along with most of its Protestant progeny, is not really true or real. There are many Christians who think like this. Most of the Christians who post on this forum call them "apostates;" but never mind that.

I am merely borrowing this concept of Providence, pretty much with it dictionary definition, as a word to describe most closely what I think about the existence of God.

I believe that our capacity to perceive and to understand has limitations, beyond which we cannot pass. I believe this rather firmly. I then wonder what things may we never know, but I cannot really wonder because it is even beyond my wonder.

In my beliefs, maybe there is a hint of "Intelligent Design" but I hope not too much. For one thing, "Intelligent Design" does not describe how anything was created, ohly that an "Intelligent Designer" did it. For another thing, "intelligence" is a human measure, that probably does not apply.

I think the word "Providence" comes from "provide," although I have not checked it out, but I think so. Everything is provided, not created. Maybe that is a small difference, but to me, it is a big difference.

While all things have been provided to us to experience, also, we are provided for all things to be experienced. But "Providence" is hidden from us, unknowable, and untouchable.

I do not know any of these things, not any better or worse than anyone else. It is just where my thoughts carry me.

WalterIFC:

Here's a kuffarphobia site for you...

http://sioeengland.blogspot.com/2007/10/stop-kuffarphobia-demonstration-london.html

Daniel ITLD, you say, “But in this unknown is the key to the puzzle that we all seek, but we will never find it or know it, because it is locked away from our capacity or ability to find.”

How do you know that? How can you know it? Would it be fair to say, we haven’t found it and don’t know it now, but may someday? (like many other things once mysteries that are now understood?)

Thanks for the explanation of Providence. Short of writing a book, could you give me an example or two of the “benign indifference” that you believe in? What is benign about it?

-----
Hi Pam – the series you recall is “Mr. Deity.” You can find all his episodes, including some new ones, on his website, www.mrdeity.com and all over the web on youtube.

Yes, Daniel, Interesting observation about the golden age. Still, it nice to tune back in and see some familiar faces.

Arminius:

You are nobody's nemesis.

You are just another old drunk.

Arminius:

1.

Swiss voters have more common sense than their politically correct leadership. Any Mosque built would be bigger than any Christian Cathedral in the city, and dominate the skyline: this is required by Islamic law.

Though the Muslims howl "religious persecution", their demands are designed to humiliate and uproot the host culture. A Mosque is an essential element in building a parallel culture and civilization within the host country with the intention of eventually replacing the host society entirely.

Many express outrage over the Swiss ban on adding minarets to mosques in their country. These people claim it oppresses Muslims and prohibits freedom of religion. Even CAIR is calling on President Obama to denounce this act. However, it's prudent to point out that most Islamic countries do not even recognize freedom of religion. They prohibit building new churches or synagogues, repairing existing churches, or even assembling in public to discuss Christianity. Before Muslims start demanding freedom of religion in their adopted countries, perhaps they should demonstrate quid pro quo and allow the same freedoms in their native countries.

Turkey is not a true Islamic nation and certainly not one operating under shari'ah law. Turkey is a progressive, democratic country, and Ataturk faced great opposition from fundamental Islamists in embracing a more Western attitude during his rule. Nonetheless, Turkey has only about 100 churches, or 1 per 900,000 people in the population

2.

Dhimmitude is a subjugated status imposed on non-muslims living in Muslim countries. With the Pact of Umar II, non-Muslims were prohibited from building churches or repairing existing churches. Islamic countries with stricter enforcement of shari'ah law (and thus Dhimmitude status for non-Muslims) include Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, most of Sudan, and others. For example, churches are banned completely in Saudi Arabia.

By contrast, the UK and the US have extended their freedom of religion to all its citizens. Number of mosques in the United Kingdom? More than 1,680 and growing all the time. Number of mosques in the USA? More than 1,200 and growing all the time.

The issue is not about how many churches are in an Islamic country. It is whether there exists freedom of religion, i.e. the ability to practice your faith, or lack of it (!) without persecution or fear of repercussion. By its own religious tenets, Islam does NOT have freedom of religion. As the Prophet Muhammad stated, "whoever changes his Islamic religion, then kill him." (Bukhari hadith 9:84:57).

Here is a list of Islamic nations that have the death penalty for those who practice freedom of religion (i.e., convert from Islam to another faith): Iran, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Qatar, Sudan, Mauritania, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, and Malaysia.

Number of Western countries that have the death penalty for those who change their religion? ZERO.

Any 'religion' that demands the subjugation or death of one who will not convert to it,or converts away from it, or practices atheism, should be banned in all freedom-loving countries. Islam is a “religion” not of peace, but a cult of death, destruction and intolerance. It is totally inconsistent with a religion-and-human-rights-tolerant democracy.

Pamsm:

I know this is not Politically Correct, but here are the past three days of
Offerings from the Religion of Peace that you are so anxious to tolerate.

"He who fights that Islam should be superior fights in Allah's cause"
Muhammad, prophet of Islam

2009.12.02 (Islamabad, Pakistan) - A young man straps explosives to his body and detonates at the entrance of a naval complex, killing two security guards.
2009.12.01 (Bosasso, Somalia) - Suspected hardliners toss a grenade into a movie theater, leaving two patrons dead from shrapnel injury.
2009.12.01 (Swat, Pakistan) - Islamic fundamentalists murder the head of a local peace committee.
2009.12.01 (Orakzai, Pakistan) - Three tribal leaders are assassinated by Sunni terrorists.
2009.12.01 (Swat, Pakistan) - A teen suicide bomber murders a lawmaker inside his home.
2009.11.30 (Mosul, Iraq) - Muslim gunmen ambush a car carrying a family from a religious minority. The father is killed. Two women and a child are injured.

Go here to see the lists of THOUSANDS of such attacks over the past decade:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

yasser,
check that "islamophobe" thread.

"I'm not the one who murdered 13 people in Fort Hood.
I'm not the one who threw a grenade in a tent of soldiers.
I'm not the one who plowed two planes of innocent people into two tall buildings.
I'm not the one who plowed a plane of innocent people into the Pentagon.
I'm not the one who blew up trains full of people in England and Spain."

Hey Racist! Do you want me to list down the events of Western Terrorism?? And you keep running away from explaining your position. There are 7 million (and growing) muslims in US alone. A quarter of them are converts. What do you propose should be done to them? Do you also voluntarily plan to disengage from Saudia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bahrain, Qatar etc.? Are there any limits to your idiocy!

I do not know Arminius! Consider me your nemesis from today.

Religion : Mans attempt to work his way ( by rituals or good deeds ) into a right standing with God.

Christianity : God reaching down to reconcile us to himself.

Works righteousness based : Islam, Hinduism, Budhism, Mormonism, Jehova's witnesses, Catholicism, Hare Krishna....(all others)

Grace based : Christianiy

And now, for a European response to the Swiss vote:

Submitted by muslimkush (United Kingdom), Dec 1, 2009 at 15:03

Really fantastic and heart warming brilliant news for all god believing civilized people of all the world to hear that switzerland banned minarets.The process of reformation has just started.Most of the so called muslims are from bosnia,kosovo and albania.Most of these people have to be educated about their past history as to how they became muslims during middle ages,when turkey's ottoman empire forcibly converted them to uncivilised muslims by the sword.These muslims should convert back to christianity after repenting and become civilised again.

Switzerland should also think about banning muslim immigration and set an example to other European nations in doing so.They should also think about banning taliban dress of women just like proposed ban by the French government in future.They should also ban any more building of mosques and madrasas,which are brainwashing machines of the savage,uncivilised,primitive,bigoted and animist wahabi inspired religion,if you call it a religion,in the world.They should also ban illegal transport of petrodollars from the middle east to rotten muslim organisations in promotion and convertion activities of those uncivilised infidels.THAKS TO CIVILISED SWISS PEOPLE FOR THEIR BRAVE HISTORIC DECISION.

Farnaz:

Wouldn't cannibalism qualify as post-Prandialism?

On one level, the vote to ban minarets in Switzerland is a triviality. The constitutional amendment does not ban mosques, it does not pull down the country's four existing minarets, nor does touch the practice of Islam in Switzerland or bear on the many issues concerning Swiss Muslims. In all likelihood, the political establishment in Bern, which abominates the amendment, will find some way to overturn it.

But on another level, the 57.5 to 42.5 percent vote represents a possible turning point for European Islam, one comparable to the Rushdie affair of 1989. That a large majority of those Swiss who voted on Sunday explicitly expressed anti-Islamic sentiments potentially legitimates such sentiments across Europe and opens the way for others to follow suit. That it was the usually quiet, low-profile, un-newsworthy, politically boring, neutral Swiss who suddenly roared their fears about Islam only enhances their votes' impact.

Clearly, Europe is beginning to waken to the threat, and to take action before it is too late. Will the US? Probably not. The American inclination to Political Correctness At All Costs probably means that it is already too late to save the US.

Schaum says this about me:

Daniel12 on Islam:

Atheism can't prove there is no God!

Schaum, you might find this surprising, but when it comes to Islam I sure wish proof left and right against God would exist. Fortunately, or perhaps I should say unfortunately, Muslims seem to be making proof unnecessary to question their religion. I hate to say it, but after reading Samuel Huntington's "Clash of civilizations" I had to agree with the man. Some say his book is the best, most relevant political science book in years. I am not in position to determine that, not having read a significant number of the better ones over the past twenty years or so, but I would say the man reasons really well, in fact the way he develops a sentence and marshals facts reminds of Alfred North Whitehead although Whitehead is better. I mean so clear and logical sentences and paragraphs, like listening to an exceptional piece of music where every step is the right step and there cannot be any other. But maybe exaggeration is creeping in now so I should leave it at that.

pam, peter,
i'm still trying to catch up from my vacation.... haven't forgotten. will comment soon. as pam noted, mouw's thread closed.... how 'bout here?
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/willis_e_elliott/2009/12/islamophobia_is_there_nothing_to_fear_but_fear_itself.html

Hmmm....

Speaking of Golden Ages, I wonder what Jihadist would say about the Swiss referendum....

Part one.

Atheism, science and religion.

1) Religion. A view, whether in the East or West, which takes itself as the explanation of the totality of existence, so complete an explanation that no other knowledge is necessary. Existence is explained strictly in terms of morals. In the East morality to the point of enlightenment. In the West morality to the point of being right with God. Existence is something which demands a moral response from man to be solved. No knowledge other than morality is necessary. All seeming other knowledge such as meditation or prayer actually method toward morals. Correct morality and method and existence is understood.

Part two.

Drawbacks to this view: First, the view suffers from trying to be an explanation of the entirety of existence. Notoriously the more a view tries to encompass the totality of existence the more it begins to demonstrate problems as to logic and/or other problems. The less a view tries to encompass the totality of existence the more it becomes a partial view and gains in consistency from being a description of only an aspect of existence. The very word aspect in the dictionary has as one of its definitions particular direction. Total views such as those of religion claim to give THE direction but this assumption is compromised by problems with the logic of such and/or other problems.

Simple examples of the deficient religious logic of East and West: In the West God is supposedly good although he of course must have created the evident evil in the world if he is God. In the East, first the assumption of the concept of reincarnation and next, no particularly enlightened persons although people have been meditating and reincarnating (supposedly) for centuries upon centuries. One would think in the East many enlightened people would exist by now. But is the East any more moral than the West let alone with knowledge to rival science? And not to mention in both the East and West the attempt to escape to a place free of suffering when such a place, if it exists, is evidently superior to suffering and should have disabled suffering in the first place. Nibbana and heaven--both places whether in the mind or time and space.

Part three.

Again, religion is a view which takes itself as the total and final view when history demonstrates that all attempts at a total view eventually begin to show problems with logic and/or other problems. But in the final analysis, what are we to make of religion? Answer: No matter the drawbacks of religion it is the view of the world par excellence which demands something from man. Furthermore, what is demanded is morality. Whether in the East or West religion holds one to account. In the East morality or else one suffers rebirth, reincarnation. In the West morality or one suffers under God. How can one argue with a view that demands morality? Sure, what morality is is argued incessantly, and many terrible decisions as to what morality is have been made, but morality is demanded nonetheless.

2) Atheism. Atheism is the view par excellence which rejects the religious view of the world. And although atheists like to say science is on their side, atheism existed before science was ever definite. Atheists although they like to say things such as one can be moral without God reject the view of existence which is religion, which is the view that the meaning of existence is found through morality, that existence demands morality of man. There is no God for atheists nor enlightenment as in the East. Existence demands nothing according to the view of atheism. There is nothing behind existence to demand anything of the atheist. Furthermore, atheism is a total view like religion, is a total rather than partial way of viewing the world. The atheist like the religious man thinks his view absolute, the last word of existence.

Part four.

Needless to say, like all total views atheism suffers from problems of logic and/or other problems. Atheists have everything including intelligence having arisen from exactly nothing behind things. Even more killing, according to atheism nothing eventually can ever be arrived at. Neither morality nor intelligence gains one anything. All is eventually lost. Behind existence is a great big nothing. How astonishing it is that people with this view often speak of the need for morality and intelligence! For what this need?! There is no demand for morality from anything behind existence let alone from one's fellow man, a creature all too willing to shirk duty unless his view of existence clearly has morality as at least one of the routes to salvation. And there is nothing to gain by intelligence according to the view of atheists.

But atheists strut about with the same authority as any religious person. Even try to tell us their view is to be distinguished from the religious, that it is true and backed by science. Not mere philosophy and dismissal of religion but a view as solid as relativity theory or natural selection. But it is just a philosophy. A pessimistic one. It demands nothing of man but that he acquiesce, accept there is nothing behind existence. This is seen when we examine science--examine religion and science with atheism in between.

Part five.

3) Science. Science is the view of the world which says that existence does not just ask morality of man as religion does. Science even asks if the religious view of the world is true at all, whether we can even state that existence is a moral project, that one must achieve enlightenment through morality as in the East or become right with God as in the West. In this sense science resembles atheism. Both reject a just morality view of the world. Atheism however replaces the religious view with nothing--atheists have even told me atheism would be nothing if religious people did not make a big deal of it, that it is a mere negation and not affirmation of anything. Science on the other hand asks that we add to the moral view of the world the view of the pursuit of knowledge. Science is the view par excellence that says knowledge is the key to salvation.

Science believes the universe is fundamentally intelligible, that miracles can be wrought as we hope for in religion but that these miracles must be earned through slow, painstaking research. One must have the morality as in religion but added to that the quest for knowledge. Then miracles will occur. Furthermore science does not impose a total view on reality as religion and atheism do other than to ask that we have hope in knowledge. Science knows nothing is certain but still it hopes. It knows that it might be that neither morality nor knowledge will explain the universe but still it chooses to believe both can do such. Especially that knowledge will do such.

Part six.

So we can see with clarity that the main problem between religion and science is just that knowledge wants a place at the table. The religious should not be frightened of science. It is not atheism. It believes knowledge is possible and has a method for reaching such--the famous scientific method. Atheism has no method. It is merely the dismissal of religion under the pose of reason, a pose strangely taken because reason cannot attain really anything in the atheistic world--there is nothing behind existence to attain. So we can see despite all the success of atheism that it is doomed to fail. It has the moral view of the world on one side and the knowledge view on the other squeezing it tight. No wonder atheists try to pose as moral and knowledgeable!

No wonder they say they can be even more moral than the religious and that they are in the vanguard of the knowledge of science! And how foolish that people actually believe them when they have usurped the moral and knowledge views of the world, somehow made both compatible with the belief that there is nothing behind existence! But they cannot hide for long! Religion and science will win out! A moral and knowledge view of the world will reign! And neither of them separate or together are atheism! We will have a religion and science view of the world.

Farnaz:

"I suppose cannibalism is the exception."

Hmmmm....better run your idea past Politically Correct Pam. She may have issues.

Arminius:

"Aah! running away like a racist coward"

Racist coward?

I'm not the one who murdered 13 people in Fort Hood.
I'm not the one who threw a grenade in a tent of soldiers.
I'm not the one who plowed two planes of innocent people into two tall buildings.
I'm not the one who plowed a plane of innocent people into the Pentagon.
I'm not the one who blew up trains full of people in England and Spain.

It is Islam that is full of racist cowards.

Even Politically Correct Pam can't deny that.

How would I get rid of them? By denying them entry into the country, the same way other undesirables are daily prevented from entering.

Really, Arminius. Is this the best you can do?

" Period. No questions. "

Aah! running away like a racist coward~! How do you propose to achieve banning Islam?? Or do you just spew all the sewage in your brain without ever giving a second thought on how to realise your goals?

Schaum,

Prandialism generally doesn't involve direct violence among its practitioners although I suppose cannibalism is the exception. Personally, I've become a vegetarian more or less so even indirect extinction is no longer part of my practice, as it were.

That is not to say, of course, that I cast a disapproving eye on my meat-eating brothers and sisters.

Farnaz

Farnaz:

So long as Prandialism doesn't advocate killing and destroying people who don't follow it, fine with me. One religion is as good as the next.

Except, of course, the murderous Islam, which should be forbidden by law.

"I'm a cynical racist because I think a murderous cult like Islam should not be tolerated in a free society? Ok. Whatever you say."

Schaum / or whatever else you might be!

Didn't like the mirror 'eh? Ya didn't have the answers to the questions. How do we turn your fetish of gettin rid of Islam a reality?? Just last word to make your day, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the USA today! Go Figure Racist!!!

Schaum,

Awhile ago, I recommended we forgo all currently practiced religions in favor of Prandialism, the worship of Prandium.

This materialist doctrine has the advantages of not requiring days of rest, calls to prayers, or bells.

Very truly yours,
Farnaz

Pamsm:

You ARE hysterical. And we were NOT talking about American Muslims, you were. I was talking about ISLAM. If you are the voice of sweet reason, then we are all doomed.

But, not being Daniel12, I am not given to repeating myself to calm your politically correct hysteria.

YOU go reread the posts. We can ban people from entering the country before they become American Islamists. We prevent people from entering the country every day, who are not American citizens.

Schaum, you can call me hysterical all you want, but Baby, I'm the voice of sweet reason compared to you. You are fair frothing at the mouth.

None of what I'm saying has the least to do with "political correctness." It's about the knowledge that when you ban and suppress something, and drive it underground, you make it a hundred times stronger and more lethal.

And yes, we were indeed talking about Muslim Americans - who else do "we" have the authority to ban? Go back and reread the posts.

And you thought I was trying to "impress" you?? No - I was merely pointing out that in Islamic countries, where you think the people are so lethal, I managed to survive - in fact, there was no trick to it - no one threatened me. Thank you for making my point stronger by saying that you, too, survived.

Whether you are impressed or not, like me, or loathe me, is a matter of the greatest indifference to me.

Schaum,

"Again, please: just a trifle less hysteria and a little more attention to what is said. Nobody mentioned *anything* about American Muslims. I have been talking about Islam/Islamic extremists. Do you think you can keep that in mind? It is ISLAM which should be outlawed. Is there a way I can make this simpler for you to understand?"

Oh yes you can! There are 1.2 Billion Muslims around the world. Pray tell what kind of a pogrom do you exactly have in mind for us? How will the world become a better place by following cynical racists like yourself? Consider if you even get to outlaw Islam, what would happen next? Mass Deportation? Incarcerating all muslims? Razing all their mosques and monuments? No relations with Islamic countries? The idiocy of this argument is simply breathtaking.

Just a thought about religion, separation of the private and public, etc.

There has been some discussion here and in other essays, threads, of substituting modern technology for the calls to prayer.

However, this ignores the matter of the expansive purpose of the calls, which do more than simply let folks know it's time to pray. In many Muslim countries, everything stops during the prayers. People pray together wherever they are. If you are on a crowded street, near a building site, you will find somewhere to retreat so as neither to get in anyone's way or to call attention to yourself.

It is part of tradition, and also of the socializing apparatus of many lands or, if you prefer, indoctrination. All countries have arsenals for both processes, ours very much included. Hence, it is best to view the call as a symbolic as well as a physical act. Recall that it was the tacit knowledge that all symbolic acts have coercive potential that kept most of us here in opposition to flags outside of schools for prayer days, religious monuments in public parks.

This may become clearer if we consider that, in fact, there is no need for a call to prayer at all. One needs neither loudspeaker broadcasts from minarets or cell phone calls or anything else.
Assuming that at least some on this thread have observant Muslim acquaintances, if not friends, I would imagine you have seen them stop what they are doing in order to pray, sans broadcast or cell phone alert. Other observant Muslims find it impossible to carry out the duty of five-times-daily prayer simply because of the hectic pace of life here, but that, of course, is another matter.

Think, too, about those other religions that require prayer more than once a day. Orthodox Jews must pray three times a day, and those who manage it, like many of their Muslim counterparts here, pray without announcements, cell phone calls, etc.

Again, my guess is that no one in the Swiss authorities ventured to discuss this option for fear of being viewed as bigoted, a risk that probably appeared unnessecary since the referendum was not expected to pass.

Also, to Arminius, hello from me, as well. There was a sort of "golden period" here, which is now gone, isn't it?

But anyway, stick around, why don't you?

Efavorite

You asked if “the human inability to understand what motivates the world” is what you call God?”

No.

Our senses perceive the landscape that sustains us, and we have an awareness and understanding of this landscape so that we can navigate our way. One way to think of this is that the landscape is provided to sustain us, and we are provided to experience it. This part is actually fairly simple, and really without much complicated thought.

The next part is harder. Beyond the landscape of our awareness, there is more, that we can neither perceive, nor know, nor even imagine, but yet exists. That part has not been provided to sustain us, and we are not provided knowledge of it.

What is it? By the way I have defined it, I can never know. But in this unknown is the key to the puzzle that we all seek, but we will never find it or know it, because it is locked away from our capacity or ability to find. Search as you will, but you will not ever have access to this key.

Providence is a word that some Christian traditions use as a synonym for God. It implies impersonal benevolence. Providence is all of existence and all of experience, whose fundamental operation we can never understand nor comprehend, nor even imagine.

Sometimes, people tell me that this sounds like Bhuddism. But I do not follow Bhudist thought very well because it seems to work very hard to explain the unexplainable.

There is much, much more that all of this implies about what we experience on earth, good and evil, suffering, free will, but it is too much to go into here.

Maybe one day, I will write it all down and make a book.

EFavorite, if you're here, do you remember the wonderfully irreverent videos (was it YouTube?) that you posted links to a couple of years ago - the comedies with God, Jesus, and a female Satan (God's girlfriend)?

If so, and you have them, could you re-post? They were very funny.

Hi Efavorite

How can you be chasing me? I'm not running; I'm sitting in a chair. So you can't be chasing me.

I feel like I know what I believe about most of this stuff, but it is hard to put into words, so I have to take a few minutes to collect my thoughts.

Daniel12

You are reading alot into me which I have never said.

In one of our exchanges, I said plainly and clearly, just as you have said, that atheism is "philosophy" and therefore cannot really be compared to religion. I have never said that atheism is a scientific fact.

Science, as far as I know, is mute on the subject of God, and neither seeks to prove nor disprove the existence of God, nor to prove nor disprove anything. It is a methodology, and a collection of information about the world. In all of our exchanges, you are the one who keeps bringing up science, not me. If people get the impression that science is atheistic, then that is their philosophical interpretation and speculation about the meaning of science, but it is not science.

And once again, atheism does not seek to describe anything about the world, its nature, or its origins. Atheism is, specifically, the absence in a belief in God. Anything more, is (shall I say it again?) speculative philosophy, which varies quite a bit from person to person.

And also, as I have repeated several times before, I am not defending atheism as "the truth that there is no God." I am defending atheism from unjust and unfair political and cultural attacks that have nothing to do with truth-seeking nor sincere questioning.

All of your arguments seem politically motivated, that a belief is good or bad, not according to its truth or untruth, but according to its societal implications. It would never, in a hundred years, occur to me to take this tack in forming an argument about existential reality.

When I called you a navel-gazer, I wasn't trying to be mean; there are alot worse things that people call each other. And there are alot more things to think about than the loss of arbitray collective identity which was always, in any case, just an illusion.

Daniel12 on Islam:

Atheism can't prove there is no God!

Arminius on Islam:

Sure thing! Its a religion just like any other religion, and should get equal treatment. Bring it on!

G.K. Chesterton on Islam:

There is in Islam a paradox which is perhaps a permanent menace. The great creed born in the desert creates a kind of ecstasy of the very emptiness of its own land, and even, one may say, out of the emptiness of its own theology. . . . A void is made in the heart of Islam which has to be filled up again and again by a mere repetition of the revolution that founded it. There are no sacraments; the only thing that can happen is a sort of apocalypse, as unique as the end of the world; so the apocalypse can only be repeated and the world end again and again. There are no priests; and yet this equality can only breed a multitude if lawless prophets almost as numerous as priests. The very dogma that there is only one Mahomet produces an endless procession of Mahomets.

Alexis de Tocqueville on Islam:

"I studied the Kuran a great deal ... I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammed. As far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world, and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion infinitely more to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself."

John Wesley on Islam:

" Ever since the religion of Islam appeared in the world, the espousers of it...have been as wolves and tigers to all other nations, rending and tearing all that fell into their merciless paws, and grinding them with their iron teeth; that numberless cities are raised from the foundation, and only their name remaining; that many countries, which were once as the garden of God, are now a desolate wilderness; and that so many once numerous and powerful nations are vanished from the earth! Such was, and is at this day, the rage, the fury, the revenge, of these destroyers of human kind"

Work hours? Fairly copped.

Not another long farewell!

You are quite the sentimentalist, Risible Guy.

Farnaz,

Sooner or later, you will get on this textbook example of chaos in blog form. I hope you read this. I offer you what I posted on the last blog, and I offer it in sad farewell. I tire of the fighting, I'm too damn old, and there are better ways to spend what time I have left.

So let us talk, then, you and I
Ruled not by anger, nor by fear
Pursue the what, the how, the why
To look at what is now and here
That Moving Finger has gone by
Nor can we call it back again
No matter how we weep and cry -
Move onward now, dismiss the pain.

I regret this can now never come to pass between us.

Fare thee well, Farnaz, and strive to tap your inner goodness and strength, which I know is there.

Arminius, the Visible Goy

Arminius,

"a challenge to you to offer something besides a few words that was not even close to Haiku."

Fair cop. Consider chin smitten.

Pamsm:

Forgive me: I forgot to mention that there were 3000+ Americans, killed on their own soil, by Islamists. First time for everything, eh?

"I don't want to lay too much on you, in your present ADD condition, but certain forms of religion already ARE banned in the US. Specifically, religions incorporating ritual human sacrifice, ritual animal sacrifice and, in some states if not all, those religions involving the handling of poisonous serpents."

No, Schaum. The acts are banned (i.e., illegal), not the religions.

That snake-handling one...? Christianity.

"Those Gospels by which you run your life, Arminius, say something about splinter and plank, or is it mote and log?"

And just when have I appealed to my religion here, as an authority? It is my authority, it is my path, and I parade it before no one. Don't put words in my mouth, Onofrio, it does you no justice, you are better than that.

Also, my pathetic poem was a challenge to you to offer something besides a few words that was not even close to Haiku.

And Daniel 12 repeats himself one more time, in case we didn't get the last twenty times...

"You think I am about to be tolerant of a religion that would be willing to execute me on any one of four counts?"

Speaking of hysterical...

We are talking about America here, Schaum. When was the last time you heard about Muslim Americans (whether nationalized, or holding green cards) executing anyone for being gay, infidel, non-Islamic, or Western?

Do you honestly believe that all Muslims are after your blood?

That is very generous of you, Schaum.

Onofrio:

"Indeed...the occasion of said climax would be a spellbound self-survey of his collected wisdom, methinks."

My guess is conversation, climax and exhaustive self-survey would take no more than 15 seconds.

Indeed...the occasion of said climax would be a spellbound self-survey of his collected wisdom, methinks.

Since his jeenyus is peerless, only he can review it aptly.

Daniel12,

"Perhaps Lion's Den I can put at the simplest the problem communicating we are having concerning atheism and religion by saying you act as if atheism is a view scientifically solid which is being opposed by religion, a false view of the world, while I hold that atheism is merely a piece of philosophy and is actually quite similar to religion in that neither religion nor atheism are scientifically solid."

Is reading like it being fed into a Magyar translator and then reversing back English in repeat manner.

"Who is guarding you, other than Johnny Walker?

As I said: ban all religions, people, political parties that advocate the destruction/deaths of other people, religions parties. Thats who. The definitions you seek are right there.

The First Amendment exists because the FF wanted to escape religious oppression. Islam wants to reinstate religious oppression. You want to help them. I don't."

God, how boring. The usual drivel. You been taking lessons from CCNL?

Schaum, you really are a fool.

First, you start with your usual pre-pubescent insult.

Next, you never answered my question: WHO decides? You merely repeated that it should be done. Pathetic appeal to some mystical authority.

Sure, some parts of Islam want to oppress. Some parts of Christianity also want to oppress. If you are going to try to be consistent, a feat which I doubt you can ever achieve, then call also for the outlawing of Christianity. And thus you fulfill the thrust of bigotry, judging the whole by the part.

Grow up.

Perhaps Lion's Den I can put at the simplest the problem communicating we are having concerning atheism and religion by saying you act as if atheism is a view scientifically solid which is being opposed by religion, a false view of the world, while I hold that atheism is merely a piece of philosophy and is actually quite similar to religion in that neither religion nor atheism are scientifically solid. Science in fact is not in any position to declare either view of the world correct. Science has succeeded in only partial views, views of this or that aspect of reality. All views of life in total are religion and philosophy, nothing more. Why I have to point this out is strange when it is just basic knowledge of modern man.

Part one.

Navel Gazing Lion's Den? It seems rather you who are deficient as to basic philosophy. Basic philosophy says there is no view in total--one which purports to be the final word and is not a partial view such as evolution and relativity which describe partial aspects of existence--which is perfectly logically consistent and/or without other problems.

As examples of views in total we have of course religion and atheism. They do not claim to describe parts of reality--are not partial descriptions of this or that aspect of reality as scientific theories are--but claim to be views which will continue to exist no matter the science, no matter further views.

But again, there is no view in total which is logically satisfactory and/or without other problems. If religion or atheism were absolutely true, without logical problems and/or other problems all science would be merely filling in the details. In fact it would be arguable why we would need science at all because religion, first, asks that one merely get right with God, which can be done no matter the advance of science, while atheism says there is no God, which makes all science futile because ultimately there is no "theory of everything (such as for example physicists try to discover)" but merely nothing eventually.

Fortunately there are people that recognize all total views are deficient in some manner, do not serve well as total, or even in many instances, as partial views. As examples of the deficiency of both religion and atheism I once again point out problems I have already pointed out to you but which in the case of atheism you deny, but in the case of religion you are all too happy to point out.

Part two.

Religion is deficient for example in saying God is good when obviously evil is in the world. We have a clear contradiction here. Religion is not a satisfactory view in total. And atheism says there is nothing at the beginning but somehow arrives at everything including intelligence arising from this nothing. A clear contradiction--and one made worse because atheists are only too happy to crow about their intelligence over the religious when according to their very view not even intelligence required anything like intelligence to arise. In the atheistic world intelligence is sheer pretension because it has created really nothing in comparison to the nothing atheists claim as having created everything including intelligence. Not to mention that a world with no intelligence behind it is ultimately a futile world because of course there is no salvation ultimately.

But again, this is just basic philosophy. No view in total is logically satisfactory. No one has explained existence to satisfaction in any way except partial ways such as having a theory for this or that. Any good scientist can tell you that. Science is premised in fact on the basic fact that not only all views in total but views in partial are somehow deficient. Scientists have really succeeded only in partial views and are not remotely in position to make a statement about life in total.

Views of life in total are just religious or philosophical views. Atheism is a philosophical view--not a piece of scientific exactitude opposed by religion. All religion and philosophy is just that, religion and philosophy--within which science works describing ever more accurately partial aspects of reality, and working slowly with the intention of arriving at a theory of everything.

Basic knowledge of the modern philosopher and scientist. Perhaps you should try navel gazing as you call it. So far as I can tell my eyes aim at my navel only when a book is in my lap.

"A no-brainer, so this one is simple for you: ban any and all religions, races, people who actively work for the destruction and murder of other religions, races and people."

Yeah, right. Now tell us all, O Great Wise One, just who the hell decides which ones shall go? And who guards these people to insure that they don't ban others they don't like? And who guards the guards?

I'll stick with our First Amendment.

Arminius:

A no-brainer, so this one is simple for you: ban any and all religions, races, people who actively work for the destruction and murder of other religions, races and people.

"I don't love religion any more than you do, but this must have been the sort of thing that the Nazi Party preached in regard to Jews. It would not have the desired effect."

Well said, Pam. Ban one religion, and which is next? Or what political group? Or what race?

Pamsm:

"I don't love religion any more than you do, but this must have been the sort of thing that the Nazi Party preached in regard to Jews. It would not have the desired effect."

If I read his posting correctly, he is talking about banning a religion, not about destroying people. Soft-pedal the hysteria a little, and I think you'll see the difference.

Islam advocates my destruction for four reasons: I am gay; I am a non believer (infidel); I refuse to embrace Islam; I am a westerner.

You think I am about to be tolerant of a religion that would be willing to execute me on any one of four counts?

Get serious.

The majority of the Muslim immigrants to the west have no desire to belong to, or become a part of the countries whose generosity have given them the privilege to live with dignity as human beings. This is why we find that such crimes as murder, suicide bombings, subway train bombings, and so forth, are rife among Muslims in the west. The most serious thing to observe is that a Muslim who resorts to the destruction of other humans evidently does not experience any pangs of conscience, and is not deterred by any moral or religious impulse. On the contrary, he considers these countries that have opened their doors to welcome him, as lands of the Infidel; thus he has the right to commit such crimes within their borders. The explanation for this is called Takiya which means deception or concealing and disguising one's beliefs and intentions to fool the adversary. According to Muhammad all forbidden things become permissible if they are to be used for the advancement of Islam. So Muslims can lie, steal, murder and rape with complete clear conscience because they are convinced of doing the right thing.

Many Western Muslims, while living in the country that has admitted them, given them social security, housing and looked after their children by providing them with food and free medicine, will, at the same time, brag that he owes no allegiance to such a country, on the pretext that it is a non-Islamic land.

But foreigners passing through Arab and Muslim lands are expected to show respect for their traditions and culture. Is it then too much to expect a Muslim seeking Western citizenship, to show more respect for the traditions of the societies that have given him shelter?

Its pure lunacy literally to allow Muslims in large numbers to live in the West. This eventually may prove to be the undoing and the destruction of our civilization, if no one takes heed to reverse this policy.

What legacy are we going to leave our children and our children's children? Is it going to be continuous conflict, hatred and even civil wars? On a strictly moral plane, Islam has very little to recommend it. Islam is barbaric to its core and vile in it's ideology. On the cultural plane, it is ridiculously backward, bigoted, childish and hateful. On the political plane it is a cancer which threatens the West and the world.

Do you really imagine your precious laws will prevent such persons from acting on their murderous convictions?

Daniel Redmond,

"Let's start a movement to ban Islam from our shores, the sooner the better!"

I don't love religion any more than you do, but this must have been the sort of thing that the Nazi Party preached in regard to Jews. It would not have the desired effect.

Spire and Minaret

Behold cathedral spires!
Impossible grace
Beauty incarnate
Architect's dream
See Notre Dame
Admire Cologne
Seek out the Good

Behold the minaret!
Impossibly thin
Perfected spire
Architect's dream
See Taj Mahal
Look at Mecca
Seek out the Good

Ignore office buildings
Icons of Wall Street
Glass-bound prisons
Symbols of greed
Square and boring
Disdain them all
Seek out the Good

Schaum,
You said:
"The law prevents NOTHING from happening, Pam...it can only provide subsequent punishment so survivors can feel they have 'closure' (read 'revenge')."
and
"Laws ONLY work when people agree to obey them... Your precious laws have not prevented attacks in this and other countries by Islamic extremists...Laws do not protect you from anything unless persons agree to obey them... Laws mean nothing."

Is it anarchy that you're espousing, then? And if it's all by "agreement," then why do we need/have police forces, FBI, etc., etc,?

I don't file my tax returns because I just love hours of paperwork; I do it because I don't want to be fined or imprisoned.

Laws can't prevent all crime from happening, true, but they do deter many from committing crimes, and keep others from doing so blatantly and openly.

I work with several Muslims, and see many more in the course of a day (the D.C. area is pretty cosmopolitan). None have yet made any attempts on my life.

The Ft. Hood shooter was a sick and lonely person who got caught up in radical Islamic fundamentalism. He's hardly an example of the majority of Muslims in this country. And there have been plenty of home-grown Christian fundamentalists who have done as much or more. Remember, too, it was the police who took him down - not some ordinary citizen with a concealed weapon.

I agree that foreign nationals should be scrutinized before entry is granted. I do not agree that Islam as a religion be excluded or legislated against as a blanket policy. Nothing would radicalize more rapidly.

The way to end religion is to educate, educate, educate. Never by legislation.

Daniel ITLD - I'm chasing you from the previous thread -- my question is:

You say, “I believe in Providence.” What does Providence mean to you?

And back to my earlier question, “are you saying that what you see as the human inability to understand what motivates the world is what you call God?”

I assume you didn't see these questions, but if you did and would just rather not address them, OK - just let me know and I'll stop chasing you.

PS to Arminius - Hello!

I correct myself: "sentinel" event should read "signal" event.

Arminius:

"True ignorance is not the absence of knowledge, but the refusal to acquire it."
- Karl Popper"

Why, thank you Arminius. You have actually been both useful and correct. I hope these are sentinel events, signifying a change for the better in your life.

"True ignorance is not the absence of knowledge, but the refusal to acquire it."
- Karl Popper

Ain't Google wonderful?

The main weakness of Islam is how it treats women. By immigrating to Western countries, and exposing themselves to the ordinary-ness of modern women, the whole Islamic paradigm risks unravelling, and coming apart at the seams. There is really no need for a law against minarets or anything else.

Daniel Redmond:

"And, as we all know, there is no proof of his existence. Which means no proof of his nonexistence is required.

Religion was the first, and the worst, attempt by humanity to explain our existence. No deity has ever been real or ever will be. That's a fact."

True ignorance is not the absence of knowledge, but the refusal to acquire it.

I wish I could remember who said this...

cont.

So he sends his kid, Jesus, to be whipped and beaten and murdered on a cross to "pay for our sins" [that being the disobedience of eating the apple and all] and so you'd think that we'd be off the hook as it were, right? No way. As far as God is concerned we're still just a bunch of degenerate sinners from before we even take our first breath of air at birth. So we're going to be subjected to intense and relentless mind control, with God reading our very thoughts and watching everything we do every minute of every day. And if he disapproves of any of what we think or do then we'll be sent to a place called Hell upon our death where we will be burn and suffer for all eternity.

Daniel12, you are f**kwitted enough to worship this twisted bully? Okay, if you want to, go ahead. But I'd rather demand some more proof that the bully even exists before kowtowing to His every whim and living in fear of reprisal for eating meat on Friday or whatever other silly dictum the guys in the dresses in Rome demand of me. And, as we all know, there is no proof of his existence. Which means no proof of his nonexistence is required.

Religion was the first, and the worst, attempt by humanity to explain our existence. No deity has ever been real or ever will be. That's a fact.

Having read several paragraphs of the convoluted syntax and thought processes of the mind of Daniel12, I hardly know where to begin a reply to his pathological fear of atheists.

Well, historically there has been a concerted effort on the part of Christianity---the Catholic Church in particular---to prevent, to the best of its ability, the acquisition of practical and scientific knowledge, but such efforts have never, ever been spearheaded by Atheists. It was not, after all, a collection of non-believers who forced Gallileo to recant his astronomical observations or be burned at the stake; it was the Catholic Church---a Christian organization, last time I checked. Religion, in all its various forms, has fought tooth and nail against the advancements of science and knowledge since the day they were conceived in the minds of primitive superstitious peoples around the globe.

I lump all of the Abrahamic religions together as equally absurd in both their claims (exaggerated at best) and promises (no Second Coming yet, from what I can see). They all purport to worship a god that exhibits the personality traits of a sociopath. Consider, for example, the Christian "greatest [creationist] story ever told":

First this Almighty Being creates us as flawed creatures. Then he commands us to become better than we are able to be. Then he decides to punish all humanity....for what?.....for tasting the fruit of KNOWLEDGE. [Did I mention that religion discouraged the gaining of knowledge?] You see, he gave us "free choice" but if you don't choose the right thing, he's really angry at you. So then he's going to punish all of the descendants of the babe who bit the apple off the tree of knowledge through all of eternity. [Is this guy a hard case or what?]

But then he decides to send his "only begotten son" down to earth to be murdered by a bunch of primitive Middle Eastern rednecks in lieu of punishing the rest of us for all eternity. Remember now, the only one who is demanding that ANYONE be punished at all is, you guessed it, the Holy Father himself. What a guy!

The huge difference between Moslems in North America and Moslems in Europe is education and social class. Most of the Moslems in the US - aside from the home-grown Nation of Islam - came here for educational or economic opportunities. They are the ones that could afford to purchase trans-continental passage to the Western Hemisphere. However, in Europe, with no ocean to divide them, there are many more lower-class, economic refugee Moslems who came to Europe to 1) find work or 2) escape from the lousy situation in their home countries. They are much like the Mexicans and Salvadorans who are crossing the border illegally in America. The are a lot more likely to be radicalized, or their children are.

Either way, the "Call to Prayer" is an anachronism in this day and age. Cell phones can be programmed to alert the user when it is time to pray, and some will even tell the user which way Mecca is.

DITLD:

"In my adult life, I have been friends with a number of people from Islamic countries, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. All of them were educated, modern, and international in their outlooks. So, such a thing is possible."

Borrowing from the concept of "versions" of software (you know, DOS v1.0, DOS v2.0, etc.) consider Al Qaeda to represent Islam V1.0. There is now a v2.0: Al-Qaeda's once-leading theorist has publicly repudiated terrorism and adopted political means. Sayyid Imam al-Sharif (b. 1950, also known by the nom de guerre Dr. Fadl) was accused of helping assassinate Sadat. In 1988 he published a book that argued for perpetual, violent jihad against the West. With time, however, Sharif observed the inutility of violent attacks and instead advocated a strategy of infiltrating the state and influencing society. It involves lawful Islamists softening up the enemy, then violent elements seizing power. The Hamas takeover of Gaza proved that such a combination can work: win elections in 2006, then stage a violent insurrection in 2007. Similar processes are possibly underway in Pakistan.

Only Islamists, not fascists or communists, have gone well beyond crude force to win public support and develop a 2.0 version. Because this aspect of Islamism undermines traditional values and destroys freedoms, it may threaten civilized life even more than does v1.0. vv1.0.v1brutality.

Schaum

I can see all of your points. I do not believe that tolerance should be extended to the intolerant.

One thing that I notice about many Moslems is their use of the word "infidel." It is used disdainfully and dismissively, and sounds an awful lot like the dreaded "N-word" that white people used to apply to black people. Should they get away with that? I find the common Islamic use of this word to be vulgar and socially unacceptable.

The immigration of Islamic peoples Westward is an unstoppable social phenomenon that I think is beyond all our control. I think how we greet them and treat them is all we can do. I think that we should try as hard as we can to absorb them, secularize them, and try to help them understand democracy and pluralism.

In my adult life, I have been friends with a number of people from Islamic countries, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. All of them were educated, modern, and international in their outlooks. So, such a thing is possible.

Kingofkings:

"What's next: a referendum to see if anal sex should be outlawed in Switzerland?"

No. Its already lawful there.

The offensive referendum is as logical as a slice of cheese with holes in it.

What's next: a referendum to see if anal sex should be outlawed in Switzerland?

Must a tolerant society tolerate intolerant cultures?

Tolerance is respect and acceptance of the rich diversity of the world's cultures, forms of expression and ways of being human. It is fostered by knowledge, openness, communication, and freedom of thought, conscience and belief. Tolerance is harmony in difference. It is not only a moral duty; it is also a political and legal requirement. Tolerance is the virtue that makes peace possible. It contributes to the replacement of the culture of war by a culture of peace.

Tolerance involves the rejection of dogmatism and absolutism and affirms the standards set out in international human rights instruments. One is free to adhere to one's own convictions and accepts that others adhere to theirs. It means accepting the fact that human beings, naturally diverse in their appearance, situation, speech, behaviour and values, have the right to live in peace and to be as they are. It also means that one's views are not to be imposed on others.

In order to achieve a more tolerant society, states should ratify existing international human rights conventions, and draft new legislation where necessary, to ensure equality of treatment and of opportunity for all groups and individuals in society.

It is essential for international harmony that individuals, communities and nations accept and respect the multicultural character of the human family. Without tolerance there can be no peace, and without peace there can be no development or democracy.
Intolerance may take the form of marginalization of vulnerable groups and their exclusion from social and political participation, as well as violence and discrimination against them. All individuals and groups have the right to be different.

A tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance, which would destroy it, nor is it in any way obligated to do so. It is difficult to strike a balance, however, and different societies do not always agree on the details. Authoritarian systems practice intolerance, the opposite of tolerance.

Taking a tolerant stance is one of the more difficult tasks citizens face in a society. We are not born tolerant, but must learn to be tolerant. Enlightened citizens understand the role of tolerance in a democratic society and are committed to practicing tolerance and respect for minority rights. Intolerance is not a right, either for the minority or the majority. If we are uncritical we shall always find what we want: we shall look for, and find, confirmations, and we shall look away from, and not see, whatever might be dangerous to our pet ideas.

cont.

And this includes strict instructions that no court or legal system shall be obeyed if it is in conflict with Islam's Sharia law. It also commands Muslims to convert non-Muslims, by force if necessary, to Islam and to kill them if they resist. Islam divides the world into two areas: Dar al-Islam (the lands of Islam) and Dar al-Harb (the lands of warfare). No other areas exist under the Islamic world view.

Now considering the above referenced characteristics of Islamic mental disease, I think that here in the United States a case could be made for banning Islam (and Muslims) from our shores on Constitutional grounds. Let me explain. With their strict allegiance to the Koran they have vowed to ignore our courts and our legal system if it is in conflict with Sharia, the Islamic legal code. As Islam is completely incompatible with our own Western democratic values and concepts of personal freedom, this conflict will be continuous. So why allow such a group of people into the United States in the first place? As citizens they must swear an oath to obey the laws of our land. As Muslims they cannot and will not do so. Case closed.

Also, one of the basic rights under our Constitution is religious freedom, something that Muslims do not believe in. As stated earlier, I would like to see all religions simply disappear but I do not advocate doing that by force. Islam does advocate doing it by force and if ever given the upper hand they most certainly would persecute non-Muslims relentlessly and brutally to convert them in accordance with the dictates of their Holy book. Do we really want to allow this huge constituency of religious bigots into our midst when they have already vowed to convert the world to their own lunatic world view and have demonstrated their willingness to do this through violence if necessary? Islam may not have invented the 'suicide bomber' but they've pretty well cornered the market on them in the modern age.

Again.....case closed.

Let's start a movement to ban Islam from our shores, the sooner the better!

As a lifelong Atheist and free-thinker I would like to see all religions simply disappear, as I firmly believe they account for most of the problems facing human societies today and that they are all based upon primitive and rationally discredited belief systems. But at least Christianity, although remaining a strange death cult at its core, has morphed into a relatively harmless form of social dementia wherein people wait around for the "End Times" and the "Second Coming" of an imaginary prophet. Apparently Christians have long since given up the practice of burning "heretics" at the stake, which gives me a certain degree of personal comfort.

Ditto for Judaism, Budhism, Shintoism, etc. Pretty harmless in the modern age.

But Islam is a different story. Islam is the most rabid form of religious lunacy known to Man and it is spreading like a contagion around the globe---literally a virus of the mind that causes behavior that can only be described as appearing to be the manifestation of a mental illness.

Consider the following symptomatic behaviors, all of which have been exhibited by adherents of Islam:

Sudden bursts of intense violence such as the shooting at Fort Hood, Texas recently; Premeditated attacks upon innocent civilians all across the globe, which included the hijacking of four commercial aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001 for the purpose of crashing into crowded buildings; The twisted oppression of Islamic women up to and including the phenomenon of "honor killings" wherein teenaged girls have been murdered by their own fathers for having been seen holding hands in public with a male non-relative; Edicts against singing, dancing, drinking alcohol, or reading anything that disagrees with the Koran; Sentencing a young mother to be stoned to death for the "crime" of having born a child out of wedlock; A sentence of death for any Muslim who leaves the faith.

The list of Islamic lunacies could go on all day but you get the picture. Taken out of the context of religion, how else could one view these but as manifestations of a mental disease? And perhaps the most diabolical edict imposed by this religious virus is the sweeping demand that the Koran become a map for every aspect of a Muslim's life. Period. There is no room for debate within Islam.

Pamsm:

"If a religion says to murder infidels, and its adherents do it - they go to prison. If a religion says that sharia law must prevail - it doesn't replace local, state or federal law...
.
.
."If a religion calls for animal sacrifice - sorry, we have humane laws."

Utter fantasy. Of the untold millions of adherents to Islam, the religion that calls for YOUR destruction, only a handful are in prison for the destruction and murders of 9/11, the train bombings in Spain and England, and the other successful attacks on non-believers that Islam has perpetrated. The law has protected none of these people from being destroyed. And there are still groups in this country that use animals for sacrifice. The law prevents NOTHING from happening, Pam...it can only provide subsequent punishment so survivors can feel they have "closure" (read "revenge").

If you feel that you are obligated to tolerate any religion, or other organization, that has and does openly work for your destruction, that is your choice, however misguided you are, and I would not deny you the opportunity to be of as much assistance to your assassins as you wish to be. I, however, feel no obligation to be in any way tolerant of people, or ideologies, which intend to destroy me. Period. Nor do I think the FF had such a thing in mind.

The bizarre assertion that everything that calls itself a religion deserves to be tolerated as such is bulls**t.

Immanuel Kant: "It is a duty to preserve one's life, and moreover everyone has a direct inclination to do so."

Pamsm

Before this subject popped up here, I was not aware of it. I thought it was about the noise of the call to prayer. I did not know any of the facts at all. I am still not sure what this is all about.

I cannot imagine a national referendum on something as trivial as banning an architectural feature. (At least I could not before this). At the very least, it is a symptom of something weird.

I believe that the founding fathers were not so worried about religious oppresion and protecting people's rights to believe as they wish. They were concerned and worried about religious dissension, and the consequent civil disorder and war, that Europeans of that era were well-aware of, and which most people of today seem to have completely forgotten.

This little Swiss tiff is a perfect example of why there should be separation of "church and state."

I still just wonder, how would one ban a mineret?

Pamsm, Pamsm, Pamsm......

"And Schaum, I'm disappointed in you. It doesn't matter what the religion "calls for" - we have secular laws in this country that religion may not supersede."

Laws ONLY work when people agree to obey them. Pull your head out of the sand. Your precious laws have not prevented attacks in this and other countries by Islamic extremists. What the hell are you thinking of. Laws do not protect you from anything unless persons agree to obey them. Again, even Lincoln violated both law and constitution by depriving people of habeas corpus. Laws mean nothing.

Part one.

The Swiss ban on minarets?

The main thing I think of when I hear situations like this is that few people realize how much the twin concepts of individuality (the individual person as opposed to collective identities of various sorts) and science are altering our thought processes. We think we know what individuality and science mean to our thought processes but we do not know fully, we have not entered individuality and science as much as it is possible to enter these concepts.

Part two.

What I mean at its simplest is that individuality and science are breaking down all views which like to dominate the individual in total and act as if the last word in explanation. And of course this process is occurring at its fiercest in the West. To continue, and to use myself as an example, although I can call myself a Catholic (my religion of course), an American, a white person, a spiritual person if not religious rather than an atheist--although in other words I have resources of collective identification at my disposal with which to secure myself among my compatriots and the world--I am all too aware that these identifications are becoming more shaky every day with the advance of the concepts individuality and science.

There is no secure overarching view--individuality and science reduce collective views of all types, make them partial descriptions of reality only, and provisional. I am aware that there are SOME Catholics, SOME Americans, SOME white people, SOME atheists. No collective view of any sort can rise and dominate everybody anymore. We are becoming "each", people who identify themselves by occupation in society and know even that occupations are by no means secure and that an occupation today might be obsolete tomorrow.

Part three.

Every form of identification is provisional--the absolute identification exists less and less with each passing day. For example, and to speak of myself again, I am all too aware that Darwin described THAT PART of reality, Einstein THIS PART, that religious people try to make their interpretations total and have everyone believe this or that religion but in actuality their thoughts are less and less absolute and held by only them, they too are partial descriptions of reality and provisional. And although atheists will not like it, their view too is provisional. I have had to deal with atheists and I have found to my astonishment that they exactly like the religious try to make their view a view in total, and never give an inch when criticisms are made of their view as to logic and other problems.

The atheists have astonished me because I expected them most of all to understand how no view describes reality in total without any logical contradictions or other problems. All explanations are partial, provisional. A group of atheists is as ridiculous as a religious group. Each believes their view total--they are still among those who believe in collective identities, that such can exist despite the march of the concepts of individuality and science.

Part four.

What the individual is entering in primarily the West is really no world at all but the collapse of worlds, all visions of reality partial at best, none really satisfactory and capable of dominating reality as a whole and each individual without really any collective identity of any sort because collective identities are worn lightly. And even individual identities are provisional. This means a person can no longer be secure as a person by resorting to a fixed individual identity or a collective one. All is provisional. Nothing permanent. The West really is becoming the society of change it has spoken of under names such as progress, etc.

So what we can expect is a clash of collective and individual identities as the concepts individuality and science become more and more realized. People will become resistant to seeing their job as an identity without fixity. They will strive to enter, preserve, this collective identity or that. They will strive to create a band of persons subscribing to this religion or that, or no religion at all but atheism,--any collective identity imaginable. And of course they will become really dogmatic in attempting to preserve particular individual and collective identities. In fact dogmatism means resisting seeing one's view as provisional, that such is not a perfectly logical explanation of existence or even capable of providing cover for only one or two persons.

Part five.

There is no cover. Houses and buildings are built left and right but psychologically, spiritually, emotionally, intellectually there is no cover. Less and less can we with good conscience tell someone this or that view is correct as we like to mean by correct--which is to say the right view, the one the right thinking or intellectual or spiritual hold. Every science, political theory, religion, art finds itself no longer capable of posing as the universal. Not even atheism can pose as a universal. We are finally learning to truly move forward as a human race and understand that everything waits to be found, that all our views are superficial, just waiting to be thrown out and replaced by others which in turn will be thrown out and replaced.

There will come a time in which one will be on either this or that side of the divide. One will be a person who wears all views lightly or be a person identifying with this or that collective or individual view strongly, trying to make everyone see his point, employing logic, empiricism, imagination in an attempt to convince other people. Needless to say the latter people are the backward ones no matter how sophisticated the pose (read atheist) while the former will come to be understood as thinking man, that man up until the time of the divide never really thought for all evidence of thinking because unable to keep from falling under this view or that and defending it inordinately.

Swiss? Minarets? Box of chocolates. Eat them and live or eat them and die.

Wow, I'm as amazed by the comments as Susan is. And I think she's exactly right.

The issue in Switzerland, as she pointed out, was not the call to prayer - that was already banned - yet it's what the commenters keep harping on.

And Schaum, I'm disappointed in you. It doesn't matter what the religion "calls for" - we have secular laws in this country that religion may not supersede.

If a religion says to murder infidels, and its adherents do it - they go to prison. If a religion says that sharia law must prevail - it doesn't replace local, state or federal law. If an imam lops off the hand of a thief in America, that thief can sue him and the mosque and whatever their major religious body is in this country, and bankrupt them all.

To go back to the stupid call to prayer - we have noise ordinances here. Religious expression doesn't allow one to disturb the peace, or do anything else that breaks the secular law. Ditto church bells or any other noise.

If a religion calls for animal sacrifice - sorry, we have humane laws.

Religions are tolerated equally, and they may express themselves through free speech, and that includes anything that doesn't break the law. Wife beating does.

May it ever be so. Because when you start banning religions that you don't like (all of them, in my case) then you've got real trouble!

The talk on this thread is of bells and minarets, Moderate.

Anything to contribute?

I just looked at the mess on the Berlinerblau thread you have pointed to. Everyone writing there should be ashamed. The fear and hatred burning in your souls must be agonizing. You really must find a better way.

Minaret and spire
akin ply mire and spin,
load spines, pile on sin.

Rum thing, that the rival proselytisers alike stab Heaven with their holy prongs.

Spire or minaret, whichever, She is run through.

Miserere nobis, Dea.

A word from a demon:

Whether carillons or muezzins, if you would quiet 'em, make 'em pay (discounts for cash), on an exponential scale, per decibel.

To the Christabellers, you can call it a toll-tithe, (or even a tolltoll ;^) )

To the Akbaryellers, you can call it an air-jizya (we in the Dar al-Harb are so impressed by al-Islam that we have decided to imitate it).

All proceeds to the widows and orphans. Everyone wins.

Randy Singh,

"In Hindu mythology, we call this period as 'Kali-Yug' (It started 2000 years ago). It means period of demons. I am sure they meant muslim as demons."

The first demon is the demoniser.

Congratulations!

Yesterday, I quoted from Christian divines who demonised Jews and so planted demon seeds of fear and loathing in the hearts of their hearers. So much poison fruit since...

You wouldn't want to sully your mythopoeia with The Imitation of Christ(mongery), would you?

DITLD

I think that the purpose of a call to prayer is to "call people to prayer"; and in order to call people to prayer, they must live or work close enough to the mosque to hear the call to prayer.
------------
To an extent, in most Muslim countries, it represents the continuation of an ancient tradition. However, there are other ancient characteristics of mosques that have not been continued, where more modern alternatives were desirable.

Obviously, there is as little need for continuing the prayer call in Riyadh or downtown Damascus as there is in New York. There are many more examples, one could give, of course.

The issues go to ideology/theology, distraction/disturbance, both for those who support the calls and for those who oppose,

Schaum,

Meant to write and say the following:

Not every Baptist Church wishes to dictate national policy. This is good news since same-sex marriage, etc.,...

The facts are that there are vast numbers of Muslims who cannot in the first generation of immigration think in a secular way. That is not as true in the second. There are also ways of helping folks to assimilate that also enable them to keep some sense of their native cultures, practice their religions.

Confrontation is not the solution here, I don't think....

I think that the purpose of a call to prayer is to "call people to prayer"; and in order to call people to prayer, they must live or work close enough to the mosque to hear the call to prayer.

But this is America. all spread out. With a few exceptions, possibly, I would guess that most Muslems do not live within earshot of the mosque. And so this call to prayer is really a traditional ritual. Therefore, it does not have to be loud.

So let it be quietly moderated.

If there is a utilitarian purpose to this call to prayer, then it should be over the radio, internet, beepers, pagers, and telephones; that would accomplish its purpose better than broadcasting over loud speakers.

I am fairly sure that the call to prayer via loud speakers in a twentieth century innovation.

Schaum,

Gay pride parades are not the same as calls to prayer or First Amendment broadcasting.

I agree with you that nothing is culturally neutral.

But there is a difference between occasional celebratory events and having ideology/theology drummed into your ears five times a day, whether you want it drummed or not.

Not every mosq is out to dominate the world, as I posted. Not every Baptist Church wishes to dictate Church policy. There are liberal Baptist clergy on this blog.

(The latter is good news since same-sex marriage is about to face a vote in DC. Did you see Cohen's article in same-sex marriage in the Post, btw.?)

Farnaz:

"What I'm trying to say is that blasting the First Amendment over a loudspeaker would not be a culturally neutral act, would be interpreted, resented, etc."

You are right, of course. However, ringing church bells, gay pride parades, and a host of other public attention-getters are not culturally neutral. So what.

My argument is about tolerance. Susan seems to think that to have ANY tolerance for religious freedom (including freedom from religion) one must be tolerant of ALL religions -- including those religions which are intolerant of other religions, even to the point of openly/doctrinally advocating for their utter destruction and that of their followers.

I think that is an absolutly ridiculous point of view. I am not willing to be tolerant of any organization which actively works for my destruction because I disagree with it. Nor do I think the FF did so/would have done so.

How can US get rid of itself of this problem? Well, I think as it is it is too late. But you can start by
1) inventing alternate source of energy. If done, it will be like cutting the life support of the muslim society.
2) Openly declaring Islamism for what it is.
3) Asking American Muslims to acccept US policy on Israel & asking them to leave if they don't believe in it.
4) Population control of Muslims. If you see, muslim population is growing the fastest in the world. Because they recognise the safest way to takeover the world is by increasing the population.
5) Allowing entry to ONLY secular muslims in the country. Or preferably not allowing muslim immiration at all.
6) Not pampering muslim sentiments. The ONLY language muslims understand is language of force. When they will understand America has recognised their true motive, you will see tremendous difference in the attitude.
7) Making sure not a single cent goes out of America in muslim charities. Apart from petrolleum dollars, American-muslim dollars is the single most important source of income for muslim terrorists in Israel/Kashmir/Chechnya etc.
8) Publicly announce all muslim gatherings whether in mosques/anywhere will be monitored. There is no need to pampering muslims sentiments. In no other religion, religious place is used for propaganda.
9) Close ALL muslim schools/organisations.
10) Stop airing CAIR intellectuals.
11) Stop hiring muslims for ALL sensitive positions in CIA/FBI/army/police etc etc.

I don't think there is much diplomatic way of doing these things. If not done in time, it will destroy all non-muslim civilization.

In Hindu mythology, we call this period as 'Kali-Yug' (It started 2000 years ago). It means period of demons. I am sure they meant muslim as demons.

I am an Indian living in USA. I have been witnessing the American interpretation of Islam/Muslims/Islamic society/Muslim way of living. Let me be very blunt. Susan Jacoby is extremely naive. She don't understand the dangers of Islamic civilization. Everybody including people/media/government is in self denial. If they don't wake up in time, they will see themselves a replica of India, a wounded civilization.

I have lived with Muslims all my life. These are my observations,

1) Islam is a warrior religion. As per that religion, the ideal world will be ruled by Sharia & everybody will recognise ONLY ALLAH. Muslims are programmed to work towards that end. Islam allows them to adopt any means to achieve this goal. Because of this, certain things will be sins for a non-Muslim. But they are considered heroic & respectable by Muslim society. In short, Muslim moral system is completely different from that of any non-Muslim religion.

2) Muslims can live with ONLY Islamic social structure. By this structure, only MUSLIMS are entitled to the riches of the world. Only Muslims can enjoy the political power. In this ideal world, Muslims have extremely strict morality rules. They can not do any wrong to fellow Muslim, but if he does the same thing to fellow non-Muslims, it is perfectly moral. So, Islam is a political religion.

When Muslims have to live in the imperfect world of today (where they are minority), the situation becomes very confusing for a religious Muslim. In this situation, Muslims tend to live among themselves. They won't try to mix up with the majority society. They will very cleverly use the democratic rules of the land (alongwith human rights etc etc) & bend them for their own benefit.

There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim. Becacause of their strict social structure, only secular Muslims can be called a moderate. I personally know many Muslims, who are moderates. But the truth is, they are Muslims only by name. They NEVER go to mosque, they don't read Kuran. They don't dare to come out open in public with their true opinion, because Islam doesn't recognise reforms.

Susan,

Thank you for your reply. What I'm trying to say is that blasting the First Amendment over a loudspeaker would not be a culturally neutral act, would be interpreted, resented, etc.

I'm having difficulty making this point. The problem of the calls is real. It doesn't bother Schaum, but it bothers many others, who, unlike him, have not lived in a Muslim country, and, as I post below, some Muslims, as well.

Still, I do think that the calls were a part of a larger issue. Some attempts at compromise with them might have warded off the referendum. Such a referendum is divisive.

Farnaz--

As an atheist in America, of coure I'm more worried (here) about our e overwhelming cultural religiosity than I am about what the Swiss do. I completely agree with you about that. But the fact is that freedom of religion is inextricably linked to freedom from religion. The founders knew that. Americans today have forgotten that. But liberty of thought and conscience are indivisible, and that's why I'm so unhappy at seeing on this blog that atheists, of all people, don't seem to get it. I'm a lot more interested, as an atheist and a secularist, in exerting our influence to have the First Amendment taught properly in schools than I am in whether the First Amendment gets blasted from a loudspeaker.

Schaum:

Okay, but not every Muslim feels this way. Not every Mosq has this ideology. I'm not speaking as a politically correct lib. I'm thinking, for example, of the Westbury Islamic Center in New York with which I'm quite familiar, and which has no interest in world domination.

One mosq has simple dispensed with the call, btw., which was driving nonbelievers and believers (first-and-second-generation Americans) bonkers.

I'm not joking about atheists occupying the airwaves, perhaps holding weekly meetings, etc. I don't want any religion dominating the world. None. None dominating the legislature, for example.

Farnaz:

I have no problem with calls to prayer. Anyone who wants to spend his time praying to the non-existent has my blessing. Hearing prayer call 5 times daily doesn't bother me. Listened to it every day for more than two years in Saudi Arabia.

However, I think any organization, which is intolerant to the point of destroying those who do not follow its beliefs, surrenders all right to expect tolerance.

Hi Schaum,

A non-imperialist call to non-prayer is much needed world-wide.

Susan Jacoby:

"He simply through religious repression was worse"

You are growing progressively more shrill, Susan. "religious repression" is not the same as "anhilation of those with different religious views." And that is exactly the aim of Islam.

Susan,

Final post: I do not disagree with you on the cultural motives; as I note in an earlier post on the scary demonstrations, this does concern more than noise.

The referendum has been an issue among the right-wing Swiss party for the last couple of years. The demonstrations accompanying the vote were a scary sight: young men dressed in black, with black leather jackets, holding up posters flooded the capital. These pictures are on the web.

What is alarming is that the referendum passed, unexpectedly.

But, again, the volume of the calls played a role. I still wonder if any dialogue preceded the referendum. There would have been many forces operating against discussion. Any move to try to lower the decibel level would have been seen as fascistic by those who would not want to be seen that way.

Sometimes, small compromises yield big results.

Although I do not approve of this referendum, I am more worried about the major religions' encroachments on my life, what they would like to do with our Legislature in the future.

Susan,

A cultural question on atheism:

Could atheists create structures with a slash through the symbols of the major religions?

Do atheists have the same rights as believers?

Could we start a national holiday: Annual NonGod Day, during which people would gather round with their loved ones and read an intelligent book?

Susan,

"atheists who want one standard for themselves (and apparently for religions they find more tolerable than others) and one standard for a religion"

One standard for all. Might I sound from minarets five times a day Separation of Church and State?

Do atheists have the same rights as believers?

R. Steinsaltz believes the call to prayer should be permitted everywhere. He argues that if we don't permit it, we might next end church bell ringing.

A blogger here writes of noise ordinances. At least, here in the US, volume, is a factor. Perhaps that would solve the problem where the natives are restless. Perhaps, not. Calls to prayer are language; they will always have to be broadcast at high decibel levels.

Susan, can you and I and all the other atheists arrange for sites to broadcast loudly "Separate Church and State?

Susan,

Of course you are partially correct. No prayer or First Amendment coming out of a loudspeaker at high volumes is culturally neutral.

Even in the US if the First Amendment was given such a place in our culture, it would be viewed as intrusive.

However, noise was a factor for the Swiss. They have blogged on it. And as I mention in my post it was the only factor in one case among the Brooklynites.

It looks as though most of you didn't read these stories very carefully, because they all emphasized that the "call to prayer" over loudspeakers is not permitted because of very strict Swiss noise regulation laws. There are only four minarets in Switzerland, and none of them exercise a public "call to prayer" because of these laws. In similar fashion, many local communities in the U.S. have zoning laws that would prohibit noise pollution, as well as statutes which would regulate the height of steeples, minarets, giant statues of Jack And The Beanstalk, and so forth. This vote was not about regulating aesthetics or noise; it was about prohibiting a symbol of a particular religion. I am, once again, utterly bemused by the spectacle of atheists who want one standard for themselves (and apparently for religions they find more tolerable than others) and one standard for a religion they find intolerable. If you want your own prejudices written into law, at least own up to it. Don't try to produce some pseudo-rational explanation for them.

And if you had read Jefferson carefully, all of you who are twisting yourselves into ideological pretzels, you would know that he was perfectly aware that religious liberty permitted the spread of all sorts of downright evil ideas and practices. He simply through religious repression was worse. That atomic weapons hadn't been invented makes no difference to the principle. Furthermore, prohibiting the display of religious symbols has always encouraged the aggrieved passions of True Believers. Only someone blind to history would think that suppressing a particular form of religious architecture is likely to inhibit the practice of a particular religion. If only it were that easy! Guess what? Burning books doesn't work either.

To respond to the poster regarding whether church bells should be banned since these could be distracting in the same way the call to prayer is, it should definitely be considered. This would be particularly relevant for odd hours when many people sleep, such as the early morning or late at night. For my part, I would find them disturbing and would be more than happy to eliminate them. Would this limit Christians ability to practice their religion? Not at all. Nor will the elimination of minarets impact Muslims' ability to practice their religion. However, this does somewhat change the debate since, although the call to prayer is definitely part of it, that is not the whole story here. The minarets themselves also have a symbolic value. Although I suspect that Farnaz's point about people's willingness to accept minarets as long as there was no call to prayer is a valid one. The Swiss may have voted to allow minarets if there were no call, but it can't be known for sure.

Farnaz,

Church bells are subject to city/town & state noise ordinances already. The Catholic church near me was forced by the local community to tone down the bells after it was determined they were operating at an unlawful decibel level.

And aren't most minarets located within the mosque itself?

Many Posters,including some Panelists,are doing same Analogy too much.
Would Anyone(not someone) please address.....

Call to Prayer in Arabic is Completely,Absolutely,Definitely different from Church Bell.
Church Bell rings Dang,Deen,Dong.The voice of Church Bell doesnt mean anything,but,Call to Prayer in Arabic means many,many things.
-Arabic Call to Prayer is a Political Message.
-Arabic Call to Prayer is Aggresive.
-Arabic Call to Prayer in High Volumed Loudspeaker from Sunrise to Sunset is Disturbance.
-Arabic Call to Prayer is a Challenge.Yes,yes,yes.

Arabic Call to Prayer can not be compared with Church Bell.
If you Swiss Referendum troubles you,dont go to Switzerland,go to Pakistan where you never face any Troubles and Problems.

Volkmare:

"Have any of you ever been in a country where minarets are used?

I have and found them to be overbearing and oppressive to someone like myself who is not Muslim."

Is there a point here? If you find any social practices oppressive in a country, leave.

Always seek the truth, Mark.

Farnaz:

Sorry about not responding to you last night. I didn't see your comments until this morning. Was packing up books. I've sold my library. Looked over B's thread this morning. You held your own quite well. I think Arminius suffers ADD -- alcohol delusional disorder.

Observer:

"Regarding banning Catholicism, that may be worthwhile when Catholic hordes come out in favor of buggering boys, and the Pope endorses it as a holy act sanctioned in the scriptures."

Well said. Making any action a tenet of faith, and incorporating it into the religion's primary guidebook, is very different than if that action is taken in isolated incidences by individuals.

Gimpi:

"Thank you for your response, Schaum. I'm pretty certain they did. Remember what Europe looked like then. They (and, I'm sure, you) were historians enough to be well aware of the various religious wars, pogroms, witch-hunts and similar atrocities that marked religious history in Europe. Jefferson, after all, welcomed Unitarians, who were being run out of most of Europe for their heresy long after the worst of European religious persecution had died down."

I am not convinced that the "founding fathers" could have forseen every event that the First Amendment would be called upon to tolerate. For instance, atomic weapons have been mentioned prominently as figuring in massive death and destruction if they should fall into the hands of certain religious fanatics bent on the destruction of the West. Could the FF have foreseen that? I dont' think so.

As for Thomas Jefferson: remember that he advocated an entire change in the FORM of government every 10 years...not democrat to republican, but from republican to other non-democratic forms of government. One wonders how the first amendment would have fared if he had had his way.

Farnaz

I read your posts, and then after reading them, I wished I had not posted mine.

For the most part, I meant what I said about praying too much in public being an unhealthy thing.

But to be honest, I have never heard a "call to prayer" from a mosque, so I do not really have any credibility to comment on this at all.

I have never been to a Moslem country. I have seen a number of mosques in the United States, since they are not uncommon, but I have never heard a call to prayer from a mosque.

I know alot about church bells, however. I do not think church bells are comparable to a mosque call to worship.

There are two kinds of church bells: bells that simply toll, indicating that something is happening, such as a church service, a funeral, a wedding, or some sort of commeration or celebration. Many churches do not have church bells.

The other kind of church bells are from a "carillion," which is a musical instrument made of ranks of bells. It is very large, complex and expensive instrument and only the largest churches and cathedrals have them.

There are also electronic carillions in which the sound of a real carillion is simulated. These electronic carillions are also expensive and requireing some effort maintain. Alot of churches have electronic carollions, but probably most churches do not.

Most church bells are not very loud. Even very large carollions are not very loud unless you are right next door to the church. And most churches have some sort of coopertive agreement with the local neighborhood about their "bell-ringing" and try not to be too intrusive with the bell-ringing. They can be flexible, because there is set protocol for church bells; they are a sort of adornment.

To make my point that most church bells are not very loud, try and remember the last time you heard church bells. If you can remember at all, it is usually as a kind of background noise, like traffic, or birds singing, part of the hum of city life.

Since I have never heard a mosque call to worship, I am going to assume that most mosques in the United States, at least, moderate their call to worship so that it is not very loud.

Anyway, those are some of my thoughts, amended.

And, no I do not think I would like to hear the first amendment repeasted over a loud speaker several times a day.

Since I've had no takers to my questions, I'll answer them myself:

If the Muslim calls to prayer are prohibited, should the ringing of church bells be prohibited as well?

Answer: Very loud hourly ringing should probably be discouraged.

Would we object if the Fifth Amendment were announced from minarets five times a day?

Answer: I strongly support the First Amendment, but if I had to hear it every day announced in this way, I would find it intrusive, and resent it greatly.

Nothing delivered in this manner is neutral.

The Swiss Referendum troubles me greatly because it is divisive. What other ways were tried to solve the problem? WERE other ways tried?

"Orthodox Jews, Southern Baptists, Mormons and other conservative Christian groups believe in female submission to male relatives almost as strongly as Muslims do"

I think you'll find that [i]most[/i] baptists do not subscribe to the ideology of "submission" that you are representing here. It simply isn't biblical in the context of its current day usage.

A similar mistake is made when people trot out "judge not, lest ye be judged." It was not intended to prohibit us from "judging" one another, but unfortunately, most people interpret it that way.

Rich blessings.

WOULD Someone please address these questions?

If the Muslim calls to prayer are prohibited, should the ringing of church bells be prohibited as well?

Would we object if the Fifth Amendment were announced from minarets five times a day?

Also, please see R. Steinsaltz's brief commentary for OnFaith.

The more media and left shouts out about this, the more the common people will be scared of Islam. Becasue not only do they see Muslims practicing a religion which is uncompatible with and intolerant to western values and that too without any hope of change. They also see the left liberals and pseudo-progressive press giving illogical, unfair and false statements, blindly defending Islam.
It seems if the press had its way, they would ban us using the word muslims and islam altogether in the blogs.
Offically Muslims were not targeted, minarets were. If someone finds Church bells offensive in Switzerland, they can always collect signatures and have a referendum. This referendum was done following the complete law of the land and is fully valid. It has to be implemented in full or else we lose faith in civilization as we know it.

DITLD,

Re: Your post

Did you see my two posts? I wonder what you think of the question of the first amendment being announced in the same way, five times a day, etc., so that one would have to hear it wherever one was.

If you have a minute, maybe, read the post just below yours, and let me know what you think.

(An aside: Your pig on the road joke is going over very well in Brooklyn. Thanks!)

Susan in her second post states "calling for a ban on Hindu temples because they are the houses of worship of a religion that, in the past (and in some instances today) has degraded women every bit as much as the most retrograde forms of Islam. Do I hear for calls for a ban on Catholic churches because pedophile priests raped boys?".

Susan get your facts right. Yes, the Hindu religion contained odious rules involving women or untouchables but,--and this is important--, its practitioners today do not defend those rules. It is banned by Indian law, not supported by its religious figures, and the ban enforced in various courts. That is growth and reformation in religion, something that is lacking in Islam.

Regarding banning Catholicism, that may be worthwhile when Catholic hordes come out in favor of buggering boys, and the Pope endorses it as a holy act sanctioned in the scriptures.

The loud call to worship 5 times a day is a religious practice that is fine in a culture where everyone is compelled to be a Moslem, either sincerely so, or out of forced compliance and fear.

However, this practise is not going to fly in a pluralistic society. It is "in your face" intolerance of the "infidel." (How I hate that word).

I think that many Moslems, like many conservative Christians, are so indoctrinated into their religion that they do not even realize how intolerant they are, but merely take it for granted that their beliefs are (obviously) superior to everyone else's.

There are alot of ways that "devout" Moslems could hear the call to prayer, without calling everybody else to attention as well: they could use telehones, beepers, pagers, radio, the internet; they could even use the memory of their own habits.

It is my personal opinion that so much attention to public prayer is psychologically unhealthy, and only serves to rev up religious mania in people who are predisposed to it. I do not think there should be a law against frequent prayer, but it is just not a good thing for anyone's personal well-being.

Thank God, Susan, that I also have a right to express these opinions, too.

Glancing back at a couple of the emails I received on the minaret issue, I noticed words like "coercive," "infringement," etc. These are not the words of ethnocentrists, yet they recur in questions.

In other words, do the calls, which one must hear, like it or not, whether indoors or out, walking on streets, driving down roads, etc., represent an infringement on rights?

If they do, then why do church bells not? I do not think that church bells are more "neutral." They are, more "culturally neutral," perhaps....

Would any announcement delivered like the calls to prayer be acceptable to most Americans? Would the First Amendment resounding from minarets or the like five times a day be acceptable to most Americans?

Would it be perceived as "neutral," not an "infringement"?

Can we take these questions together?

"Did the "founding fathers", in writing first amendment, anticipate the existence of a religion that openly advocated the murder of those who do not share its beliefs? Could the 'founding fathers' and the first amendment have anticipated all possible threats and dangers?"
Posted by: Schaum |

Thank you for your response, Schaum. I'm pretty certain they did. Remember what Europe looked like then. They (and, I'm sure, you) were historians enough to be well aware of the various religious wars, pogroms, witch-hunts and similar atrocities that marked religious history in Europe. Jefferson, after all, welcomed Unitarians, who were being run out of most of Europe for their heresy long after the worst of European religious persecution had died down.

I also read your comment about the tragedy you witnessed. I can relate to it. In my youth, I was involved with a violent, controlling man. I had to learn the hard way that roses don't make up for a broken rib and sometimes, you have to fight back, hard. Frankly, it took me years to trust any man again. But I learned, most men aren't violent scum. I even developed enough capacity to trust again that I married one of the good ones.

The man I was involved with wasn't a Muslim, however. He was a Baptist. That experience is part of what got me interested in religious belief. The whole traditional idea of female submission frankly unnerves me a bit. Muslim women are told they must endure their husband's violence, but so are Christian women. Catholic priests for years counseled battered wives to "bear the blows as Christ did," rather than sin by divorcing their abusers. Orthodox Jews, Southern Baptists, Mormons and other conservative Christian groups believe in female submission to male relatives almost as strongly as Muslims do.

I do understand Middle-eastern culture is much more destructive, but I frankly don't find it too much of a threat to our rights in the states. A terrorist attack can only do so much damage to our institutions. Much closer to home, and much more likely, in my opinion, is the possibility that we will undo ourselves, sacrificing our freedom either out of fear or to get at some "other" who angers us. Decisions made in fear and anger generally don't work out.

Also, just as my husband is in no way responsible for the violence my former boyfriend did, Muslims (and Baptists, Mormons, et all) are not responsible for their co-religionist's violence. We can all only be responsible for our own actions. Punishing a whole group for the actions of a few is another thing that generally leads down a bad road.

Have any of you ever been in a country where minarets are used?

I have and found them to be overbearing and oppressive to someone like myself who is not Muslim.

Mark
Always seek the truth.

I posted on WaPo when the referendum was first passed. I'd gotten an email from a Muslim friend which contained a link to an article with pictures of Swiss demonstrators. Prior to seeing the article, my friend, quite secular, had mixed feelings about the referendum.

The minarets, themselves, were not the problem, as Susan says, but I agree with my Muslim friend that Swiss anxieties about a Muslim attack on Culture Strong were accompanied by fears of annoyance from Culture LIght. In other words, for some, it was less a matter of the minarets, themselves, and more a matter of the calls to prayer. For nonobservant Muslims and many others, these are distracting. They are not the equivalent of Church bells as anyone who has either lived in a Muslim country or near a mosque here knows.

In Brooklyn, in an African American neighborhood, abounding with churches, there was, for awhile, a mosque. This was not a Church bell-ringing inclined neighborhood, so religious music effects were mostly limited to the prayers, which were delivered over a loudspeaker at a volume so high that they were heard not only throughout the neighborhood five times a day, indoors and out, but on the roads as one was driving. One literally could not hear oneself think.

At the time she and I were around the area four times a week, and, although both us of were quite familiar with the calls, we, like the rest of the neighborhood found them distracting. Many had tried to get the mosque to reduce the frequency of the calls (!) or to lower the volume but to no avail.
After a few years, the mosque was closed for reasons we never found out.

The conflict troubled us at the time, and still does, although no great matter developed from it. For my friend and me, trouble mainly issued from our inner conflicts. We were certain the issue was sound, but we both wondered, after the Swiss affair, if that had been all there was to our reaction, if one could separate out the sound the problem quite so neatly. In other words, if she and I had still been living in Muslim countries, would the volume of the calls have annoyed us?
Continues

Continued
In the picture accompanying the article my friend sent me, crowds of angry young Swiss men dressed in black, wearing black leather jackets held up identical large placards that were frightening, indeed.Frightening. Reminiscent of past reactionary phenomena. All the more disturbing since we know that the attempt by the Swiss right wing to ban the building of minarets has been ongoing for a couple of years.

But, again, it has been the building of minarets, alone, not the building of mosques, that has been at issue.

I do not approve of the ban, but I wonder,
if, in the US, we learned that starting next week, the First Amendment would be announced from minarets five times a day, that we would have no way of not hearing them, would we accept this? If one group decided it wished to so so, in the name of this or that affiliation, would we accept it?

My guess is that not all who voted for the referendum, which had not been expected to pass, would have approved sans the calls.

Neither my friend nor I approved of the referendum, but we did wonder, still do, how would most Americans respond to hearing the First Amendment announced five times a day over loudspeakers?

I have much sentiment against Islam since I read the Quran and the biography of Muhammad, not simply because of terrorism. My sentiments are based on a profound disagreement with their beliefs and how those beliefs have been manifest both historically and today. I also have much sentiment against fascism and other forms of totalitarian belief systems.

I am an ardent supporter of one's right to believe whatever you want. If you want to worship the tooth-fairy, Allah, Jesus, or some mountain, it really makes no difference so long as that belief does not impact those who don't share it. If you don't want to eat pork fine, but don't prohibit me from enjoying my bacon. What Ms. Jacoby does not seem to get, is what minarets really are. First, whether you find them more aesthetically pleasing than Swiss chalets is strictly your opinion, and one I do not share. Second, they have historically been erected as symbols of Islamic presence and supremacy. They are not simply religious symbols but are more properly political and social symbols. Even ignoring the completely inconsiderate calling of the morning prayer, the sound of which does not discriminate between the ears of believers and infidels, if the Swiss people perceive the utilization of architectural symbols to be a threat to their society, they have a right to engage in a debate and vote on it. And that is what they did. And now that the vote is passed, will the results include the inability of Muslims to actually practice their religion in any way? No. This would not even be a violation of the First Amendment, just a sound decision when a piece of architecture, which is not necessary for the practice of the religion, is found to be incompatible with a society. I suppose you think Muslim women should be allowed to cover their faces in their DMV photos as well.

By the way, the limitation of the building of minarats in no way implies a restriction on prosletyzing by Muslims. Your example of the Jewish handing out of pamphlets is not a valid comparison. They can still wear Muslim clothes, publish Islamic books, wear t-shirts that inform everyone of their religion, hang the crescent on their doors or display any actual "religious" symbol they want. (Note that this might also include a sword. Very religious that!) This ban in no way infringes on a Muslims' ability to practice their religion in any way.

Susan Jacoby states "because identifying all people of a particular race or religion with the actions of one is a classic majority response to a heinous act committed by a member of a minority".

This argument does not apply to the various acts of Islamic terrorism, because the reason given by the perpetrators for these acts is that their religion requires them to do so. And there are many such acts.

So when a person commits an act of murder, for gain, say, it would be wrong to find fault with his religion or his ethnicity. But if the same murder is committed, because of a perceived religious offense, it is proper and correct to hold that religion responsible, especially if such acts happen often, and religious leaders justify it.

The majority is not always wrong or intolerant or incorrect. In the political area, for example, we call Hamas acts of terrorism as Palestinian terrorism, not Islamic terrorism, because the reason for the acts are Palestinian grievances. This despite the fact that Hamas is Islamic, and yet do not give a religious justification for the acts.

So Susan, don't make the argument that the majority is wrong, at least in this case.

Susan:

If, in 1770, religious fanatics (who claim that those not in agreement with them must die as infidels) had attacked public buildings in NYC, killing thousands of Americans, I doubt that the Bill of Rights with limitless tolerance, as you perceive it, would ever have come into existence.

"Thank you, thank you founding fathers, for the Bill of Rights and for the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech and freedom of religion from the tyranny of the majority in the United States."

Our problem here in Europe is that Muslims want to change our laws to those of Sharia - it is so easy to play the arrogant card from over there - no one is marching through your streets and lobbying government for Islamic Sharia law - yet!

With the less than 1% mostly Americanized Muslims - you know best.

The American press, and American political analysts for that matter, avoid any in-depth critiques and criticisms of Islam, for fear of appearing to deviate from the politically correct social etiquette of tolerance. Tolerance is regarded as the best way to protect the liberty of all members of society irrespective of political or religious opinions.

But in order to defend our liberty we must never deceive ourselves into accepting the maxim of unconditional tolerance. Are we, as a tolerate society, obligated to incorporate intolerant (to the point of murder) organizations/religions into our society?

Occasionally, we must be intolerant of intolerance. By censuring Islam of either precept or practice we run the risk of being labelled Islamiphobic. But the real danger, the danger of consequence, is the real danger that comes from turning a blind eye to any hatred encouraged by any doctrinaire approach to religion so widespread in the Muslim world.

Abd al-Rahman al-Bazzaz, who was professor of law at the University of Baghdad and a former Prime Minister of Iraq, writes: “The existence of Israel is a flagrant challenge to our philosophy of life and the ideals for which we live, and a total barrier against the values and aims to which we aspire in the world.” In other words, those who exist in defiance of our wishes are mortal enemies. This was not a drumbeat of peace, for any infidel, anywhere.

The world needs to recognize that even if political concessions are made with Islam, for the sake of peace, the Muslim campaign to destroy any in opposition will continue.

The answer to this question may be found by investigating two Islamic principles: Dar al-Islam and infidels. From an Islamic perspective, the world is divided into two camps: dar al-Harab, lands not yet under Islamic rule; and dar al-Isalm, lands where Islamic shari’a law exists. Once under Islamic rule, land remains a part of dar al-Islam until Judgement Day. Thus, since Palestine was once under Muslim control (634-1099 C.E.), it can never be relinquished.

The second confrontational Islamic teaching is the classification of people as either Muslim or infidel.

Muslims have an inherent interest in maintaining their socio-religious supremacy by denying non-Muslims equality. Can a tolerant West risk extending its tolerance and acceptance to this kind of ideology? Is it obligated to do so?

I find some of these comments truly astonishing, in that they imply that the Koran is the only religious screed that advocates killing nonbelievers. Please. If we were to ban all religions, and religious symbols, whose "sacred" books contain some very, very nasty ideas, there would be no end of banning. I don't hear anyone calling for a ban on Hindu temples because they are the houses of worship of a religion that, in the past (and in some instances today) has degraded women every bit as much as the most retrograde forms of Islam. Do I hear for calls for a ban on Catholic churches because pedophile priests raped boys? I can't believe that atheists, who rightly reject all religions as supernatural fantasies, are talking about setting up a hierarchy dictating which religions ought to be tolerated by law and which not. Our (by "our," I mean we atheists) heads would be the first on the chopping block in such a society. These ridiculous attempts to make banning minarets sound more "rational" than banning any other religious symbol attests all too clearly to the truth of my assertion that the Bill of Rights would be voted down today. There is no "God gene," but there certainly is a stupidity gene distributed amply throughout the population of both religious believers and atheists.

This an important step in the right direction.

I am author of the following book: http://www.amazon.com/defeating-political-islam-new-cold/dp/1591027047

Islam is much more of a political ideology of conquest than a religion. In fact, one could say that it uses religion as a front to expand and conquer.

Swiss steps needs to go far beyond targeting the minarets. They need to comprehensively undercut this ideology so that Muslims are liberated to alternate lifestyles.

The spirit of Charles Martel yet lives. Your vote may have saved what's left of European civilization.

I fully support the liberation of women including birth control and first trimester abortions.

That doesn't make the problem go away. As for blame, I didn't point fingers. As for the problem, once you let the camel's nose under the tent, it looks like the riders come with it.

"When liberated women refuse to pay the gift of life forward, unliberated women will provide the fodder to overwhelm the democracies that produced their liberation. That is the fundamental dilemma in European society today..."

Of course! It is all the result of the (mis)behavior of liberated women! You are a prophet!

When liberated women refuse to pay the gift of life forward, unliberated women will provide the fodder to overwhelm the democracies that produced their liberation.

That is the fundamental dilemma in European society today and banning minarets is a feeble counter to this reality.

"We regulate actions, not beliefs. In fact, there is no way to control what people believe. Attempting it has turned many a government into a dictatorship, and it has pretty much always failed."

And sometimes not. Remember that, during the Civil War, Lincoln (unlawfully) suspended habeas corpus (a legal belief, if you will)-- a thing which is supposedly not possible under our constitution -- and effectively made himself a dictator. That he did this to hold the nation together may or may not be exculpatory.

Gimpi:

Did the "founding fathers", in writing first amendment, anticipate the existence of a religion that openly advocated the murder of those who do not share its beliefs? Could the 'founding fathers' and the first amendment have anticipated all possible threats and dangers?

You and Susan may well be right. As I said, I've never quite gotten over finding myself in a country where a man had both a religious and a legal 'right' to murder his wife for behavior which offended him.

"Interesting comments, Susan. Would you say that everything that calls itself a religion is, by definition, protected as a religion and has a right to exist, simply because of the Bill of Rights?"
Posted by: Schaum

Susan may respond on her own, Schaum, but I'd also like to kick in my opinion. As I see it, all beliefs have "a right to exist." We regulate actions, not beliefs. In fact, there is no way to control what people believe. Attempting it has turned many a government into a dictatorship, and it has pretty much always failed.

Governments can, and should, control dangerous actions, and perhaps can justify carefully restrained monitoring of people who, because of their beliefs, might just engage in those dangerous actions. But that's all. Regulating dress, buildings styles or other personal expressions not only are not in keeping with the bill of rights, but the often make the problems the regulations are trying to address worse.

Governments trying to regulate things they can't really control only make themselves look weak and incompetent. (How hard is it to find marijuana in your town?) And believers who find their outward expressions of belief subject to regulation often turn paranoid and bellicose. (Witness the furor over the so-called "war on Christmas").

In my opinion, nothing positive is accomplished by trying to control behavior that causes no direct harm to others. It is also not in keeping with either the spirit or the letter of the First Amendment, as I understand it.

Daniel12:

"People here hate me so much that you can do no wrong at all"

Again, you flatter, without warrant, your abilities at perception. Nobody here hates you. I'd say most people here pity you. What is hated is your ignorance... and more especially, that you have CHOSEN to be ignorant.

Daniel12:

"But if I concede that I have no ability to write an intelligible sentence you have to concede that you have not understood a word I have written and therefore cannot criticize me at all beyond my handling of the language."

I did not ask you to concede anything. Your language deficits speak for themselves. No further confirmation is needed.

And much as I hate to bruise your monumental ego, you are NOT difficult to follow. I understand your writings. I also understand that you are an idiot. You stand convicted out of your own mouth.

Thank you Schaum for the English lesson. But if I concede that I have no ability to write an intelligible sentence you have to concede that you have not understood a word I have written and therefore cannot criticize me at all beyond my handling of the language. But you have criticized me way beyond my use of language, implying of course that you understand what I have written. And if you understand what i have written, then how can you criticize my handling of language? You might not like my use of language, but you do understand, and that is the essential point--so essential that a person not need criticize a person's handling of language, unless of course one dislikes the ideas presented, which of course is exactly what bothers you Schaum. No Schaum, the problem is not my handling of the language--I am all too clear with the language. The problem is you despise what I have to say and in your filthy, uncontrolled rage cannot help dismissing everything I have to say and the way it is presented. The most amusing part is you seem to believe that I am one of those weak, easily influenced people, the kind that quickly fall in step with others and are so afraid to make an independent thought. You keep raging and spitting every week as if that will bring me into line. Recommendation Schaum: do not get a cat, it will not be broken to your will. Get a dog, which is all too happy to slobber on you. What you are Schaum is nothing more than a dime a dozen tyrant made all the more grotesque by your disguising of such as morality. What makes it even more grotesque is that apparently no one sees any contradiction in you raging and spitting and then being moral. People here hate me so much that you can do no wrong at all. To make it clear how I view you, you remind of those guys who are overjoyed when an opportunity presents itself to kick some ass. One of the guys who just seethes, waiting for the opportunity to be the hero. Schaum, what you like most in life is violence, that is so apparent. Anger is the constant theme with you week after week. Anger and morality. But more anger than morality. Righteous anger not unlike that said of God. Are you sure you are not religious Schaum? If you are not religious then certainly we have you as evidence an atheist can seethe with as righteous anger as any religious person. Oh, wait, sorry atheists, I pointed out something which puts atheism in a bad light. It could only have been said as a defense of God, that I am trying to prove God's existence. I will try not to put atheism in a bad light next time.

Riyady = Riyadh

I have never quite gotten over seeing a woman stabbed to death, in front of me, in the Marriott in Riyady, Saudi Arabia...killed by her husband when she refused to give him a note handed to her by a second man. His religion, and the religious laws of his country, gave him the right to kill his wife. I have a strong reaction against allowing such 'religions' to hold equal rights.

" Only criminal acts comitted in the name of a religion are prohibited, and they are prohibited not because they were committed in the name of religion but because they are crimes."

Agreed.

But what of a religion whose guiding principles, particularly those published and distributed in that religion's guidebook, include the advocated destruction of persons who do not hold identical views. Does this deliberate provocation of its adherents to criminal acts disqualify it from any 'right' to exist as a protected religion?

The price we pay for the freedom to believe, or reject, whatever we choose to believe or reject is, yes, that just about anything that calls itself a religion is protected by the Bill of Rights. Only criminal acts comitted in the name of a religion are prohibited, and they are prohibited not because they were committed in the name of religion but because they are crimes.

I'm annoyed on the streets of New York--particularly around holidays--by Jews for Jesus trying to push their pamphlets and by the Lubavitcher Hasidim, who regularly confront pedestrians with the question, "Are you a Jew" in order to subject them to a dose of proselytizing on behalf of behaving as if this were 17th-century Poland. I really dislike thse people and their beliefs. I particularly dislike that they push their beliefs on others in public spaces. Too bad. The Constitution says that I--and you--must put up with this. All in all, it's a pretty small price when you consider the hideous alternatives. Which the founders did.

Daniel12:

We can, no doubt, anticipate another verbose multi-part diatribe from you in which you ape Sarah Palin's highly developed ability to avoid issues and miss -- or dodge -- the point. Before you allow your genius unfettered access to your keyboard, however, please go to this site and read: http://www.kentlaw.edu/academics/lrw/grinker/LwtaSentence_Structure.htm

Interesting comments, Susan. Would you say that everything that calls itself a religion is, by definition, protected as a religion and has a right to exist, simply because of the Bill of Rights?