'The Army of God' is on our side

[cxt]

Akil

I come from pretty deep in the "bible belt" as its reffered to around here. And this goes back about 30 years but.

Islam was always a part of our textbooks. And it was always cast in a monotheistic light. Its historical accomplishments (such as mathmatics, medical arts, poetry, etc) were always highlighted.
I have never heard any slight to the people of Islam in over 30s years of living in the Bible Belt.

What you may, MAY have been experiencing is a distrust of Islam on the part of many people. Not saying its fair-just saying that its not unexpected.

You have to be aware that the terms "enemies of god" have been heard, repeatedly from the Muslim world. That the guy your so upset about (the one you started your topic with) has said nothing that has not been preached by the religous leaders in Iran, Pakistan, most of the non-secular Middle Eastern Countries.

That in fact such langugue was used by the people that attcked us on 9-11. That such people enjoy support from the Muslium world.

I have to ask--with all respect. Are you upset it was said, or are you upset a Christian said it?

Are you upset that a person with an odvious religious convictions is in a position of power or are you angry that that person is a Christian?

Seems to me unless your willing to go on record as being opposed to any such statements BY ANYONE you should not single out the Christian for your attack.

And I do not recall your posting your outrage at the Malaysian PM for his racist statements. Nor the ovewhelming show of agreement with his views that the group he was presenting too responed with.

Again, please correct me if I have misunderstood you. I mean no offense and would not want you get the wrong idea.

[Akil Todd Harvey]

CXT,

Seems that you ask a lot of questions, but answer far fewer than you ask. I am still awaiting yoru answer regarding the monothesitic religions.....

which of the monothesitic faiths that are not simple off shoots of one of the above mentioned did not get mentioned? Calling protestantism and catholicism distinct religions might be kind of a stretch like calling reform judaism and some other more conservative branches of Judaism separate and distinct. Are you prepared to make the assertion that Shia Islam is distinctly (meaning entirely differenyt with no basis of shared or communal understanding) a different religion or merely one of its sects.

By the way, I recognize first hand when inconvenient questions have been ignored.......

Upon answering the above, I would be far more willing to answer the questions you put up with your last post. Keep in mind that as far as I can tell Gene has also been awaiting (pateintly, I might add) a response to his questions. Fortunately, CXT's questions are starting to overlap the inent and meaning of Gene's questions.

One last note.......

And I do not recall your posting your outrage at the Malaysian PM for his racist statements. Nor the ovewhelming show of agreement with his views that the group he was presenting too responed with.

I have not addressed these issues, which means that I have not yet addressed these issues and I will not do so until I do so. But, if you choose to ask off hand questions that pull me off on a tangent you might have the courtesty to recognize that I am not ignoring the questions but rather have not yet addressed these important issues that both you and Gene have raised. Finally, in order to have your questions answered, you must at least attempt to answer mine.

I am doing my best to not take this overly personally, but at the same time I am a man who has feelings that have no on/off switch. These are issues that I have been debating on this forum for literally years now and when this issue gets heated and it does quite often, that is not the time to tell me to go live over there if I like it so much. Someone other than myself brought up the issue of racism contained within the Malaysian PM's recent speech and I am not so sure you want to open the racist box cuz it is real hard to close that box and there are some people around here that dont seem prepared to look that deeply into themselves without considerable emotional pain and I can attest that most are not prepared to critically and honestly look at their own prejudices toward Islam. I am willing too examine my own prejudices, but expect those who encourage me to do so to do the same. Touche'. What is good for the goose is god for the gander. and the golden rule is certainly not that, "he who has the gold makes the rules (which is the racist method whereby the nation of my birth seems to want to rule the world). The golden rule is that you must treat others as you want to be treated (see my signature below, it refers indirectly to the golden rule, I should want for you what I want for me, regardless of what religion you are, that is the measure of one's faith- a form selflessness.........

Be Well and Be good to each other,

Akil

[Akil Todd Harvey]

CXT,

Can you forgive me if I went overboard a wee bit? I, too, have strong feelings and strong opinions and am eager to find a resolution to some of the most difficult of problems that the world has ever known. This aint some debate over whether or not we should have blue or red pompoms, but how to achieve peace in one of the world's most contested regions.

Until Later ,

Akil

[cxt]

Akil

Thank you for getting back to be.

1-No you did not come on too strong. It does not anger me to be asked pointed questions.

2- It would never occur to me NOT to consider Islam, of either major group to NOT be monothistic.
I have no explanation for your experience with Brandis. I can, with a fair degree of accuracy, tell you that in my neck of the "bible belt" Islams mononthistic nature is both recognised and accepted.
I was taught in grade school that Islam was indeed one of the great monothistic religions.

3- My point in asking about statements made by Christians and Muslaims was asked for 2 reasons.

1- It is my personal belief that religious fanatics,(ok fanatics period) should never be in positions of power. Once you have convienced yourself that God speaks to you and to you alone, atrocity becomes all to easy.

2- Do you see the problem with posting a long attack on one specific zelot while ignoring the actions of another?

You see you spent a very long time, very specific, very detailed, on the the guys odd behavior. Yet you seem to ignore equally odd actions and statements made by others. The person you focused happens to be a Christian, the statements and actions you have not delt with come from Muslums.

It would very easy to get the idea that what you have a problem with is Christians making public statements of religious conviction-- but your OK with many Muslum leaders doing so.

For the record I d not get the sense that you are in way attacking Christians--I hope you understand that I am not attacking Muslums or you.

If I have offened you with my questions I am sorry.

[Bill Glasheen]

I am impressed, gentlemen. This is difficult. Keep up the discussion!

- Bill

[IJ]

Perhaps ATH does not feel the need to point out that some Muslims are fanatics filled with hate because that has already been made abundantly clear by others. It seems to me, in a general way, that if someone from a minority (by faith or color or whatever) raises an issue with the direction the dominant culture is taking, they are frequently asked to repudiate the nuts in their group. This is done in a way that is far less often expected from the majority. One rarely sees a moderate Christian being asked to judge the wacko Christians like our general friend before making a comment on the wacko Muslims. On the other hand a moderate Muslim is often asked to judge the wacko Muslims before speaking to the wacko Christians. Why is this? Well, a lot of times if we're miffed at a lot of members of minority group X or Y, we want any members of that group, which is "other" to us, to clearly define that they're not one of the wackos. We trust our own--often a mistake, as Timothy McVeigh proved. Just a theory.

What else is left...

--A pox on Brandeis. Isolated event.
--Yes, Islam is monotheistic.
--Fanatics in power are bad.

I think everyone is in far greater agreement than the thread would indicate.

[Gene DeMambro]

I'm confused. Does anyone want me to answer any question that has been asked so far? Please bring them to my attention again.

Gene

[cxt]

IJ

I have say that anathamizing the nutcases should be done by EVERY group as often as possible.

It should be major subject each and every time a fanatic --of any stripe---speaks or acts.

It should be loud, clear and unequivical. And most of all consistant.

I don't think it really has to do with an "us" or "them" or "dominant culture" it has more to do with keeping your own particular house clean.

If you tolerate fanatics and wackos in your midst thats a problem you need to address. Perhaps you should do so prior to pointing your finger at someone else--thats really all I'm saying

I'm not picking on a specific group or individual.

I'm quite sure that all of have some examples of inconsistant behavior from Christian circles as well. Just as bad.

[IJ]

Hmmm... I don't think the wacko Muslims are really in his midst. He's not connected to them in any way, far as I can tell. And I understand your point about bad Christian examples, but unless there are reports I have missed, the worst of the Muslim world at the moment exceeds the worst of the Christian world.

[Bill Glasheen]

Perhaps the problem lies in identifying bad behavior associated with a particular religion rather than consistently seeing bad behavior for what it is - independent of the religious practitioners that preach it. Easier said than done. Since I am - at best - a Unitarian Universalist and study/appreciate all religions, I have no particular baggage that I bring to the table.

Personal religion vs. bad behavior from practitioners of a religion gets a bit dicey. Associated with many religions is the idea of an all-powerful deity that allegedly is right and all youse other people are wrong and will just have to go "wherever." It may not be explicitly stated in the Intro for public consumption, but it's buried deep in the dogma of many faiths. So it's easy to see how people can get defensive here.

I personally don't care what people believe and where they think I'm going to go... I'll go wherever without their help anyhow. I support the right of people to practice whatever faith they want, and do/think what they want.

EXCEPT...

As soon as someone starts imposing their faith on me or others, or acts out of "divine guidance" in a manner that negatively affects me or others, well then I'm going to have a problem with it. And as far as I see it, fair is fair. Whether you're the pope or a barefoot with shaved head begging on the street, you have to live by the laws of society and respect the Golden Rule.

My personal opinions, FWIW.

- Bill

[IJ]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/world_pres ... index.html

Does anyone think that there are some religions are more likely than others to have trouble getting along well with others? I have, for example, heard the opinion that wherever Islam brushes up against other cultures, wars ignite. Not enough of a historian to comment myself. I also read a book review on a text on Mormonism which suggested it was not random that most adherents had to pick up and settle in a relatively inhospitable state, describing probable religious leader involvement in a massacre of settlers passing through that area.

I'm relaying what I read, not addressing the faiths or any individuals. But I do imagine that a deeply religious person who holds the opinion that everyone else is wrong, and more importantly thinks that everyone else needs to convert, is more dangerous than a deeply religious person with a bumper sticker that reads "God is too big to fit in one religion," or attends a temple eblazoned with a sign that reads, "Paths are many, truth is one."

[cxt]

IJ

The quote, from what I recall is "Islams bloody borders"

Sorry can't remember the name of the text or author.

Basic conclusion however was that any nation that shares a border with an Islamic nation eventually comes into armed conflict with them.

Not sure I buy that, mostly since my read on history is that almost all nations--regardless of religion--wind up attacking each other.

However, if memory serves, the take on the book tends toward the modern era rather than what to most of the west is ancient history.

[Akil Todd Harvey]

Sorry to be gone so long in this debate.......I really had every intention of joining you folks sooner.......I have the most time to participate on the weekends.......Thanks for keeping the topic going while I was away.........Still thinking about Gene ..........in a good way.......

I find intereesting the theory that "any nation that shares a border with an Islamic nation eventually comes into armed conflict with them."

I find it interesting because, for example, in the case of the United States, you need not even share a common border to be threatened with armed conflict with the United States.........We (the USA) have intervened militarily in probably a third to half of all nations in the world in just the last century alone which probably should not be affected by the ancient history rule except among the mtv generation........

Also of note with regard to bordering nations, armed conflict, and religious afillitation is the history of the roman empire (ancient history, also partly Christian history) which had gone to war not only with bordering nations but were also kind of egalitarian when it came to warfare and armed conflict, as they were willing to go to war with just about anyone and everyone.

"Why, we have gotten into a mess, a quagmire from which each fresh step renders the difficulty of extrication immensely greater. I'm sure I wish I could see what we were getting out of it, and all it means to us as a nation."

Someone could have said this about Iraq today or about Vietnam 35 years ago. But in fact it was Mark Twain who said it a century ago about the American occupation of the Philippines.

I was reminded of that quote when I heard President Bush, in a speech Saturday before the Philippine Congress, refer to our history in that country as a "model" for establishing democracy in Iraq. Alluding to the 1898 Spanish-American War, he said, "America is proud of its part in the great story of the Filipino people. Together our soldiers liberated the Philippines from colonial rule."

Twain would have laughed with outrage at this stretch of the truth, which obscures a shameful chapter of this story. What Bush called liberation, Twain decried as a bloody campaign against the Philippine struggle for independence, a campaign that would usher in five decades of occupation by the United States.



In the years leading up to the Philippine war, Twain, the outspoken vice president of the Anti-Imperialist League, believed that once Spanish rule ended, the Philippines would achieve their independence: "It was not to be a government according to our ideas, but a government that represented the feeling of the majority of the Filipinos, a government according to Filipino ideas."

Instead, the U.S. annexed the Philippines in 1899 and waged a brutal war to enforce its rule across the archipelago. Nearly 5,000 American soldiers died, and historians estimate that 250,000 Filipinos perished — 20,000 were killed in combat and the vast majority died from disease and starvation. The U.S. Army burned villages and fields, massacred civilians and herded the residents of entire provinces into concentration camps.

The U.S. justified this inhumane treatment by calling Filipinos uncivilized and incapable of governing themselves. American soldiers in the Philippines, many of whom had fought Indian wars in the U.S. West, were the first to use the racist appellation "####," which gained notoriety during the Vietnam War.

Many distinguished Americans across the political spectrum joined Twain in protest of this war, including Grover Cleveland, Jane Addams, Samuel Gompers, Andrew Carnegie, William James and W.E.B. Du Bois. When the Senate conducted hearings in 1902 on atrocities, American soldiers testified about the killing of prisoners and torturing of civilians.

Although the war officially ended with the declaration of U.S. sovereignty in 1902, there was ongoing resistance to the occupation. In one incident, U.S. troops massacred at least 900 Muslim women, children and men in 1906 on the southern island of Jolo. Today, U.S. military advisors are being sent to that region, where the Bush administration and that of Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo see only terrorists but where residents remember tales of the brutal occupation of a century ago.

If the story of democracy in the Philippines is a model for Iraq today, how ironic that the president of the United States, more than 100 years after the end of "hostilities," found it too dangerous to stay the night. Filipino protesters in the streets of Manila last week have a very different interpretation of this history. Bush must be reading revisionist historians who point to the war in the Philippines as a model for waging war in the 21st century. He might be better off reading Twain, whom Laura Bush praised as "one of America's most important storytellers," and one who wrote eloquently about the meaning of freedom.

In a famous essay, "To the Person Sitting in Darkness," Twain imagined a benighted citizen of the Philippines trying to understand how liberation could turn into its opposite. The person sitting in darkness muses, "There must be two Americas: one that sets the captive free, and one that takes a once-captive's new freedom away from him, and picks a quarrel with him with nothing to found it on; then kills him to get his land."

Which of these two Americas would Mark Twain see at work today in the occupation of Iraq?

A wrong is a wrong is a wrong regardless if committed by Muslims, Christians or jews. Makes no difference. And if its wrong, we have a responsibility to correct that wrong, whether by stopping that wrong with our own hands, to speaking out against the wrong (next best thing), to merely hating that wrong in your heart (lowest acceptable form of action) in the case that you dont have the power to take direct action or at least speak out against it. That my friends, is the meaning of jihad. To struggle for what is right, even if it is not popular among your co-religionists, cohorts, etc. To speak out against what is wrong, even if it means social ostracism or worse.

I am off to the Mosque for the Friday prayer (which is like the Sunday church or Saturday Temple equivalent for us Muslims).......Where we will likely hear of the redemptive powers of fasting (O ye who believe! Fasting is prescribed to you as it was prescribed to those before you, that ye may (learn) self-restraint).

Peace,

Akil

[benzocaine]

Very interesting U.S. history lecture Akil. It is shameful the way our government has acted in the past. Unfortunately that is also the the human race as a whole. The strong opresses the weak, and often times uses their own version of morality to justify their actions. Indian fighters in the US west probably told themselves that by wiping out entire villigages of Natives they were protecting wagon trains and keeping the "good" folks from harm. We can look back at that now and say "Yep, that was prety awful what we did to Native Americans", just like we can say how wrong slavery was.

What will history say about the Iraq occupation? Did we do it for the oil? Did we do it because we felt threatened? Was it good that we got those people out from Sadam's rule?

What if we hadn't invaded Iraq? I believe we would have seriously lost face in the international arena. Yes this whole thing *****! Yes our leaders need to keep religion out of this!

Akil. You quote Twain saying There must be two Americas: one that sets the captive free, and one that takes a once-captive's new freedom away from him, and picks a quarrel with him with nothing to found it on; then kills him to get his land." and then ask "Which of these two Americas would Mark Twain see at work today in the occupation of Iraq? " I truly want to believe we are simply the American who sets the captives free.... but I will give you the respect you deserve and keep an open mind and think critically about all of this.

[cxt]

Akil

Please understand when you read this that a "debate" as you call this discussion requires an exchange of ideas.

You have again, posted a long, detailed example of what you seem to see as a "wrong" that the U.S.A has inacted.

While seeming to ignore any similar action on anyones else's part. Such as the many and far more recent actions of titular "muslums."

My perception of this is that you have pretty much a "one track mind" as it were. Where you continue to post "examples" of how the U.S.A has acted "badly"

I was very clear in my own post that I did not agree with the "Islams bloody borders" quote.

I am starting to think that you have no real interest in a frank exchange of views and "debate" as you put it.

Its starting appear that you wish to merely do a "drive by posting."

Really hope I'm wrong