No war on Islam
President Obama arrived back in the White House today in the wee hours of the morning, following a stint in Europe and the Middle East, where he sought to refresh and build alliances. Transporting his campaign-proven town hall format abroad, he told a Turkish audience, “Let me say this as clearly as I can: The United States is not — and will never be — at war with Islam.”
He elaborated to the Turkish Parliament:
I also want to be clear that America’s relationship with the Muslim world cannot and will not be based on opposition to al Qaeda. Far from it. We seek broad engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect. We will listen carefully, bridge misunderstanding, and seek common ground. We will be respectful, even when we do not agree. And we will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over so many centuries to shape the world for the better – including my own country.
A Chicago Sun-Times editorial today said his efforts to reach out to the moderate Muslim world would pay big dividends, “salving the wounds that the previous administration inflicted on our country’s reputation.”
It was a critical step to deprive terrorist leaders of a recruiting tool. It’s a lot harder to sell the United States as the Great Satan when the nation’s chief executive visits with words of tolerance and partnership — and a friendly smile.
I seem to remember President George W. Bush saying Islam is “a religion of peace,” talking about “our Muslim friends and citizens,” immediately following the 9/11 attacks and thereafter.
But anyway – do you think the country’s posture towards Islam has changed? Is Obama being too soft, as some of his critics have lodged? And how do you condemn violent Muslims and embrace the rest?




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top88 Comments to “No war on Islam”
How do you condemn violent Muslims and embrace the rest?????
A truly stupid question.
The same way you condemn violent Christians, violent Jews, violent men, violent women, and violent dogs, but embrace the rest.
Laying the events of 9/11 at the feet of the whole Muslim faith, is a vile canard and a political trick.
Report comment to moderator
Before I comment, I want to aver that I plan to express my point of view respectuflly and honorably in a way that all WORLD blog readers can celebrate my freedom to express myself freely even if we don’t always agree on all points. I want to be clear that my relationship with WORLD Magazine blog readers cannot and will not be based on my political party persuasions and my particular religious identifications. All other persuasions and identifications will be deeply respected. I honor all the rights and freedoms of other readers and bloggers I seek broad engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect. I will listen carefully to all responses and try to bridge misunderstandings while seeking common ground. I will be respectful, even when we do not agree. And I will convey my deep appreciation for the expressions of others and for the managers of this blog who have done so much over such a long time to shape the world and WORLD Magazine for the better – including the ways they have shaped me as a reult of participating freely and respectfully on this blog-site over the years. I am so glad to be a part of the dialogue and interaction which this blog exists to promote and if I can do more to promote this peaceful and enlightening exchange, please let me know.
Clear throat.
That said, Barack Obama is virtually mimicking the same approach and some of the same words as George W. Bush. No real news here.
Report comment to moderator
Can someone please show me a Christian Terrorist? And if you can find one, how is their terrorism compatible in any way with Christianity?
Report comment to moderator
I thought the President’s words were entirely appropriate. While there are some on the Christian right who are pushing for a war with Islam itself, most Americans are not. The last thing we need is another war between the two religions.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Please back up your accusation, Anlir. Which leader on the so-called “Christian right” is pushing for a war with Islam itself? Prove your accusation. Maybe some interesting individual can be found who does, but we need to know who it is so as not to judge all the “Christian right” so broadly, severely and with such stark bigoted prejudice against them.
Report comment to moderator
Well, let’s start with Northern Ireland, then move on Serbia and Srebenica, then to Tim McVey and finish with the guy who shot up the Unitarian church last month.
I suppose you could add that goof-ball general who saw the face of God in the smoke created by the bombs his guys were dropping, but that’s a bit debatable. Hitler is also debatable.
As for compatibility with Christianity, do I really have trot out some of the truly nasty bible bits? Or run through the crusades, the inquisition etc?
Fundamentalist belief in ANY faith can and too often does lead to otherwise unthinkable actions in the name of the deity.
Report comment to moderator
7 was directed to Make It Man.
Report comment to moderator
Some would say that those who put abortion doctors in the cross hairs were terrorists and since many foolishly ascribed their actions to Christianity–and were denounced for doing so by pro-life people and Christians everywhere–some would call them Christian terrorists.
Equally, the fighting folks in Ireland might be called Christian terrorists because they have been labeled Protestant and Catholics, rather than British and Irish. That has caused a lot of problems over the years since I don’t believe any of the IRA folk blowing up people are doing so because they think God is calling them to do so. But, again, lazy people without knowledge of the situation might also call them Christian terrorists.
Jesus, of course is at the crux, literally, as the Prince of Peace (though that’s from Isaiah, OT). But he’s the one who admonished his followers to turn the other cheek and love one another into the kingdom. I’ll follow him.
Report comment to moderator
I see no moral difference between the Christian who is glad to have his nation drop bombs on a civilian center in order to kill a few terrorists and the radical Muslim who is glad to have his neighbor suicide-bomb a civilian center in order to kill a few infidels.
Your Christian Terrorist is the guy with the “Kick their A** and Take their Gas” bumper sticker right between his magnetic American flag and his fish decal.
Report comment to moderator
What could be better than this:
I get to express my viewpoint about a situation, and I get the added benefit of yanking Joel Mark’s chain. He’s so easy!
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia,
So you see Christianity (which can be summed up as “Love your neighbor as yourself) as compatible with Terrorism?
Report comment to moderator
Sometimes the messenger makes all of the difference in the world.
President Bush did state that our nation is not at war with Islam, but he also used words like crusade — that is a word that alarms muslims. Abu Gharaib and Gtmo added to the perception that American had thrown out its own moral rules with respect to the war on terror. And then the invastion of Iraq with rumblings about Syria and possibly Iran. Oh yes, sometimes the messenger makes all of the difference.
Joel Mark: see John Hagee, Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham. For simply right wing see most of the writers on the Corner. Anlir is accurate when he says that some on the christian right equate the fight against terrorism with a war on Islam.
Report comment to moderator
How has Islamic faith shaped the world for the better including America? Anybody got any examples to cite? I wonder what specific things President Obama had in mind when he made that statement.
Report comment to moderator
Make it Man: “So you see Christianity (which can be summed up as “Love your neighbor as yourself) as compatible with Terrorism?”
Terrorism seems to be mostly incompatible with the golden rule specifically, but then again, much of the Bible itself is incompatible with the golden rule. There are literally hundreds of verses that condone cruelty and violence and many believers are quick to chuck the golden rule in favor of archaic laws when it suits them.
The only real difference between Christianity and Islam, in terms of violence, is that Christianity has already been through it’s violent conquest phase and has since mellowed out.
Report comment to moderator
World bettering Islamic:
Scientists?
Universities?
Artists?
Humanitarians?
Philanthropists?
Hospitals?
Statesmen?
Technology?
???
Report comment to moderator
JJF,
Excellent post, but you don’t even have to paint it that crassly. Lots of educated, tie-wearing, church-going Christians fall into that ‘terrorist’ category, too.
Report comment to moderator
“…much of the Bible itself is incompatible with the golden rule. There are literally hundreds of verses that condone cruelty and violence and many believers are quick to chuck the golden rule in favor of archaic laws when it suits them.”
I can only conclude that you do not understand the gist of the verses you refer to….
Recording the history of Israel and their relationship with God, is not the same thing as Christianity condoning cruetly and violence.
Report comment to moderator
There are literally hundreds of verses that condone cruelty and violence and many believers are quick to chuck the golden rule in favor of archaic laws when it suits them.
******From someone who obviously doesn’t know the Bible, and doesn’t understand specific instances condoned or commanded by God vs God’s continuing, overall, and general commands to love one’s neighbor, love the stranger among you, care for the poor and oppressed, care for the widow and orphan, and on and on and on.
There are only a few who even try to use the Bible as justification for violence, and they have to ignore slews and slews of verses and commandments to do it.
Show me how this is true of the Muslim Koran.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia – If you really honestly read the Koran, then you come to the conclusion that a Muslim who really adheres to to Islam’s tenets is at war with the West (and every other “infidel”), and that violence and deception are encouraged, even commanded, as a part of living out that faith.
On teh other hand, if you really honestly read the Bible, you come to the conclusion that violence and deception are discouraged as a part of living out a Christian faith.
Are there good and bad adherents to every religion (including atheism)? Certainly. But you have to look at what the religion (and atheism, if you say it isn’t one) really teaches to draw conclusions.
Report comment to moderator
“crusade — that is a word that alarms muslims”
Historically the crusades represent the first unified European effort to turn back the tide of Islam’s violent conquest. The warfare between Islam and Christianity from its inception to the present has been back and forth but predominantly initiated by Islam. The Middle East,including the areas occupied by present day Turkey, Jordan, Syria, and much of Iran, North Africa and the Mediterranean basin were Christian from the time of Constantine until the seventh and eight centuries AD.
The warriors of Islam overran the Arabian peninsula, North Africa, the islands of Sicily and Sardinia, and the Iberian peninsula, being halted finally in France by Charles Martel.
The Byzantine Empire (that part of Rome that continued a thousand years after the fall of the western half near the end of the fifth century AD.)began losing ground and was continually threatened. The Pope was asked for help by the Byzantine Emperor and the first of the historical crusades began. Palestine was regained briefly. Finally the mideast again became predominantly Muslim, the Ottoman Turks overtook Byzantium and pressed on through the Balkans, finally stopped and turned back after they lay seige to Vienna, Austria in 1681.
Christians and Jews were subjected to forced conversion or slavery. Under more benevolent Muslim regimes they were subjected to dhimmitude, a second class status that was heavily taxed and severely constrained.
From the late fifteenth centuries until their power was broken by the US Navy and nascent Marines at the shores of Tripoli in the early nineteenth century, Muslim raiders known as the Barbary pirates seized ships and raided the coasts of Europe as far as England for slaves sold into Africa. The number of European slaves seized and sold into Africa eclipsed the number of Africans sold into the New World until the eighteenth century.
“I see no moral difference between the Christian who is glad to have his nation drop bombs on a civilian center in order to kill a few terrorists and the radical Muslim who is glad to have his neighbor suicide-bomb a civilian center in order to kill a few infidels.”
America, and Israel, go to great lengths to minimize the inevitable civilian casualties of war, casualties that are imperiled by the terrorists who hide in their midst. The terrorists, often not even native to the country, deliberately choose civilian targets, and gang rape women to turn them into suicide bombers.
I don’t know anyone who is glad civilians are killed or wants bombs dropped on civilain centers to get a few terrorists. That description is as repugnant as it is mendacious. Any attempt to establish a moral equivalence between the actions of terrorists and American soldiers is willfully ignorant or morally reprehensible.
Living in a predominantly Christian country, I commute daily past a Hindu temple and two mosques. How many churches flourish in Saudi Arabia?
I see no reason in the light of history for America to apologize to Islam or soften our unfailingly respectful words. We await the apologies of the representatives of Islam and ask that they begin treating us with respect.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK, you left out something important. In addition to your various promises of good behavior, you must pledge to take responsibility for what you write and acknowledge error. Isn’t that the most polite thing of all?
Report comment to moderator
The first part of #21 is, I suspect, a “cut and paste” job from an anti-Islamic website and exactly the kind of thing that feeds into the mindset of an intra-religious war.
I see no reason in the light of history for America to apologize to Islam or soften our unfailingly respectful words. We await the apologies of the representatives of Islam and ask that they begin treating us with respect.
Those words make my point for me in #4.
Report comment to moderator
Make it Man: “I can only conclude that you do not understand the gist of the verses you refer to….
Recording the history of Israel and their relationship with God, is not the same thing as Christianity condoning cruetly and violence.”
This is always the stock response to such criticism. However, even if we can throw out the laws of the old testament (which Jesus says is not the case [Matthew 5:17]), Jesus himself commands his followers to commit murder [Luke 19:27] and condones slavery and physical abuse [Luke 12:45-48]. If we include Paul’s writings, we can find even more violence and cruelty. How do you propose we interpret these verses? One would think that if Jesus was trying to tell us something, he would have just told us. Why do we need to engage in logical gymnastics to make these verses anywhere near ethical?
TRS: “******From someone who obviously doesn’t know the Bible, and doesn’t understand specific instances condoned or commanded by God vs God’s continuing, overall, and general commands to love one’s neighbor, love the stranger among you, care for the poor and oppressed, care for the widow and orphan, and on and on and on.
There are only a few who even try to use the Bible as justification for violence, and they have to ignore slews and slews of verses and commandments to do it.
Show me how this is true of the Muslim Koran.”
I am not denying that there is a message of love and compassion in the Bible. The problem is that there is also a message of violence and cruelty. If you can’t see this, I would suggest that you are the one who is unfamiliar with the Bible. You seem to be unfamiliar with the Qur’an as well, because there is plenty of love and compassion to go with the violence, just like the Bible. The Muslims can also play the same card that the Christians do by saying that their critics just don’t understand what is written or that they are taking the verses out of context. Christianity and Islam are two sides of the same coin.
Report comment to moderator
Where is Christ’s message of violence and cruelty? Where? Be very specific in what how you quote him.
Report comment to moderator
NJL – 25
I will be waiting for the response as well -
Report comment to moderator
“This is always the stock response to such criticism.”
Because it’s true. And your following statement is a glaring example of this scenario.
“Jesus himself commands his followers to commit murder [Luke 19:27] and condones slavery and physical abuse [Luke 12:45-48].”
How ludicrous. I defy you to find any Bible scholar who interprets those verses in this manner. If you can’t be serious, how can we have a serious discussion?
Report comment to moderator
“One would think that if Jesus was trying to tell us something, he would have just told us. Why do we need to engage in logical gymnastics to make these verses anywhere near ethical?”
One doesn’t have to engage in any logical gymnastics. One does have to understand the textual and historical context and follow Luke’s train of thought- as with any writing.
If one insists, as you seem to, that one must read everything literally (instead of as a parable) then one will forever be confused. I bet you don’t read much allegorical or parabolic literature do you?
Please be serious. Have you ever read a commentary? Or ever given this author the benefit of the doubt?
Report comment to moderator
#23,
As usual, Anlir, you fail to take on the substance of the post in #21, and address the issue. Instead you attack the author of the post.
That’s “ad hominem” tactics, in case you’re wondering. Not very substantial as far as argumentation goes.
Report comment to moderator
“…Jesus himself commands his followers to commit murder [Luke 19:27]”
I’m still shaking my head. If you are serious about understanding this passage, (and I’m frankly exceedingly sceptical that you want to have an honest discussion at this point) then please read this passage in it’s context:
http://doulomen.tripod.com/sermons/Luke19_11-27.htm
This parable has absolutely NOTHING to do with Jesus telling his followers to commit murder. NO interpretation of this parable can result in such a blatant misuse of the written word. You should be ashamed of such an obvious attempt to smear the Gospel of Luke, not to mention the name of Jesus.
Report comment to moderator
A couple of Koranic verses. There are hundreds advocating charity, kindness and tolerance.
43:88 And he saith: O my Lord! Lo! these are a folk who believe not. Live peacefully with disbelievers.
43:89 “Then bear with them and say: Peace. But they will come to know”.
109:2 I worship not that which ye worship;
109:3 Nor worship ye that which I worship.
109:4 And I shall not worship that which ye worship.
109:5 Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
109:6 Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.
I can’t think of a biblical verse which is the equivalent of the last one quoted.
Of course there are nasty bits, too.
Both of these books can be interpreted for good or evil purposes.
And ascribing evil interpretations by a few to all of the believers is dumb and dangerous.
Ken: Just scanning your post on the Crusades it appears that the Muslims controlled a particular area for 700 or so years before what you obviously regard as a justified Christian violent “reclamation” of it.
I am curious how, by this logic, you could possibly oppose the Muslims attempts to reclaim the lands currently known as Israel and the occupied territories. (Or, for that matter Native Americans claims to all the land that is currently the USA.)
If ancient or just somewhat earlier possession and violent dispossession is all that is needed for a valid claim, why can’t the Indians or the Brits reclaim America?
Report comment to moderator
[Think Monty Python]
Food fight! Food fight!
Excuse me. Wrong room.
Religion fight! Religion fight!
Report comment to moderator
#6 & #11,
Anlir, you still did not back up your accusation against some on the “Christian right.” Does this mean you are backing down and ready to apologize? That would show integrity.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, at #23, you quoted KEN and somehow related it to your comments at #4. However, the quote did not in any way represent anyone pushing for war with Islam itself. Explain yourself logically.
KEN, your comments at #21 are, as usual, very thoughtful and well stated.
Report comment to moderator
The reason posts on radical Islamic violence always immediately shoot off into the weeds and become about how evil Christianity is and how so many Christians are actually backroom terrorists is because that is precisely what anti-Christian bigots do.
This topic has nothing whatsoever to do with Christians!
A Muslim just stole a plane and flew it into US airspace on a suicide mission. Muslim pirates just took 21 American sailors hostage on an American flagged vessel. Saudi Arabia is building Wahhabi mosques in many American cities in order to radicalize moderate Muslims. Iran is poised to nuke Israel. Muslims in northern Africa are torturing, raping, murdering and making slaves of non-Muslims and even non-Arabic Muslims. 13,015 terrorist attacks have been carried out by members of the Religion of Peace since 9/11.
But no one cares to talk about that. Obama’s response is simply to say “We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith”. Janet Napolitano has put a halt to even using the word terror, even if it is to describe terror.
And the response of anti-Christian bigots? Christians are even worse!
Report comment to moderator
“I can’t think of a biblical verse which is the equivalent of the last one quoted.”
Well, that’s not surprising seeing as how you “interpret” so many biblical verses incorrectly….
But here’s one for you:
Romans 12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
And if it’s peace you want:
http://www.topical-bible-studies.org/31-0015.htm
Report comment to moderator
In his sermon, Hagee said, “Then God sent a hunter. A hunter is someone with a gun, and he forces you. Hitler was a hunter. … How did it happen? Because God allowed it to happen. Why did it happen? Because God said, ‘My top priority for the Jewish people is to get them to come back to the land of Israel.’”
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5797025
That’s about as ringing an endorsement of terrorism as any religious leader anywhere in the world.
Hitler as God’s avenging angel, exterminating millions…
Wow!
Report comment to moderator
Leave it to Arcadia to enact Godwin’s law instead of addressing the issues.
Report comment to moderator
The inflammatory remarks about Islam on here by conservative Christians is exactly the kind of crap that’s ends up leading to war between the two religions. The world has seen enough of the wars and killings between these two religions. It’s why I regularly put a “pox” on both their houses.
Report comment to moderator
Guys, if folks go off topic to say yeah but another group is even worse, then don’t engage the straw man. If folks point out that every group has had zealots that turn to violence, well that’s just a truism. Why argue about these things?
I think we should focus on Kristen’s last question — how do you empower Muslims who were also appalled by 9/11 and who also suffer terrorist attacks in their own countries? How do you disempower an al Qaida narrative about the United States? That is what the President was trying to do in Turkey.
Ken
Of course your point on crusades is correct from our Western point of view. From their point of view though the crusades were the beginning of the end of their golden era — their barbarians coming over the hill in 410. It’s important to remember those kinds of cultural differences in order to avoid unwanted and unecessary implications that muddy dialogue instead of making it clear.
Report comment to moderator
#40 CB how do you empower Muslims who were also appalled by 9/11 and who also suffer terrorist attacks in their own countries?
I would recommend looking at some of the work of Charles Jacobs. He is a Jewish activist who has brought together Christians, Muslims and Jews to free slaves taken captive by radical Islamists in Africa. He brought together the radical left (Barney Frank, Bill Clinton) with the radical right (Pat Robertson) to work on this. A lot of the hard work was done by a group called Christian Solidarity.
While he actively seeks to make a difference in this world, he isn’t afraid to speak the truth. He founded Camera, an organization exposes press lies and cover ups and distortions about the Middle East. For this he has been sued by CAIR in order to silence him. Several Boston radio hosts have also been silenced by the courts because of powerful lawsuits backed by Saudi Arabia. This is happening all over America, but the press has been silenced for fear of the courts.
But he has offered aid protection to a number of Muslims who are close friends of his who see the danger of the dramatic agenda of radicalization coming from those whom we by oil from. Muslim slaves that were freed remain Muslim, but have become allies against the radical elements. They cannot speak out for fear of their life. So he speaks for them, putting his own life at risk.
Report comment to moderator
Imagine a world with no religion. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh . . . . . . .
Report comment to moderator
“Imagine a world with no religion”.
Oops Scott, you are singing it wrong. Lennon sings “Imagine there’s no heaven…no religion too”.
“Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh”
Well, I gotta admit, that does sound a lot like Yoko Ono.
Report comment to moderator
GWF81:
I’m puzzled by your citing passages from Luke as a justification of violence. Both Luke 12 and 19 are parables, two in a long series.
Luke 12 is often titled The Parable Of The Faithful Servant. The faithful steward (12:43) “pictures the genuine believer who manages well the spiritual riches God has put in his care for the benefit of others. Faithful stewardship results in honor and rewards” (vs. 44).
The unfaithful servant is depicted in 12:45. “His wicked and cruel behavior illustrates the evil of an unbelieving heart. And the degree of punishment is commensurate with the extent to which the unfaithful servant’s behavior was willful.” And ignorance is no excuse (vs.48).
Luke 12:46 cut him to pieces
“Means to utterly destroy him. This speaks of the severity of final judgment on unbelievers.”
Luke 19 is told very near Jerusalem not long before Jesus entered the city.
19:17 faithful in a very little Again, this speaks about “those with relatively small gifts and opportunities are just as responsible to use them faithfully as those who are given much.”
19:21 I was afraid of you, “A craven fear not borne out of love or reverence but tainted with contempt.”
19:27 these enemies of mine, Illustrated the Jews who actively opposed him.
Slay then in my presence. “Depicts judgment and possibly references the destruction of Jerusalem”.
These passages you cited are not a rallying cry to overthrow Roman oppression though many of the Jews certainly wanted that. Nor are these verses Jesus’ instructing his followers to usher in the kingdom through violence.
Notes taken from MacArthur’s Bible Commentary
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
This canard of “Christianity has killed more people than anything else” is so absurd that the only reason people keep bringing it up must be to make us waste time and effort on refutation. But if that’s what we want, here goes:
Think of all the wars going back in western history. WWII, WWI, the Crimean War, the Civil War, the NAPOLEONIC Wars, the Seven Years’ War, the War of the Spanish Succession, the conquests of Charlemagne, the conquests of Rome, The Punic Wars, the conquests of Alexander the Great, the Pelloponesian War, the Persian War, the SEIGE OF FLIPPING TROY… NONE of them had ANYTHING to do with religion. The only two I can think of are the Crusades, which, while unfortunate, had political causes as well and were essentially started by Muslim attacks on Europe. Then there were some minor European conflicts associated with the rise of Protestantism. Neither of those had anywhere NEAR the casualty counts of the others listed. Case closed.
Report comment to moderator
Ken and CB
A note on the crusades. The crusades were initially more important as a historical change agent for the Europeans not the Arabs. By the time the Crusaders arrived, Islamic civilization centered on Baghdad — Palestine was a minor concern and over time some of the Crusader states were accepted as part of the political scene there – making and shifting alliances with local Arabs. At this point in time the threat to the Arabs came from the east, the Mongol invasions.
The crusades only became part of the Arab narrative as a response to European colonialism. Arabs wondering what happened to the golden era of Islam sought to blame any external threats rather then institutionalization and solidification of what had been a fluid faith.
As for Tripolil — slave trading across the Mediterranean had been a common activity for centuries especially when the Mediterranean lacked a dominant power. Religion wasn’t important.
Proving one religion is more bloodthirsty than an other is a matter of cherry picking verses than anything else.
Finally, declaring a war on a religion, ideology or commodity is silly. One fights an enemy not a thing or ephemeral concept.
Report comment to moderator
Ken (#21):
Excellent post that gives an accurate account of the tyrannical and warlike nature of Islam from its very inception. The idea that Muslims were peacefully minding their own business when the “evil” Crusaders descended upon them for no reason is nothing but modern Islamic propaganda. Islam is not a peaceful religion. It never has been and it is not so today. Violence and conquest is at the very heart of their religion and they continue to prove it every day.
If anyone wants the unvarnished truth of what the leadership and very core of Islam is about today, they merely need to go to the website of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). Muslim clerics, Muslim government leaders, broadcasters, journalists, academicians, the man in the street, and even children, etc., can be seen and heard speaking to their countrymen with the most hateful, vile, vitriolic, and violent rhetoric imaginable.
Terrorists have NOT hijacked a peaceful Islam. Rather, a predatory Islam has hijacked the minds of over a billion people. Consequently, peace is not on their minds. Murder and world conquest is what they are about and their record of the past 65+ years shows it most plainly.
Report comment to moderator
Islam is a despicable religion that should be ridiculed at every opportunity. Believers in Islam are fools who’s faith lends tacit support to the most hateful and destructive ideology on earth. There are far too many places on earth where I could be killed for stating this opinion, and no-one would bat an eye. We are at war with hard core Koran Literalists who consider themselves among the most faithful of their religion.
Unfortunately any valid argument against the Islamic faith is also an argument against all faith based religion. Christians can and do speak out against the despicable acts of terrorists, as we all do, but they refuse to avail themselves of the arguments against using knowledge derived from faith as a basis of one’s actions. Islam is the ideological underpinning of our terrorist enemies, but if we don’t use an argument against faith as our basis of moral criticism all we are left with is a weak argument that some of the faithful are misguided.
Report comment to moderator
200,000 = Total attributed to professing Christians in the Crusades, Inquisition and witch burnings. And of course everyone ignores the fact that Muslim Imperialists were in the process of conquering the world. Their death toll is overlooked and it is never considered an atrocity.
Saddam Hussein singlehandedly murdered more of his own people than all of Christian history with weapons of mass destruction.
Obama Hussein will do even more. He is about to overturn the Hippocratic oath and require doctors to kill against their will. Obama supports the genocide of over 25 million children a year.
1080 = Number of people killed in Inquisition from 1540-1700
3181 = People killed in Northern Ireland violence from 1969-1995
2996 = Number killed by Muslim extremists in two hours on 9/11/2001
Atheists are so proud of themselves, but …
2 million murdered by Stalin
70 million murdered by Mao Tse Tung
10 million murdered by Hitler (no he wasn’t Christian)
(not to mention Lenin, Krushchev, Bresnev, Pol Pot, Ceaucescu, Kim Jong Il, Castro)
All of the deaths by alleged Christians in 500 years only amount to 1% of what atheists have done and only .008% of what liberals support. The number of children dismembered and slaughtered in America each year puts all of the world’s worst tyrants to shame.
So can we stop with the number game already?
Report comment to moderator
Emily, your post comes across as almost … sad that BHO isn’t waging war on Islam (and that GWB didn’t do so either).
It is not for governments to “wage war” on religions, but to punish criminals.
Report comment to moderator
Re: #50
The problem with that type of thinking is that it says that as long as Christians kill fewer people than Muslims do, then the murder they commit is somehow justified. Killing people in the name of religion is never justified. Ever.
Report comment to moderator
“Killing people in the name of religion is never justified. Ever.”
But killing them for the sake of convenience and a “mother’s right” is. That is truly sad.
Report comment to moderator
#52 It isn’t about justification; it is about trying to get liberals to stay on topic. I have a dream that some day liberals will be able to discuss the actual threat of Islamic terror without blaming every imaginable non-threat under the sun.
Someday soon there will be a major Islamic catastrophe (as even Joe Biden suggests). And rather than blaming the perpetrators, liberals will blame themselves, America, fatty foods, sugar intake, lack of education, lack of affordable health care, racism, global warming, social injustice, Jews and Bush.
Perhaps after millions more deaths are perpetrated in the name of Allah, some liberal might wake up and say, “Hey, wait a minute! These people are behaving exactly like Muhammad!” Of course, this will immediately be followed with, “Huh, what a weird coincidence” and they’ll go back to eating tofu and lighting incense and hating Christians.
Report comment to moderator
“Finally, declaring a war on a religion, ideology or commodity is silly. One fights an enemy not a thing or ephemeral concept.”
Was WWII a fight against an enemy or a concept? I’d say it was both.
Report comment to moderator
I just wish I could find a conservative Christian on here who will state unequivocally that killing people in the name of their faith is wrong. Apparently that’s a bridge to far. It’s pretty sad.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir (56) I just wish I could find a conservative Christian on here who will state unequivocally that killing people in the name of their faith is wrong.
Frank: AHEM …
Romans 13 tells us that God has ordained the civil magistrate to punish criminals — evildoers — not adherents to religions — even religions that may cause some of their followers to commit crimes against others.
I grant that the logical conclusions of a person’s beliefs may very well lead him to commit such crimes. And when that happens, the civil magistrate is charged to punish that person for those crimes, not for the beliefs he holds.
Just because adeherence to a given religion may cause some to commit such crimes, that is no justification whatsoever for the civil magistrate to seek out and punish all adherents to said religion.
Report comment to moderator
#50, “1080 = Number of people killed in Inquisition from 1540-1700.”
And many of those victims were free-thinking conscientious Bible-reading Christians, who were a threat to the corrupt Catholic institution of that particular time.
Report comment to moderator
“I just wish I could find a conservative Christian on here who will state unequivocally that killing people in the name of their faith is wrong.”
From what I see, you want more than this, you want someone to agree with your twisted notion of what Christianity is.
Your “wish” doesn’t even compute, it’s so far off base. Why would Christian’s not state the killing people in the name of their faith is wrong? Whatever gives you the idea that Christian’s want to kill in the name of their faith? I just don’t see it.
Your statements are a bit like that question that goes a bit like this:
“Have you stopped beating your wife?”
Report comment to moderator
Just for perspective: The violent atrocities and death tolls rising from atheist regimes and ideologies in the 20th century surpassed that of all religous pretexted violence combined. No matter how bad you think sin is, it is worse than you think it is. And anti-Catholic sentiment nourished the vicious ‘Reign of Terror’ during the French Revolution in the late 18th century.
Report comment to moderator
#50, Xion, isn’t that a rather low number for Stalin’s victims?
I do want to thank Ken, Xion and others for some very informative posts on this thread.
Report comment to moderator
#56, Anlir wrote; “I just wish I could find a conservative Christian on here who will state unequivocally that killing people in the name of their faith is wrong.”
I state unequivocally that willfully standing by passively while innocent people are slaughtered by known terrorists and thugs when it could have been resisted in some way is unkind, immoral and wrong, especially from the perspective of a faith that claims to benefit humankind and promote virtues like courage and respect for human life. How to mount that resistance (strategy for protection) is a matter of legitimate debate among decent people.
Report comment to moderator
Just as I thought – none of you can bring yourself to condemn murder in the name of your religion.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
don’t be an idiot. None of us are advocating murder.
Report comment to moderator
Most of the violence of these “terrorists” is of an intra-Islam variety: extremists attempting to overthrow the Shia Iraqi government; the Taliban assaulting Afghans, or Pakstanis, or for that matter the Arab Sudanese attacks against the African Sudanese in Darfur.
Of course, it may also be that conservative Christians are most atuned to conservative Islam; that there is a mirroring going on. This suspicion is common on the left, usually under the common rejection of fundamentalism.
Report comment to moderator
And in fairness, Daniel Henniger has a very important essay in today’s Wall Street Journal on the need for recognition of Christian minorities in Islamic countries. The biger issues are not about “terrorism” but rather this spread of a common civility between and within nations
Report comment to moderator
President Obama said,
” And we will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over so many centuries to shape the world for the better – including my own country.”
I do not appreciate the Islamic faith.
I see no ways the Islamic faith has done anything at all the shape the world for the better.
I see nothing the Islamic faith has done to shape my own country for the better.
I do agree with Anlir, Arcadia, and GWF81 that some parts of Christianity teach and preach violence, death and destruction of all who do not believe as they teach and believe.
Maybe Anlir, Arcadia, and GWF81 don’t realize that Islam is just another heresy of Christianity. The most successful heresy but still, just one heresy of many that have come along to pervert Christianity.
A strange thing about Christianity is that it keeps on returning to the same basic beliefs throughout time and over the entire world. This would suggest that there is something or someone outside humanity that keeps correcting those adherents of Christianity.
Anlir, Arcadia, and GWF81, have you asked that if there is a God that He will show himself to you? If He has shown Himself to you, have you asked Him for forgiveness of sins? Have you given yourself to Him?
John 16:24 (New International Version)
24 Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you will receive, and your joy will be complete.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
Perhaps the reason many of us resist making the statement you ask for is that doing so would seem to imply a need to make it. If I say, “I condemn murder in the name of my religion” (which I do, unequivocally), it suggests that someone who does not make that statement is somehow in favor of murder in the name of his religion. I can’t actually speak for anyone else, but I can’t imagine any Christian I know condoning murder in the name of Christ. Asking us to make the statement suggests that we need to distinguish ourselves from those who feel otherwise. And I don’t know anyone like that.
Report comment to moderator
Excuse me if this has already been asked and answered, but in what way has the Islamic faith shaped this country for the better? Questions about his birth country aside, I’m presuming, anyway, that Obama’s refence to his own country is a reference to the U.S.
Report comment to moderator
Another reason I resist stating something to Anlir’s satisfaction, is that I suspect that to do so, I would have to aquiesce to his definition of murder…
Like I said… It’s like the question:
“Have you stopped beating your wife?”
Report comment to moderator
#63 none of you can bring yourself to condemn murder in the name of your religion.
I unequivocally condemn “murder in the name of your religion” … and any religion. Christianity itself condemns murder.
Anlir is intolerant of a religion which says to love your enemies. Yet, Anlir has never once condemned another religion which teaches that you should torture people to death.
Anlir supports the dismembering of children. I condemn that too.
When will Anlir condemn what he/she asks others to condemn?
Report comment to moderator
Yet, Anlir has never once condemned another religion which teaches that you should torture people to death.
#52:
Killing people in the name of religion is never justified. Ever.
-Anlir
What do you say now, Xion?
Report comment to moderator
#72 You have never once criticized Islam. Ever.
Report comment to moderator
Oh please, Xion, I have criticized Islam numerous times on here. For example, I have raised the issue of how it treats gay people, which is horrendous. And I’ve taken conservative Christians to task for not objecting to the way Islam treats gay people, including pushing a brick wall over on them. But I’ll tell ya what – I have never once seen conservative Christians object to (or condemn) Muslims for torturing and executing gays. But I suspect that’s because they really don’t have a problem with it.
Report comment to moderator
Hmmm. Ok, maybe I missed those times. I stand corrected. Put me on record condemning the Muslims torturing and executing gays. I’m sure I have said that before.
Though there is no need really to ask Christians to do that. All Christians condemn that. I have gone a step further and criticized Christians for single out that particular sin above others and mixing the church with civil politics.
So you have an issue with treatment of gays. But will you acknowledge that the threat extends far beyond homosexuals? All non-Muslims are threatened. And in Darfur, Arabic Muslims are murdering African Muslims.
Obama’s response is to bow to them and praise them. Does that make America more or less safe?
Report comment to moderator
It’s odd because I’ve known several American Muslims personally and well. Even have a Muslim co-worker. And they are, without exception, kind and gentle people.
It’s very hard to reconcile my personal experience with those I know and what I read in the news about what goes on overseas.
Report comment to moderator
Xion
10 million murdered by Hitler (no he wasn’t Christian)
Sorry, he’s yours. He may not pass the an evangelical true Christian test but he was a bad Catholic. Similarly, Stalin won’t pass a true believer Marxist test but he does belong to us. Mind you he did enroll in an Orthodox seminary as a youth — perhaps that scarred him.
Realistically, neither religion nor atheism was the prevailing influence in either man’s genocidal rule.
Was WWII a fight against an enemy or a concept? I’d say it was both.
It was greats power politics or as the imperial Brits called it; “the great game”. Churchill’s vision of a post war Europe with sphere’s of influence reflects this. If it was fascism vs democracy then why ally with communism? why ignore fascist Spain and Portugal? The latter question becomes more pressing when Spain and Portugal joined NATO. Fighting Nazism may have motivated the troops and the people at home but the war aims were based realpolitik; not forgetting that many including Churchill approved or tolerated Mussolini, it was the expansionary policy of Germany they opposed.
Report comment to moderator
Bob
Maybe Anlir, Arcadia, and GWF81 don’t realize that Islam is just another heresy of Christianity. The most successful heresy but still, just one heresy of many that have come along to pervert Christianity.
Maybe Bob doesn’t realize that Christianity is considered to be a heretical cult of Judaism, a very successful cult but still a heresy.
A strange thing about Christianity is that it keeps on returning to the same basic beliefs throughout time and over the entire world. This would suggest that there is something or someone outside humanity that keeps correcting those adherents of Christianity.
You need to provide some evidence before I accept this. The history of Christianity suggests a tendency to splinter into to rival groups each eager to tout themselves as the correct group. As for the Protestant Reformers, they merely returned to Augustine who had successful merge Plato and Jesus. After the Reformation, the splintering continued as did the diverse theologies.
According to your theory, Islam would appear to have the something or someone correcting it outside of humanity since it has had far fewer splinter groups and has returned to its origins in a straitjacketed form.
Report comment to moderator
Hitler may have been a bad catholic, but there is no doubt that many Germans who proudly carried out Germany’s war of aggression and the Holocaust where good Catholics and Protestants. Being a good loyal German Christian is what kept you out of the gas chambers run by your fellow Christians. Many Christians actively supported the Nazi agenda. Many Nazis were not only devout Christians, but also believed that Nazi philosophy was animated by Christian doctrine.
The Nazis built their political following in large part by appealing to the large number of religiously conservative Germans with populist messages about law and order, religious values, and the evils of communism, materialism, and greed. They managed to convince the middle class and working poor to align their interests with those of big business out of fear that the communists or socialist democrats would take their money in order to redistribute the wealth.
I’m not saying that all German Christians subscribed to Nazism. Clearly there where many courageous Christians who opposed the Nazis, and of course they should be commended. Unfortunately however, the vast majority of German Christians either actively supported the Nazi program, or did absolutely nothing to oppose it.
The idea that Germans where somehow swayed to exterminate members of a different religion by atheistic ideals is ludicrous. It’s true that Hitler was influenced by the once popular but now discredited notion of eugenics, the misguided pseudo science that used some of the language of evolution, but it had nothing to do with atheism.
The line of reasoning that goes, Hitler used Eugenics arguments to argue that the inherently inferior Jews must be exterminated, and Eugenics is reminiscent of evolution, and atheists believe in evolution, therefore atheists are responsible for the Holocaust, is laughable.
Report comment to moderator
Once again … a thread on Islamic terror turns out to be about how evil Christians are …
Report comment to moderator
Xion: The reason they do is that there is a perception — right or wrong — that Islam-bashing is a case motes and beams. The critics point out (correctly, if not necessarily relevantly) that the history of Christianity has its share of blood, so complaining about Muslims without acknowledging the sin on our own side seems hypocritical.
I don’t really agree … obviously militant Islam is in high warmaking mode now and the last time Christians went to war specifically because of religious issues was a thousand years ago or so. And I agree with you that to respond to a point about Islamic violence with a “Yes but Christians also … ” derails an important topic.
But that is, I think, the reason.
Report comment to moderator
To create a discussion on how a religion may encourage violent behaviour is to invite a discussion on how religions in general may encourage violent behaviour.
Report comment to moderator
“He may not pass the an evangelical true Christian test but he was a bad Catholic.”
Oy. Now there’s an understatement.
Report comment to moderator
#82 A discussion on religions in general may be a pleasant past time, but what we are talking about here is a real threat now. If someone breaks into your home and threatens to murder you and your family, I highly doubt that you will regale him with lofty epithets on the waywardness of professing Christians so-called a millennium ago.
A concept that liberals are impervious to is the distinction between those who adhere to a faith and those who violate it. A Christian who murders is in violation of his faith. A Muslim who tortures and murders infidels is an exemplar of his faith.
So rummaging around in history for people who professed one thing or another and acted poorly is really beside the point. One religion is at the pinnacle of human thought, advocating the most noble ideals known to man. The other is a gutter religion that advocates murder, torture, terror, crime, greed, lust, violence and so on. To equate the two is to present a complete vacuum of intelligence. Ignorance so grand places us all in danger.
Report comment to moderator
I dunno Xion. My Muslim co-worker hasn’t murdered or tortured any infidels, as far as I know. My other Muslim acquaintance hasn’t either. Maybe they’re bad Muslims.
I think where the liberal defensiveness kicks in is when the talk implies that all Muslims subscribe to the mentality that motivates the terrorists. We’re not at all averse to condemning evil acts. We are, however, very averse to generalizing.
You say Islam is a “gutter religion that advocates murder, torture, terror, crime, greed, lust, violence and so on,” and I think of the Muslims I know who do not fit that description in the least, and there’s a serious disconnect.
Obviously there are sects within Islam that do advocate murder, torture and terror (I’m not sure even they advocate greed and lust), but there must be sects that do not, because none of those I know now or have known in the past are anything at all like what you describe.
Report comment to moderator
#77, HRW wrote; “Sorry, he’s yours.”
Yes, Hitler was indeed a socialist (that was his ‘religion’); a national socialist,who hated people of faith (Christians and Jews).
Report comment to moderator
#85 “I dunno Xion. My Muslim co-worker hasn’t murdered or tortured any infidels, as far as I know. My other Muslim acquaintance hasn’t either. Maybe they’re bad Muslims.”
Precisely! Your coworkers are bad Muslims. I have Muslim friends. I work with Muslims. They aren’t anything like the assassin and highway bandit Muhammad. They are great friends and phenomenal coworkers, but they are very bad Muslims. They barely understand their faith. I am not a Muslim, but I am teaching them about their faith, which is straight from hell.
As I said in #84, you have a very hard time distinguishing between the faith, i.e. Islam, and the adherents. The faith is pure evil. Muslims come in all varieties. The worst Muslims can be our greatest allies. The best Muslims will remove your head.
Report comment to moderator
#86 Precisely! A (Na)tional (So)cialist is a (Na)(zi).
Hitler was a national socialist. Obama is a national socialist.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!