What the.......?

[Urse]

I am a reasonable guy. But this left me speechless.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20279326/

Wake up People!

[Rightwinger]

He sounds like the kind of folk who go on to molest the little boys

[bteague2]

any religion that would do that is going to see a large drop in followers. that's just embarrassing

[Guest Phantom6]

"Sure. Lets call God Allah. Lets then call a church a mosque and pray five times a day. Ramadan sounds like fun," Welmoet Koppenhol wrote in a letter to the newspaper.

Yeah baby. Tell it Welmoet. Amen brother!

[Guest Boomhower]

This is obviously not a true follower of his own religion. Any one that would desire to have the loving name of God changed to the name of another religion's God, which promotes violence and jihad on all non-believers of it’s religion, needs to be removed from his roles/duties IMMEDIATELY. The Christian world has set by far to long on this one. Why must these people try to incorporate every religion into one. Try to take Christianity, Judaism or any other religion into the Muslim nations and let us know how far it gets you. It won’t. It will just get your head on a chopping block.

[Guest Julez]

It's just another example of people trying to get members of one population to compromise their beliefs and values in order to satisfy the dischord found in a different population. Long after our society has turned to dust, historians are going to look back and attempt to discover exactly what one thing caused the demise of such a great civilization. The inevitable answer is going to be "PC".

[DaveTN]

Someone needs to explain to the priest that Muslims do not hate him because of the name he uses for God.

[Guest Len]

A little pot-stirring /devil's advocacy here (done in my best Dennis Miller voice):

I'm not so sure this is quite as bad as everyone seems to think it is:

1) Allah translates as "God." "God" is an English term. We certainly have translated various other languages' word/name for "God" into our own language and the pillars of Christianity have not fallen from what I can see. Look up the original Aramaic texts or the Hebrew version of the bible, you don't see "God." We see Yahweh, we see Jehovah (various spellings), etc. If we must be faithful to Christianity, then we can't use "God" anymore since its an English term.

2) I would hope one of the points the Bishop in question was trying to make was that there are many similarities between all the major religions and if we used some common terminology, maybe we'd all get along a bit better. For example, any Muslim will look at the Old Testament and agree with it word-for-word. If I recall correctly, Muslims also believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a serious prophet of the time -which gives Christianity it's due way more than Christians seem to give Islam.

3) Islam is no more pro-violence than Christianity. You will find references to all sorts of violence in the Bible, but we argue Christianity is a religion of peace. Its clear that many teachers of Islam have not moved from a literal interpretation of the Koran, true. And as a result, there seems more of a current acceptance of violence by many Muslims. But one need only look at the history of Christianity to see much violence and death done in the name of God. (Would the soldiers of the Crusades have used IEDs if they existed back in the day?)

IMHO, its time we (everyone, on all sides) looked at the values that the worlds major religions share rather than what divides them. Maybe then there would be less killing in Allah's/God's name and a little more peace in our times.

[dariks]

A little pot-stirring /devil's advocacy here (done in my best Dennis Miller voice):

3) Islam is no more pro-violence than Christianity. You will find references to all sorts of violence in the Bible, but we argue Christianity is a religion of peace. Its clear that many teachers of Islam have not moved from a literal interpretation of the Koran, true. And as a result, there seems more of a current acceptance of violence by many Muslims. But one need only look at the history of Christianity to see much violence and death done in the name of God. (Would the soldiers of the Crusades have used IEDs if they existed back in the day?)

Correct me if I'm wrong , but the Bible doesn't say anything about killing idolaters (i.e. infidels)

[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

btw, this is the complete passage. I didn't shorten it or cut anything out.

[Urse]

I did not post this to slam Islam. I have some Bosnian muslim friends that I consider amongst my most cherished. I judge people by their actions not their beliefs. But I am appalled that a leader in one of the world's most prevalent religions is willing to suggest he and his followers change the way(it is all in the details) they worship in order to make it more friendly to people of a different faith. Faith is only as strong as belief that yours is the righteous path. I would hope a leader would exhibit a stronger belief in faith. Seems to me that fear of Fundamentalist Islamic terrorism may have something to do with his suggestion.

[molonlabetn]

I don't need or want anyone else telling me what name to call my God... The best policy would be for everyone to mind their own business, and if slavery, domination, murder or genocide is a requirement of any particular religion, that religion should be forced to extinction, as unnacceptable to human morality. Individuals who choose their own agenda through contortion of certain beliefs should be held independently accountable for their actions.

[Guest Chuck McDaniel]

Molonlabetn said it right. Islam is not only a religion. It is a political philosophy with the aim of creating a theocracy by force and is not compatible for relations with or coexistence within a democratic society that recognizes freedom of religion as a natural right.

[Guest Boomhower]

quote=Len;24046]2) I would hope one of the points the Bishop in question was trying to make was that there are many similarities between all the major religions and if we used some common terminology, maybe we'd all get along a bit better.

This would never be accepted in other religions as common terminology. It would be viewed by many religions as a domination factor. Especially the Muslim belief.

For example, any Muslim will look at the Old Testament and agree with it word-for-word. If I recall correctly, Muslims also believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a serious prophet of the time -which gives Christianity it's due way more than Christians seem to give Islam.

While this might be true, the Old Testment is as far as they will take it. They do not see Jesus as God's son. They view Jesus the same as their self proclaimed prophet Muhammad. Jesus never woke up from a dream and claimed he had been given visions from God as Muhammad stated he had been from Allah.

3) Islam is no more pro-violence than Christianity. You will find references to all sorts of violence in the Bible, but we argue Christianity is a religion of peace. Its clear that many teachers of Islam have not moved from a literal interpretation of the Koran, true. And as a result, there seems more of a current acceptance of violence by many Muslims. But one need only look at the history of Christianity to see much violence and death done in the name of God. (Would the soldiers of the Crusades have used IEDs if they existed back in the day?)

I don't think anyone would argue the point that the Bible does not speak of violence. God used heathen nations to over take other lands and nations as a part of purification once his followers had strayed beyond all hope and each individual that commented violence throughout the Bible was punished for his own sins. However, No one ever killed in the name of God as we see Muslims doing. Which brings us to the current world. How many people do we see today killing or commenting violence in the name of their God. Only one religion that I can think of. Times have changed from then til now and no one is perfect then nor now, but the Muslim belief has always been and will always be in Jihad against non-believers. Not just Christian's, all non-believers.

And I only see Islam portrayed all over the news as the religion of peace. After 911 and still to this day, when major violence is commented most all of our leader's will ran around saying we do not believe this is an act of terrorisms from Islam. Terrorisms is the first and foremost thing to be ruled out. After all Islam is the religion of peace. Yeah, right, and I have beach front property for sale in Knoxville if anyone interested.

[Urse]

Fundamentalist Islamic Terrorists and the hate they spread is the enemy of all mankind. They have declared themselves my enemy so be it. I fail to recognize Al Quieda, Hammas and Hezbollah as anything but murdering thugs that need to be exterminated. That said, all muslims are not using terror tactics to spread their beliefs. On the contrary westernized Muslims are seen as traitors to Allah by fundamentalist muslims. In America the same bill of rights that gives us our cherished 2nd amendment also gave us the 1st amendment:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Many people would say that Islam is not protected because it preaches hate and uses violence and fear to spread it's message. And while I agree it would be easiest to target all muslims. Fundamentalist Islam is a(in Christian terms) denomination of the ISLAMIC faith. The majority of the 1.3 billion muslims in the world are not terrorists. So the conundrum remains. Do we infringe upon the civil rights of all Muslims granted in the 1st Amendment? If so can you really whine if someone infringes upon yours granted by the 2nd Amendment?

[fury2neon]

The main catch between Christianity and Judaism verses Islam is that In Christianity and Judaism God ordered violence on specific occasions in the scriptures and the violence was not supposed to continue past that event all of these happening in the old testament but in Islam it is a tenant of the faith to be constantly fighting so that Islam encompasses the whole world. I have studied all the major religious and many minor ones and Islam is the only one that scares me just from reading their holy book. All the other faiths talk about caring for those around you and trying to be a good person. Islam specifically says that you don't ever have to be nice to someone if they wont convert, conversely the Koran does say be nice to unbelievers to lull them into a false sense of security... When I read the Koran the first time my first thought was did it really say that, so I had to read it again. It was even scarier the second time.

[Urse]

Fury I completely agree with you. The single biggest threat to free society is Islam. But that does not change the fact that they are protected by our Constitution.

[fury2neon]

Fury I completely agree with you. The single biggest threat to free society is Islam. But that does not change the fact that they are protected by our Constitution.

Yes, but the constitution is not a death pact. We do not allow human sacrifice even if it is shown to be a major part of a religion.

Islam is not just a religion it is a political force and there is no separation of politics and religion.

[Guest DEIMOS]

The crusades were Christianity's response to hundreds of years of muslim predation and savagery against Christians. People constantly throw this up when the topic of religion of peace/religion of violence comes up, as if to marginalize Christianity or equate it with islam.

[Urse]

Islam is not just a religion it is a political force and there is no separation of politics and religion.

Therefore it is unconstitutional. You know I never thought of that angle. But what would you do declare Islam illegal?

[Urse]

The crusades were Christianity's response to hundreds of years of muslim predation and savagery against Christians. People constantly throw this up when the topic of religion of peace/religion of violence comes up, as if to marginalize Christianity or equate it with islam.

Google....St. James the Moorslayer. 700 years of moorish(muslim) predation in that particular case. Although don't kid yourself the Roman Catholic church was killing pagans as godless things. It was a somewhat different kind of world.

[Guest Chuck McDaniel]

Therefore it is unconstitutional. You know I never thought of that angle. But what would you do declare Islam illegal?

fury2neon beat me to the conclusion, but you have hit on the key question. Or better yet, maybe the question might be, "How do we effectively declare Islam illegal, and who has the character as a statesman to make the stand?"

It's typically said that the 2nd Amendment protects the 1st. If things continue the way they are going, the 2nd may be the only thing to protect us from the 1st.

[Mike.357]

"How do we effectively declare Islam illegal

I did not read anything that lead up to this statement. But I can tell you one thing, this

is the USA and there is a definite seperation of religion and state. This sounds to me like blatant segregationism and has no place in our country. I know it may suck but it is not how things work around here. Islamics are not the problem, terrorists are.

How about this, Catholics are not allowed to practice their beliefs in our country.

Depending on your views they may be held as terrorists. Ask a protestant Irishman.

[Urse]

I once took an oath to uphold th U.S. Constitution and I have tried to stick to that. Whether we like it or not the free society we enjoy comes with a price. Freedom is not always used for good but is still a good thing. I do not believe we can allow political policy to be determined by our personal religious beliefs. This is unfair to the whole of society. At the same time your beliefs are the foundation of who you are. "Damn.....we're in a tight spot"

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

Lets put this in perspective. Some people see guns used to kill and want them banned. We have the right to have them as long as we use them responsibly. Same with the 1A. You can speak/believe whatever you want as long as you use it in peaceful means (even if the content is not peaceful).

So how do we stop those whose core beliefs are hatred?

Crack down on those who cross the line. You see things like these emams acting out on the plane. And now they're suing!? They should have the same treatment as anyone who broke laws regarding disruption on the plane. If I started making a ton of racket on a plane, I'd probably be in jail now. Once we stop being so P.C. and actually enforce laws for everyone. This won't be a problem.

Contrary to what they are teaching the kids these days, I'm sorry, but being a minority doesn't grant you any more rights than the rest of us. You aren't entitled to anything.

Unless we stand up against those who wish to destroy us, they have already won.

Enforcement of laws is not bigotry/racism, sorry!

I'm technically a religious minority and I go to jail same as everyone else if I commit a crime, I'm just not the political flavor of the week.

[steps down from podium]

Just my $2.0x10^-2

[Guest Chuck McDaniel]

this is the USA and there is a definite seperation of religion and state.

This is exactly my point. The ultimate goal of Islam is to create a theocratic society (no separation between church/state), by force if necessary, governed by Sharia law with freedom of religion for no one. This is an orthodox belief within Islam, and in the U.S. this could be characterized as treason. If Sharia law is not the goal of our "westernized non-violent Muslims", then where is the public outcry from these moderates. Surely the MSM would push stories of moderate Muslims decrying the actions of their fundamentalist counterparts. So, are they really moderates? Remember, deception is a valued practice when dealing with infidels. Those westernized moderates sure appear to be "non-violent" in the UK, where most of the populace has been disarmed, right?

Urse got it right away. The problem is a Catch 22 within Constitutional law. Does the Constitution allow us to suppress the practice of a particular religion if that religion, within its own practice of orthodoxy, is focused on usurping the governmental authority that protects religious freedom for all?

Our Founding Fathers faced off with the problems associated with Islam and Islam's intolerance of other religious practice and didn't fair well, even when dealing with Muslims outside of our borders in our war with the Barbary Pirates off of the coasts of Tripoli. After paying them off for years to avoid them scuttling our trading ships because they were allowed this practice when dealing with "infidels", we attempted to negotiate with them and appease them with a denial of our Christian heritage and "declaration of tolerance" in The Treaty of Tripoli, which didn't work. So, eventually we had to raise a navy in order to crush them.

"The Treaty of Tripoli" Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Since the thread topic was over the issue of appeasement, we've done it before, and it didn't work. When all is said and done, I don't believe that the Constitutional problem will get resolved, and I will lock and load just in the case the "westernized non-violent Muslims" ever have a Great Awakening and come down with a bad case of SJS (Sudden Jihad Syndrome).