Are we at war with Islam?

[JustinW20]

Originally Posted by x-factor

It was a bit of a tangent in response to JustinW20's post, which I took to be promoting the idea that jihadists are really just authoritarian ideologues cynically dressed up in religious terminology. I agree with you that their motivation, religious versus political, is irrelevant if they are committing a crime or an act of war.

Actually (I may not have been clear), I meant that the Quaran, the Bible, the Torah, etc. were all noble books, but all had had been perverted throughout history to justify bloody actions against other "non-believers".

It can be argued, and I may be opening myself up here, that all religious books are, in essence political books. But that's a bit far off the topic of the thread...

[sg1987]

Originally Posted by dennisw

I How can we be tolerant of something that at it's face value endangers our way of life?

It makes little sense to fight the Wahabi jihadist in Afghanistan and Iraq and at the same time let the same sect flourish or gain a foothold here. I guess we are at war with intolerance which would also extend to any other religion that seeks to usurp the individual freedom and volition of Americans.


I believe this is an important point. Additonally, there's no door keeping folks here. If they desire to be governed by Sharia law, there's a ton of places where they can go. Why would anyone who wants to live under Sharia law want to live in the U.S.? Unless, their purpose is to change our way of life and neutralize us from within.

Today's case in point.....

"Jihad USA: Confronting the Threat of Homegrown Terror:

Terror experts say these and other cases since Sept. 11 illustrate an emerging threat from homegrown terrorists, people who have been radicalized by extreme Muslim doctrine within the U.S.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,342248,00.html

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by x-factor

I agree that was unclear.
My point is that the Bible is generally concerned about individual morality, not the practicalities of organizing a government.

I would agree with this, with one caveat: the Bible seems to say that some form of government is better than anarchy.

Originally Posted by x-factor

Genesis 9:5-6 - Ok, finally a specific policy. Capital punishment for murder. The fact that its arguably overturned by Jesus in the New Testament, we won't get into.

Can you cite where the Savior rescinded capital punishment for murder?

Originally Posted by x-factor

These verses all make my point. The Bible, more specifically the New Testament, deals with issues of government at a distance and through the lens of personal morality. Even the Ten Commandments (which Christ boiled down to two), are all about person-to-person relations and even then they leave a lot of room for variation in an individual's life.

I would argue that both the Ten Commandments and Christ's summation advocate separation of church and state.

The first 4 commandments have to do with man's duty to God. (church)
The last 6 commandments have to do with man's duty to one another. (state)

Christ parallels this in His Commandments.

This division of the Ten Commandments is still displayed on the insignia of Jewish chaplains.
The Roman numerals 1-4 show on the right tablet, and 5-10 show on the left. (Hebrew is read right-to-left).

Originally Posted by x-factor

I don't dispute this, but Mosaic Law is the practice of the Hebrews, not the Word of God.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this.
The Torah is normally considered to be canon.

Originally Posted by x-factor

That the English adopted it was a matter of philosophy and respect for tradition.

Seems like they made a good choice.
I wonder what it is about the UK, USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand that makes them so attractive to immigrants.

Originally Posted by x-factor

(Also much of English Common Law was also based on Roman Law and on pagan tribal law, so its not exactly a direct descendant anyway.)

There is probably a great deal of tribal law mixed in where Sharia Law is practiced.

Furthermore, systems rooted in English Common Law are quite distinct from those rooted in Roman Law.
Compare the USA and Canada to our various neighbors to the south.

Originally Posted by x-factor

No, they inferred that the Bible said something about personal character and they established a democratic system where the laws of the nation should and will reflect the character of its people. Therefore, the Christian nature of the nation would come through even without being explicitly established in legal codes and governmental structures. In other words, they inferred that the government didn't need to be Christian because when the people are Christian, they elect Christian lawmakers and those Christian men write Christian laws.

I would argue that the founding fathers inferred from the Bible that humans will tend toward corruption, selfishness, and oppression.

Therefore, they instituted a system of checks and balances to counter that tendency.

[x-factor]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

Can you cite where the Savior rescinded capital punishment for murder?

Romans 12:19-21 "Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord..."

The Catholic Church and others use this verse, among others, as an argument against capital punishment.

I would argue that both the Ten Commandments and Christ's summation advocate separation of church and state.

I'd agree, among other verses.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this.
The Torah is normally considered to be canon.

The Torah is both a history book and a sacred text. Mosaic Law is part of the former, the Ten Commandments are part of the latter.

For example, the prohibition against murder in the Ten Commandments is a sacred thing because life is God's creation and to destroy it wantonly is to spit in His face. This is a fundamental fact of existence, a self-evident truth to borrow the phrase.

On the other hand, the prohibition against eating pork in Mosaic law is a secular thing specific to that group of people at that point in time. God does not hate pigs and not eating them has no metaphysical basis. The Hebrews of Moses' time were prohibited from eating pigs for public health purposes in order to preserve the well-being of the Chosen people in a very harsh and dangerous period. Thats why the New Testament lets Gentiles off the hook on Mosaic law. It was an ancillary tradition, not a God-ordained truth.

There is probably a great deal of tribal law mixed in where Sharia Law is practiced.

There is. And one of the many reasons I did not convert to Islam while studying it is that I believe much of what Mohammed calls the Word of God was simply him codifying and tweaking the petty tribal practices of 6th century Arabia. This included him borrowing and adapting a fair bit of Judaism, including Mosaic law, which he must have learned about during his merchant voyages and interactions with the Jews of Arabia.

Furthermore, systems rooted in English Common Law are quite distinct from those rooted in Roman Law.
Compare the USA and Canada to our various neighbors to the south.

Spanish law and Roman law are too entirely different things. When I say Roman Law, I'm talking about pre-Christian civilization.

I would argue that the founding fathers inferred from the Bible that humans will tend toward corruption, selfishness, and oppression.

Therefore, they instituted a system of checks and balances to counter that tendency.

The corruptible nature of man is not unique to Biblical philosophy. Far from it. The founding fathers drew inspiration from all sorts of traditions.

[Surgicalcric]

Lets keep it on topic unless you are trying to make a specific point guys. Its drifting off on a tangent a bit. If you wish to discuss Christianity, Mosaic Law, and how they relate one of us can split this off into another thread so you can continue.

Crip

[x-factor]

True enough. Sorry for getting too far afield.

[Peregrino]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...61399959&hl=en

The sound of one hand clapping is a severed head hitting the floor. Islam is at war with us. Aggression only requires one participant. The UN, Europe, political correctness, tollerance, and multi-culturalism guarantee the eventual ascendance of Islam over every society that fails to resist. X-factor - if you want to live on your knees in an Islamic society (because that's all you will be allowed to do), I suggest you emmigrate. As long as I live and breathe it won't happen here.

[x-factor]

I'm trying not to take that as an insult.

As for me ever living on my knees, I'll thank you to remember that not everyone fighting this war wears a tab on their shoulder and make no mistake about what side I'm on.

If you think my refusal to paint the little Afghan girl who runs the flower shop down the street or the guys who make my kabobs with the same brush I paint the perpetrators of the acts in that video with is some kind of moral cowardice then you need to take a hard look at yourself.

[3SoldierDad]

Originally Posted by x-factor

I'm trying not to take that as an insult.

As for me ever living on my knees, I'll thank you to remember that not everyone fighting this war wears a tab on their shoulder and make no mistake about what side I'm on.

If you think my refusal to paint the little Afghan girl who runs the flower shop down the street or the guys who make my kabobs with the same brush I paint the perpetrators of the acts in that video with is some kind of moral cowardice then you need to take a hard look at yourself.

Peregrino's point, I believe, is that the little girl's faith has followers that are determined to come get us and the kabob merchant's religion is forming-up in such a manner that it is intent on destroying us. It won't take a billion Muslims to turn the globe into a pool of blood.... 1% of the Muslims intent on practicing their faith is enough to take us all back to the 7th century. Islam is not a peaceful religion when it is practiced.

The concern folks have is that in places of power the West is full of many terrorist enablers.

Freedom can not be given to people or groups who are intent on destroying our communities and freedoms.

Islam is not a peaceful religion when it is practiced. It is not a peaceful religion. This was a Bush error. This was a Blair error - they misspoke.


Three Soldier Dad...Chuck.


.

[Pete]

Does it really matter if the 99 clap, or cheer, or just stand there, or just go about their business as the one saws your head off?

Islam will not be ready for prime time until it reforms itself.

Since any who try and talk some sense into the religion are declaired apostate and subject to being murdered it don't look like reform is coming anytime soon.

[Peregrino]

It was intended to be a wake-up call. I've taken that "hard look at yourself" you speak of and personally I'm still trying to reconcile the necessities for survival with the ideals I've dedicated my life to defending. I've studied conflict long enough to accept that this is probably an "eggs to omelet" situation. It doesn't mean I'm happy about it, just that I think I'm being a little more realistic than you in my assessments. When my enemies tell me their plans, I give them due credence. If Islam ever gains the upper hand in America you will be a Moslem, living on your knees, or dead. The idealism you so passionately espouse will also be dead; along with all vestiges of the society that fostered it. The Koran demands it. The Islamists have been telling us what they intend for 1400 YEARS. They've come pretty close to making it stick a couple of times. Unfortunately that happened so long ago that Western Civilization has forgotten it. (Who remembers Tours or the Gates of Vienna - or what losing either one of those battles would have meant for the West?)

Flower girls and kabob sellers are almost completely irrelevant. In terms of the "human terrain" of this conflict my principle interest in them is to co-opt them into assimilating into mainstream America - it's the only way to keep them out of the fight. It might even get them to help against the radicals that rule Islam. You're the analyst - have you forgotten why the phrase "if you're not for us, you're against us" has always applied in culture wars? Or are you denying that this is a war of cultures?

I'm well aware of who is fighting this war. "Tabbers" make up a very small percentage of the combatants. Personally I think moderate Muslims fighting to take control of their religion from the radicals is an even smaller percentage.

[Ambush Master]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

Personally I think moderate Muslims fighting to take control of their religion from the radicals is an even smaller percentage.

I really believe that the "Radical Muslims" are the ones that wish to live peacefully amongst/with US!!! They are fewer than the True Mainstream Variety!!!

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

The UN, Europe, political correctness, tollerance, and multi-culturalism guarantee the eventual ascendance of Islam over every society that fails to resist.

Originally Posted by Pete

Islam will not be ready for prime time until it reforms itself.

Give it a few more decades and it may not matter anymore. I doubt there will be any reforms.... if it is the peoples desire to be treated as cattle so be it.

TS

Vatican: Islam Surpasses Roman Catholicism as World's Largest Religion
Sunday, March 30, 2008

VATICAN CITY — Islam has surpassed Roman Catholicism as the world's largest religion, the Vatican newspaper said Sunday.

"For the first time in history, we are no longer at the top: Muslims have overtaken us," Monsignor Vittorio Formenti said in an interview with the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano. Formenti compiles the Vatican's yearbook.

He said that Catholics accounted for 17.4 percent of the world population -- a stable percentage -- while Muslims were at 19.2 percent.

"It is true that while Muslim families, as is well known, continue to make a lot of children, Christian ones on the contrary tend to have fewer and fewer," the monsignor said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,343336,00.html

[x-factor]

It is a war of cultures, but its not a bilateral war. There's a whole spectrum of religious and political cultures at play. "With us or against us" is simplistic rhetoric that in almost every case is at best useless and at worst counterproductive, not a reasoned assessment of the situation.

Its perfectly possible for a Muslim to be both anti-US and anti-Islamist. In fact, studies suggest that is the majority opinion.

We need to relax and see the problem for what it is. The occasional inflammatory story not withstanding, we're along way from the fall of Western civilization and if we panic at the prospect we hasten the crisis and confuse our own efforts.

[abc_123]

Originally Posted by Ambush Master

I really believe that the "Radical Muslims" are the ones that wish to live peacefully amongst/with US!!! They are fewer than the True Mainstream Variety!!!

Sure seems that way.

The scary thing to me is that you don't know which are the "True" radicals from those that are simply using the freedoms that are grated by our society to quietly expand their influence until they can reshape society into one dominated by Islam. That is what made the recent vid by that Dutch filmmaker so disturbing. The Netherlands, ultra liberal and off the scale with respect to individual social freedoms, is acting like a canary in a coal mine. Watch it to see the impact of Islam on that country because the same process is happening elsewhere... even here. It's just a lot slower pace.