Friday, June 7, 2013


A SMELLY RED HERRING


versus COLLECTIVISM and ISLAM


Lest somehow you could manage
In every bed to be
There could be no advantage
To banning sodomy.


The state exists –– or should exist –– to protect us from criminals and from any and all forms of attack against our sovereignty or territorial integrity. We should be able to discriminate fiercely and decisively against enemies that arise within our own ranks. In a sane society the stinking red herring of homosexual marriage –– or any form of private behavior between consenting adults –– could never qualify as that powerful an enemy.

For good or for ill the state should have no power to legislate for or against matters of taste, style, or behavior, unless the overt expression of those things impinge on the rights of others to enjoy their lives as they see fit.



What is the choice? Give the state the power to discriminate against gays? Or give the state the power to discriminate against religions? ... I say get the state out of it completely.


I would agree completely again, if it were not for the issue of “religion.” I, personally, refuse to define or accept anyone else’s definition of ISLAM as a “religion.” ISLAM is NOT a RELIGION. It is a SUBVERSION, an INCURSION an INVASION, a CORRUPTION and a PERVERSION of every principle on which this country was founded, and as such it –– and all the other “enemies within” should be vigorously discriminated against. I said VIGOROUSLY not VIOLENTLY.

The idea that homosexuality per se –– a natural human phenomenon that has appeared in every culture at all levels and among members of every “faith,” since time immemorial –– should be classified as injurious to society is arrant nonsense.

The political objectives behind the Gay Liberation Movement, however, are a other thing altogether.  Satan makes use of anything and everything within reach to work his deceitful wiles. 

Satan, however, is not in sex, but in all the vile, psychologically maiming superstitions that grew up around sex.

56 comments:

  1. .

    "I, personally, refuse to define or accept anyone else’s definition of ISLAM as a “religion.” ISLAM is NOT a RELIGION."

    Really?

    Kinda reminds me of the graffiti on the bathroom wall;
    "God is dead - Nietzsche
    Nietzsche is dead - God"

    You can hysterically scream your nonsense all you want. The fact remains, Islam is a world religion. Regardless of your emphatic pontifications, the followers of Islam have been peacefully practicing their religion for generations throughout the world, including USA. Islam like all groups (religious and non-religious) has whack-jobs who try to use their membership as an excuse for their whack-job behavior.

    You ask, "What is the choice?"

    Follow the law established by the Constitution of USA.

    Ema Nymton
    ~@:o?
    .

    ReplyDelete
  2. Declaring Islam is not a religion won't wipe out its one billion plus followers.

    The Muslims I have had personal contact with in the communities I've lived in were all peaceful, lawful Americans who no more resemble the radical criminals who continue to attack us, than do the crazy Westboro Baptists resemble any Christian sect.

    Have you ever studied Scientology? That is truly a whacko cult. You have to pay to get into that religion--no other religion in the world requires an admission fee. And Scientology has a miserable record of going after anyone who criticizes it or chooses to leave the cult.

    If Scientology had the numbers of adherents that Islam has, we'd see, I'm sure, a great percentage of lawless persecution of those who do not follow their Sci-Fi-based cult.

    Islam needs to reform within. Its greatest failures are the failure (in some sects) to treat its women as equals and not second class citizens, and its poor record on educating its young people instead of drilling Koranic verses into their impressionable young heads.

    We agree on this:

    "The idea that homosexuality per se –– a natural human phenomenon that has appeared in every culture at all levels and among members of every “faith,” since time immemorial –– should be classified as injurious to society is arrant nonsense."

    I've repeated this countless times: Homosexuality is a natural aspect of human sexuality and has always been part of humanity. It is a sexuality a minority of humans engage in.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Emma and Shaw 2 Pings in a pole

    ReplyDelete
  4. Correcting my phones spellcheck
    Emma and Shaw, Two Pigs in a poke.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Name-calling: The last refuge of someone who hasn't the ability to engage in intelligent discourse.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Who would want to engage in a conversation with the likes of YO U?
    Not me!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Bring Back Hate Week

    ReplyDelete
  8. .

    "Bring Back Hate Week"

    Go for it. Start with yourself (look where it has gotten you).

    Ema Nymton
    ~@:o?
    .

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ha, ha, ha, little Piggie Emma is pissed!

    ReplyDelete
  10. .

    "Who would want to engage in a conversation with the likes of YO U?
    Not me!"

    You did write this, didn't you?

    Soooo, you can't even make it work for you here. Can you? ... Loser!

    Ema Nymton
    ~@:o?
    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Look at who's calling who a loser!
      A loser left over from Woodstock

      Delete
  11. Anon, do you have a cogent point to make?

    Both Shaw and Ema have made valid observations. Just as Free Thinke did in his post. Everyone is free to agree or disagree as they chose. it can be done without resorting to name calling.

    Do you have a valid counter to Shaw and Ema?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Who the hell asked you!
    Anti Semite!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ha, hah, Piggie number two has entered the pen.

    ReplyDelete
  14. .

    "A loser left over from Woodstock "

    Oh, I'm crushed (hand goes to head and swoons to the day-couch).

    __________~

    "Who would want to engage in a conversation with the likes of YO U?
    Not me!"

    You did write this, didn't you?

    Knuckle head.

    Ema Nymton
    ~@:o?
    .
    .

    ReplyDelete
  15. Maybe next time we see either of you two progressive imbeciles, you'll have some substance for us rather than the same old stale liberal rhetoric, or should I say "bull-shit".
    And by the way, thanks for voting for Fucking Up our country!

    ReplyDelete
  16. .

    "Maybe next time we see either of you two progressive imbeciles, you'll have some substance for us rather than the same old stale liberal rhetoric, or should I say "bull-shit"."

    Which you would not recognize in any case, right?

    "And by the way, thanks for voting for Fucking Up our country!"
    If your country is 'F'd Up, maybe it is you who are 'F'ing it up.

    Ema Nymton
    ~@:o?
    .

    ReplyDelete
  17. How dumb does that dumb-ass Barack Obama think we are?
    If you notice that, in response to all the scandals that plague his administration, prez Hussein claims he knows nothing? Neither he nor Attorney General Eric Holder knew the ATF had decided to arm the Mexican drug cartels. He says he did not know the attack on our consulate in Benghazi was a terrorist attack linked to Al Qaeda instead of a spontaneous uprising linked to a protest over a video – even though whistle blowers testifying before Congress say they told him it was a terrorist attack.

    Eric Holder claims he didn't know about the decision to seize AP phone records. Hussein claims he did not know the IRS was targeting Conservative groups. Not until he saw the news reports. Now where have we heard that crap before, oh yes, from Barack Obama when he claimed he heard about the scandals at the same time everyone else die, by reading it in the newspapers! God what an asshole that guy is.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Islam appears to have been resurrected from the ash heap of history on the sand dunes of the Middle East just as WWI was winding up, the idea of a special land to be granted for a new state of Israel came to the fore and the British political elite did their part by pushing through the Balfour Declaration.
    Not sure if this was all part of a larger master plan but the consequences of WW I and the penalties imposed on Germany lead to financial destruction of that state, resulting in the Weimar Republic, the rise of Hitler's National Socialism and WW II. The cost in human misery and destruction of life and property in both these gigantic conflagrations have never been equaled in human history. The consequences are with us today and the same manipulative demonic evil pushes onward unabated ...

    ReplyDelete



  19. "Conversations Over Dinner with a Brainless Liberal . said...
    How dumb does that dumb-ass Barack Obama think we are?
    If you notice that, in response to all the scandals that plague his administration, prez Hussein claims he knows nothing? Neither he nor Attorney General Eric Holder knew the ATF had decided to arm the Mexican drug cartels. He says he did not know the attack on our consulate in Benghazi was a terrorist attack linked to Al Qaeda instead of a spontaneous uprising linked to a protest over a video – even though whistle blowers testifying before Congress say they told him it was a terrorist attack.

    Eric Holder claims he didn't know about the decision to seize AP phone records. Hussein claims he did not know the IRS was targeting Conservative groups. Not until he saw the news reports. Now where have we heard that crap before, oh yes, from Barack Obama when he claimed he heard about the scandals at the same time everyone else die, by reading it in the newspapers! God what an asshole that guy is."


    Is that you, CODwaBL or is it Barlow?

    Or perhaps you have a multiple personality thingie going on.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Were you scared by an Imam as a child, FT?

    My experience with Muslims has been fine and as Shaw can confirm, living in Everett means I run into more than the token. They live next door and further up the street and are well liked in the neighborhood.

    I still insist that the pathology of the Marathon bombers is much closer to mass shooters than any religious extremism. But rather than try to understand it's easier to just call for their extradition, right? Even if they're citizens because they're clearly the bad kind of citizens.
    Why? Because they're Muslims. It gets a little circular, FT?

    Stew in your bigotry if you must, FT. Such a waste.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Ducky, I watched an interview recently on Piers Morgan in which he interviewed a couple of people who were employees of a gym that those brothers belonged to. They thought the older brother seemed relatively well adjusted and normal until he recently changed and began praying at the gym, which indicated that religion had been playing a bigger part in his life than they had previously seen. They noted it seemed out of place.

    One also in retrospect seems to be creeped out by a remark that the elder brother made about the murder of another member of the same gym and someone whom this boxing brother had sparred with. The remark could indicate that there was a connection to that case as well.

    But I get it. You have to uphold the representatives of the most callous and primitive tyranny—it's the schtick of the left.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Free... regarding Islam... Tillich would define religion as that which we would die for... our ultimate concern...

    For some, in his era, that was nationalism experienced through Nazi Germany. It seems as if Islam, at least for some, would fit that definition...

    ReplyDelete
  23. Well! I see that this post is getting a lot more attention than the bit of witty verse yesterday.

    Figures.

    Religion should be a matter of personal faith and separate from a suppressive union with the state, IMO. In that context, any "religion" that cuts off the heads of those who don't follow that religion has crossed a line -- the line into geopolitical ideology.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I'll give this tip to each and all:
    Consult that mirror on the wall.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I'm glad to see vigorous participation -- except for the droppings of uncurbed trolls, of course.

    Ema, I've never seen you more reasonable, and though we have little in common politically, I can at least give you credit for using decent English. That counts for a lot with me.

    Now, if you could only be less accusatory and personally insulting in your disagreements, we might one day become allies in helping to combat the reflexive expression of vulgar, mindless resentment that clutters so many blogs.

    I've seen you around for years, and have usually disregarded you, because I've never seen you when you didn't appear furious and constantly on the attack.

    A posture of such fierceness in my opinion is not a way to attract followers or persuade anyone of the virtue of your position.

    However, at least you have a mind, and as long as you continue to use it, and not merely spew invective, you're welcome to post here. All I ask is that you stay on topic.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Thank you, Les, for making a good point regarding Shaw and Ema.

    While they disagreed with part of what I said, they both wrote intelligently.

    I have never been so far gone that I would presume to think that perfect agreement with me is a necessary qualification to be thought of as intelligent. ;-)

    In fact the urge to force conformity on others -- or to trick them into it through the use of sophistry and guile -- is one of the things I dislike and distrust most about our human species.

    Much good comes of legitimate debate. It is the antidote to and the antithesis of dictatorship.

    Staging a FECES FESTIVAL, however, is not a proper way to score points. It's merely childish, and makes the participants look asinine.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "How dumb does that dumb-ass Barack Obama think we are?"

    I'm sorry, but whenever I see a topic sentence like that I stop reading, because it's impossible to take anyone who writes that way seriously.

    Why not try an approach more like this:

    I'm not in agreement with most of the policies of President Obama because, ...

    ... and then go on from there citing your examples and your sources?

    It's a lot more work, of course, and would definitely slow down the process of posting, but at least it would have some value.

    Why should I bother to respond to anyone who would address me as "you asshole," "you moron" or "you bigot?"

    It's a losing strategy not matter what side of the fence you're on, believe me.



    ReplyDelete
  28. In that sense I regard Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Liberalism, Progressivism, Statism, et al. as religions too, Dave, and that's not necessarily meant as a pejorative, even though I don't have faith in those belief systems.

    Of course, Islam is a "religion," but NOT in the sense that the Lutheran, Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, Russian and Greek Orthodox churches are religions. Because of its terrifying history in the the Middle Ages and beyond, one might still regard the Roman Catholic Church with some lingering suspicion, I suppose, but that would hardly be fair. The Catholic Church -- like every other entity on earth -- may have it faults, but for several centuries it it has largely been a force for good.

    Islam is another matter. The doctrines, themselves, are inherently rigid, authoritarian, closed-minded, xenophobic in the extreme where other belief systems are concerned, hideously contemptuous of the concept of Female Equality, and are, therefore, inherently anti-intellectual, anti-egalitarian and undemocratic.

    I don't doubt the anecdotal evidence of Shaw and Ducky and other advocates and apologists for Islam in the West. Muslims are people after all just like the rest of us, and I too have met several who could charm birds off trees, however, their religion specifically advocates the practice of DECEIT and even TREACHERY when confronting "The Infidel" -- i.e. anyone not a member in good standing of the Muslim community. [They call it TAKEEYA, which I deliberately misspell, because I think making non-phonetic transliterations from foreign languages that do nor use the Roman alphabet is absurd, and I refuse to go along with it. That's not a gesture of disrespect, it's merely good common sense.]

    At any rate, because of TAKEEYA (the religious doctrine advocating DECEIT, TRICKERY and TREACHERY in dealings with non-Moslems), I have come to believe it is simply too dangerous to apply OUR standards of fairness and decency to THEM, since their official teachings refuse reciprocation.

    It is THEY who insist on quasi-militant division and non-assimilation not US, and frankly THEIR cultural, moral and philosophical values are often diametrically opposed to OURS, ergo I see no reason why we should regard the Muslim Community with anything BUT suspicion.

    ReplyDelete
  29. AOW said, "Religion should be a matter of personal faith and separate from a suppressive union with the state ..."

    That's perfectly congruent with the way I see it too, so of course that makes it a matter of FACT not opinion in my book. };-)>

    To put it in the vernacular:

    THEOCRACY is the PITS.

    The mountain range of historical evidence supporting that contention is overwhelming and incontrovertible.

    ReplyDelete
  30. FT, one of the real dangers here is when people start to comment on topics of which they KNOW NOTHING, specifically taqiyya.

    Please spend some time studying the environment of persecution tha gave rise to the term and report back to the class.

    You are incorrect but it is of little value trying to convince you.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Shaw Kenawe said...
    "Is that you, CODwaBL or is it Barlow?"

    Perhaps Both! "What Difference Does It Make?"

    ReplyDelete
  32. So now there's a new definition of
    "taqiyya"? Has it changed from deliberate deception of the infidel— just because he/she is the infidel according to the religion? Surely you learned that years ago as a star pupil of David Horowitz and FPM, Ducky.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Ducky,

    Bigotry is an essentially mindless, thoughtless, passionate conviction based on an assumption of rectitude coupled with a refusal to examine all the evidence.

    In that sense you are probably as guilty as anyone else of bigotry.

    The word has been redefined (by the left, of course) as hatred and intolerance with a desire to persecute.

    That is NOT what bigotry really means at all. Its simply a matter of being so in love with your own opinions that you refuse to consider those of others.

    Only a Liberal-Progressive historical revisionist or a Post-Modernist would disagree.

    Did you read our comments in Brahms, yesterday?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Question for a teacher: If phonetics is such a great teaching aid to learn, why is it spelled "phonteics" and not "fonetics"?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Waylon, please don't confuse my understanding of the need for common sense in TRANSLITERATION of languages not based on the Roman alphabet with advocacy of the phonetic spelling of English in the English-speaking world.

    I acknowledge the enormous changes that have occurred quite naturally since before Chaucer wrote Canterbury Tales in the 1400's -- or was it the 1300's? -- but I treasure the eccentricities in the spelling of oyr language, because it's very much a part of the history and character of English which has evolved from ancient Anglo-Saxon with Teutonic roots, I believe, the Scandinavian Influence via the Vikings, Latin frim the Roman Occupation, French from the Norman Conquest of 1066 and Greek imported by theologians, scholars and scientists. The F sound represented by PH clearly shows the influence of Greek on the language.

    Your nemesis Bernard Shaw was an advocate of adopting a "pyoorly fonetik speling uv thu langwidge" which would, of course, have been a disaster had anyone in power been foolish enough to try it.

    Considering Shaw's brilliant mastery of English as he found it, his desire to change it so radically never made any sense to me -- rather like the paradox of very rich men who advocate Marxism -- for the masses, but that's a leftist for you. ;-)

    Meddlesome lot, aren't they?

    ReplyDelete
  36. We Don't Need No Stinkin Bill Of Rights!
    We Don't Need No Stinkin 2nd Amendment!
    We Don't Need No Stinkin Constitution!
    We Don't Need No Stinkin Elections!
    We Don't Need No Stinkin Laws!
    But "what difference does it make?"

    ReplyDelete
  37. No Waylon, there is no NEW meaning to taqiyya.
    I'm sorry that you have to find out that what you read at Atlas Shrugs or Jihadwatch or whatever site you picked it up from is flat out wrong.

    Once again, join FT and study and report back to the class.

    ReplyDelete
  38. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  39. ...especially of the packed fudge variety this post extols.

    ReplyDelete
  40. And you, my dear Canardo, learned everything you know about Islam from the scholars at CAIR, isn't that correct? Or was it, perhaps, Howard Zinn's A Demon's Eye View of History? Or maybe Susan Sontag's Jesus Christ, the Mortal Enemy of Humankind?

    PLEASE stop affecting the posture of The One Who Knows It All.

    It's exceedingly unflattering -- to you.

    As I've told you ever so many times, the late great Bitch Cassidy said it better than anyone else ever has or ever could, "You don't have to eat a pound of shit to know it don't taste good, honey."

    Now THAT is profound.

    ReplyDelete
  41. As the pursuit of loyal partisanship blinds those that once had the ability to see.

    As the beat goes on...

    ReplyDelete
  42. .

    "The Wanderer" by John Masefield

    Ema Nymton
    ~@:o?
    .

    ReplyDelete
  43. FT, I lived in Saudi Arabia for several months. Can't recommend the country but I've gone a little beyond web sites for my info.

    Again, research taqiyya and get back to the class. Or join Waylon getting your info from Piers Morgan, your choice.

    ReplyDelete
  44. One time Piers Morgan hits a ball out of the park with a genuine scoop and direct insight into the demonic character of those Boston Marathon bombers and showing their religion, Islam, influenced them in their daily behaviour, directly contradicting your apologies for them, and you're pissed, Ducky.

    You are an insufferable ingrate.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Thank you, Ema. I shall make it a point it read the Masefield piece in its entirety. It's good to discover we have an appreciation of poetry in common -- an important area of agreement -- at least to me.

    Who knows what other pleasant thing might be revealed?

    I've discovered a a new motto:

    Curiosity Trumps Condemnation.

    ReplyDelete
  46. PART ONE

    Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them. The two forms are:

    Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true to protect oneself or one's interests when in the company of unbelievers.

    Kitman - Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills "it shall be as if he had killed all mankind") while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of "corruption" and "mischief."

    Though not called Taqiyya by name, Muhammad clearly used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with the Meccans that allowed him access to their city while he secretly prepared his own forces for a takeover. The unsuspecting residents were conquered in easy fashion after he broke the treaty two years later, and some of the people in the city who had trusted him at his word were executed.

    Another example of lying is when Muhammad used deception to trick his personal enemies into letting down their guard and exposing themselves to slaughter by pretending to seek peace. This happened in the case of Ka'b bin al-Ashraf ... and again later against Usayr ibn Zarim, a surviving leader of the Banu Nadir tribe, which had been evicted from their home in Medina by the Muslims.

    At the time, Usayr ibn Zarim was attempting to gather an armed force against the Muslims from among a tribe allied with the Quraish (against which Muhammad had already declared war). Muhammad's "emissaries" went to ibn Zarim and persuaded him to leave his safe haven on the pretext of meeting with the prophet of Islam in Medina to discuss peace.

    Once vulnerable, the leader and his thirty companions were massacred by the Muslims with ease, belying the probability that they were mostly unarmed, having been given a guarantee of safe passage (Ibn Ishaq 981).

    Such was the reputation of Muslims for lying and then killing that even those who "accepted Islam" did not feel entirely safe.

    The fate of the Jadhima is tragic evidence for this. When Muslim "missionaries" approached their tribe one of the members insisted that they would be slaughtered even though they had already "converted" to Islam to avoid just such a demise. However, the others were convinced that they could trust the Muslim leader's promise that they would not be harmed if they simply offered no resistance. (After convincing the skeptic to lay down his arms, the unarmed men of the tribe were quickly tied up and beheaded - Ibn Ishaq 834 & 837).

    (CONTINUED)

    ReplyDelete
  47. PART TWO

    Today's Muslims often try to justify Muhammad's murder of poets and others who criticized him at Medina by saying that they broke a treaty by their actions. Yet, these same apologists place little value on treaties broken by Muslims. From Muhammad to Saddam Hussein, promises made to non-Muslim are distinctly non-binding in the Muslim mindset.

    Leaders in the Arab world routinely say one thing to English-speaking audiences and then something entirely different to their own people in Arabic.

    Yassir Arafat was famous for telling Western newspapers about his desire for peace with Israel, then turning right around and whipping Palestinians into a hateful and violent frenzy against Jews.

    The 9/11 hijackers practiced deception by going into bars and drinking alcohol, thus throwing off potential suspicion that they were fundamentalists plotting jihad. This effort worked so well, in fact, that even weeks after 9/11, John Walsh, the host of a popular American television show, said that their bar trips were evidence of 'hypocrisy.'

    The transmission from Flight 93 records the hijackers telling their doomed passengers that there is "a bomb on board" but that everyone will "be safe" as long as "their demands are met."

    Obviously none of these things were true, but these men, who were so intensely devoted to Islam that they were willing to "slay and be slain for the cause of Allah" (as the Qur'an puts it) saw nothing wrong with employing Taqiyya in order to facilitate their mission of mass murder.

    The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) insists that it "has not now or ever been involved with the Muslim Brotherhood, or supported any covert, illegal, or terrorist activity or organization." In fact, it was created by the Muslim Brotherhood and has bankrolled Hamas. At least nine founders or board members of ISNA have been accused by prosecutors of supporting terrorism.

    Prior to engineering several deadly terror plots, such as the Fort Hood massacre and the attempt to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner, American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was regularly sought out by NPR, PBS and even government leaders to expound on the peaceful nature of Islam.

    The near absence of Qur'anic verse and reliable Hadith that encourage truthfulness is somewhat surprising, given that many Muslims are convinced that their religion teaches honesty. In fact, it is because of this ingrained belief that many Muslims are quite honest. When lying is addressed in the Qur'an, it is nearly always in reference to the "lies against Allah" - referring to the Jews and Christians who rejected Muhammad's claim to being a prophet.

    Finally, the circumstances by which Muhammad allowed a believer to lie to a non-spouse are limited to those that either advance the cause of Islam or enable a Muslim to avoid harm to his well-being (and presumably that of other Muslims as well).

    This should be kept very much in mind when dealing with matters of global security, such as Iran's nuclear intentions, though it may not be grounds for assuming that the Muslim one might personally encounter on the street or in the workplace is any less honest than anyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "As the pursuit of loyal partisanship blinds those that once had the ability to see."

    Well, Les, like most things it's subject to "interpretation" -- and which side of the proverbial "sphere" you may be looking at at any given moment.

    What seems "blind partisanship" to you, may be "Strict adherence to principle" in someone else's estimation.

    I'm getting to like my new motto more each day:

    CURIOSITY TRUMPS CONDEMNATION.

    Hope all is going well in your new career? I admire you for making the effort to retrain in middle life. I know it ain't easy having done it, myself, before my last stint in the working world.

    ReplyDelete
  49. FT said:

    Muslims are people after all just like the rest of us, and I too have met several who could charm birds off trees.

    Absolutely so!

    I have never stated that Muslims are growing devil's horns from their skulls.

    But Islam itself?

    Well, the problem is that the certain verses mandating jihad are indeed in the Quran. Some Muslims -- most, it seems -- do not live by those verses. Good for them! But the prospect of "radicalization" always exists, particularly in that the "new testament" portion of the Quran is militant, whereas the "old testament" portion is peaceful.

    Salafists choose to focus on the "new testament" portions of the Quran, and too many imams (such as Anjem Choudary in the UK, to name only one) spout violent jihad and "radicalization" on a regular basis.

    A few years ago, a man from Afghanistan told me something very like the following: "I left Afghanistan to get away from the Taliban. I came here to Northern Virginia and went to mosque. I found the same kind of teachings that made me leave Afghanistan. So, I started reading the Quran and found out that Islam teaches what the Taliban says that it teaches. I'm done with Islam. Now I'm an atheist." This man fled Afghanistan about a decade before 9/11.

    ReplyDelete
  50. What of the Golden Rule in Islam? This article and the discussion in the comments may be of interest. I won't say that Bill Warner favors Islam, but the discussion at the above link seems reasonably fair.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Thanks FT, but at 61 I have made it a tad beyond middle life.

    Everyone is partisan to some degree. What is dangerous is when it becomes lock step with any ideology. Both the right and the left has their share.

    Curiosity is good. The lock step ideologues no doubt have a problem with curiosity. I've noticed this is especially true among certain Anons.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Does your "new" career require you to wear a white hood?

    ReplyDelete

IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING, YOU DON'T BELONG HERE, SO KINDLY GET OUT AND STAY OUT.

We welcome Conversation
But without Vituperation.
If your aim is Vilification ––
Other forms of Denigration ––
Unfounded Accusation --
Determined Obfuscation ––
Alienation with Self-Justification ––
We WILL use COMMENT ERADICATION.


IN ADDITION

Gratuitous Displays of Extraneous Knowledge Offered Not To Shed Light Or Enhance the Discussion, But For The Primary Purpose Of Giving An Impression Of Superiority are obnoxiously SELF-AGGRANDIZING, and therefore, Subject to Removal at the Discretion of the Censor-in-Residence.