Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Moderate Muslims

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Eisbrecher View Post

    Intolerance towards nonbelievers is something all religions have in common and fundamentalists can always find in any holy book justification for violence and terror. Think about the 10 commandments and rule to have no other god, which can easily exploited by a fanatic mind.

    I don`t think that the current problems with Islam can solely explained by the Koran. At least every holy book can be interpreted in different ways, which leads to the question, why christianity and islam take different roads.

    My thesis is, that christianity had the luck to flourish in an environment which was beneficial for liberty and religious independance from the state. Beginning with the fall of Rome and the rising influence of the Papacy.
    Religion gained its independance from the state, while the Papacy and its institutions lay the ground for the resurgence of the roman law. The competitive political landscape of europe forced the papacy also to accommodations and realpolitik and even lay the grounds for the reformation.

    North-africa, the middle east and central asia were densly populated and from a geopolitical viewpoint not very suited for a competitive evironment of different nationstates. It was a hostile environment for liberty and more suited for theocratic states.

    Undoubtly connected with these historic developements is also the existence of autoritan states in the islamic regions, which often aligned themselves with religious conservatives against democrats.
    But radical Islam is in these regions a double-edged sword, which can also be a form of Protest against the ruling class. In some sense radical islam succeeds the panarabian nationalism after Nassers dead and also the radical socialism after the fall of the Soviet-Union. And i guess that the terror of the current islamic groups were also influenced by the violence which was held in the name of panarabian nationalism and radical socialism in the 70ies and 80ies.
    Did Christianity happen to flourish in an area where liberty would eventually flourish, regardless of it being there, or did Christianity create fertile ground for liberty to flourish? If you look at all the nations of the world the countries that were traditionally majority Christian people have the most liberty. This includes all the Asian countries as well.

    ?


    • #47
      Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
      Oh yeah because Christians have never done anything remotely bad like the crusades or the Inquisition or the rather fun hunt for witches have they. If you want people to judge Christians as they are now and not by what they did hundreds or thousands of years ago you have to do the same with Muslims.
      Otherwise we can just go round in circles pointing out who's been the bigger jerks throughout history and we'll be here literally forever.

      Your call.

      Seriously though try Clueless Gamer as it's super duper.
      First, when commenting on who spoke of supporting violence, Fish referred to Jesus, not the Christians. And Mohamed, not the Muslims. Just skip through all the bad that Christians and Muslims have done. Christians and Muslims that exist no more. Just look at Jesus' message and Mohammad's message. Christians of today guided by Jesus' word, and Muslims of today guided by Mohammad's words. Do you see the difference between words that Jesus offered to guide today's Christians and the words that Mohammed offered to guide today's Muslims?

      ?


      • #48
        Originally posted by Eisbrecher View Post

        Intolerance towards nonbelievers is something all religions have in common and fundamentalists can always find in any holy book justification for violence and terror. Think about the 10 commandments and rule to have no other god, which can easily exploited by a fanatic mind.

        I don`t think that the current problems with Islam can solely explained by the Koran. At least every holy book can be interpreted in different ways, which leads to the question, why christianity and islam take different roads.

        My thesis is, that christianity had the luck to flourish in an environment which was beneficial for liberty and religious independance from the state. Beginning with the fall of Rome and the rising influence of the Papacy.
        Religion gained its independance from the state, while the Papacy and its institutions lay the ground for the resurgence of the roman law. The competitive political landscape of europe forced the papacy also to accommodations and realpolitik and even lay the grounds for the reformation.

        North-africa, the middle east and central asia were densly populated and from a geopolitical viewpoint not very suited for a competitive evironment of different nationstates. It was a hostile environment for liberty and more suited for theocratic states.

        Undoubtly connected with these historic developements is also the existence of autoritan states in the islamic regions, which often aligned themselves with religious conservatives against democrats.
        But radical Islam is in these regions a double-edged sword, which can also be a form of Protest against the ruling class. In some sense radical islam succeeds the panarabian nationalism after Nassers dead and also the radical socialism after the fall of the Soviet-Union. And i guess that the terror of the current islamic groups were also influenced by the violence which was held in the name of panarabian nationalism and radical socialism in the 70ies and 80ies.

        Of course the difficulty involved with reforming islam as Christianity was reformed lies in the fact of their "users manual" the Koran. For that book is so important to that religion, that it is a book that some will seek to memorize, the entire book. When any religion is directly tied to a book, that is believed to be from god himself, that dictates what man must do, and the manner in which to deal with other people, muslims and infidels, and if one does not do that, there is hell to pay, reform that might ignore what such a book says, is very difficult.

        With Christianity, various theologies arose, and it was because of this, which helped to reform Christianity, taking away the "either believe in my saviors blood, or I shall drown you in your own" mentality. Islam doesn't have these various theologies which allow such reform. And without a theology which allows the Koran to be interpreted differently, Islam is stuck with what theology that do have, which is obviously insufficient. in tempering Islam so that it can live in a non Theocracy, without trying to change it to suit Islam.

        ?


        • #49
          Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post


          Of course the difficulty involved with reforming islam as Christianity was reformed lies in the fact of their "users manual" the Koran. For that book is so important to that religion, that it is a book that some will seek to memorize, the entire book. When any religion is directly tied to a book, that is believed to be from god himself, that dictates what man must do, and the manner in which to deal with other people, muslims and infidels, and if one does not do that, there is hell to pay, reform that might ignore what such a book says, is very difficult.

          With Christianity, various theologies arose, and it was because of this, which helped to reform Christianity, taking away the "either believe in my saviors blood, or I shall drown you in your own" mentality. Islam doesn't have these various theologies which allow such reform. And without a theology which allows the Koran to be interpreted differently, Islam is stuck with what theology that do have, which is obviously insufficient. in tempering Islam so that it can live in a non Theocracy, without trying to change it to suit Islam.
          I think it's more than that. I'm very in favor of looking at the Bible as the word of God and should be followed. The difference is the message and who founded it. Jesus was a fairly extreme pacifist. He didn't support an overthrow of the ruling Roman government (even though that's what the religious leaders of his day wanted). He was there to give a message and those who believed, believed. Those who did not, didn't. He didn't build an army or fight a war.

          Additionally, the Bible for Christians (we're talking New Testament here) is not a system of government. It's purely a belief system and a guide on how to live your life. There is no instructions on how taxes should be, what kind of laws should be in place, if there should be a democracy, republic, despotism, monarchy, ect.

          Those are two huge differences in the religions.

          ?


          • #50
            Originally posted by fishjoel View Post

            I think it's more than that. I'm very in favor of looking at the Bible as the word of God and should be followed. The difference is the message and who founded it. Jesus was a fairly extreme pacifist. He didn't support an overthrow of the ruling Roman government (even though that's what the religious leaders of his day wanted). He was there to give a message and those who believed, believed. Those who did not, didn't. He didn't build an army or fight a war.

            Additionally, the Bible for Christians (we're talking New Testament here) is not a system of government. It's purely a belief system and a guide on how to live your life. There is no instructions on how taxes should be, what kind of laws should be in place, if there should be a democracy, republic, despotism, monarchy, ect.

            Those are two huge differences in the religions.
            And I agree with what you say about Christianity. Yet, enough of the OT was observable for earlier Christians, which was used to justify their actions. Afterall, the violent acts of the RCC, had to have been justifiable, biblically in the distant past.

            Yet of the monotheistic religions, only Christianity, has in its guide book, the NT, the means and justification for nonviolence and peace. Islam does not have this, as it is much closer to ancient Judaism, than Christianity is today, when it comes to a justification for brutality, war, and violence. Christianity, unlike Islam, really is a religion of peace, for the example set by Christ is that of peace, and even toleration...."he who is without sin, cast the first stone"... But Mohammed was a man of war, a warrior, a general, much like the ancient jewish warriors as told about in the OT. Islam is indeed, and make no mistake about it, a religion of the sword. And what drives this, even in modern times is their Rule Book, the Koran.

            And that is why I think that reforming Islam, as Christianity and Judaism was obviously and clearly reformed, is extremely difficult for a people who retain an 8th century mentality, which is greatly reflected in middle eastern, Islamic culture. No doubt there is a group of moderate muslims, but even within that group, if one is a conservative muslim, there isn't the moderation there that the apologists believe that exists. If one is a liberal moderate muslim, these people are better equipped to reside in a secular culture, and no doubt that we got most of this type, immigrating to the US. Yet even with that said, fundamentalist islam has been able to recruit from these moderates in the US and Europe. So there is something that runs very deep in the blood of even moderates, and that thing is conservative Islam.

            The guy in the you tube video, who appeared on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast, and who grew up as a Shite in the middle east is forthright and honest when he reveals exactly how muslims are in the middle east. And he said that even if muslims will condemn the barbarism, the violence against the West when around westerners, in the privacy of their homes they celebrate it. This is what the apologists like Chomsky and a whole slew from the Left, are ignorant of, and also what makes these apologists clueless and dangerous. But these liberal atheists are perhaps incapable of actually understanding just how powerful religion is, in the lives of some cultures, for they have been spoiled by the more civilized Christians and jews, and believe there is no difference between the Christians and jews and muslims.

            What gripes my ass is you can set your watch by these people bringing up what happened in the past with Christianity, as if that justifies the behavior of muslims, and the religion of Islam, today. Islam has had plenty of time to reform itself, like the other two monotheistic religions, yet clearly that has not occurred.

            Also, if the same percentage of Christians today, were committing these acts that the Islamic fundamentalists are committing, you would not see them taking the apologist path at all!!! They would even color the Quakers with a brush the width of Texas. There would be not a single apologist coming from these Left Wingers, if this were Christians acting with such murderous barbarity. Yet they will bend over backwards, and even make excuses for Islam, while even in some cases stupidily maintaining that the Koran doesn't say what it says. That we are translating it improperly, on purpose.

            Clearly, Islam is not a religion of peace, and is the world's most dangerous religion today. Not suitable for a modern civilized world. It's an anachronism, and a dangerous one.

            ?


            • #51
              Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post


              Of course the difficulty involved with reforming islam as Christianity was reformed lies in the fact of their "users manual" the Koran. For that book is so important to that religion, that it is a book that some will seek to memorize, the entire book. When any religion is directly tied to a book, that is believed to be from god himself, that dictates what man must do, and the manner in which to deal with other people, muslims and infidels, and if one does not do that, there is hell to pay, reform that might ignore what such a book says, is very difficult.

              With Christianity, various theologies arose, and it was because of this, which helped to reform Christianity, taking away the "either believe in my saviors blood, or I shall drown you in your own" mentality. Islam doesn't have these various theologies which allow such reform. And without a theology which allows the Koran to be interpreted differently, Islam is stuck with what theology that do have, which is obviously insufficient. in tempering Islam so that it can live in a non Theocracy, without trying to change it to suit Islam.
              Though, the New Testament/Bible of Christians is NOT believed to be from God himself. It is understood that it is the followers of Christ that have written it. It is NEVER said that Jesus has behaved in an inhumane way or has ever endorsed man behaving in an inhumane way. It is very easy to understand which words came from man, and which came from Jesus'. It has never been said in the Christian bible that Jesus has ever said any words endorsing violence, and the very story of how Jesus' life and death played out, ONLY endorses peace, love, and compassion. No mixed message from Jesus himself. And None of the authors of the bible claiming Jesus want us to harm others. Big difference.

              ?


              • #52
                After President Barack Obama told other world leaders that violent extremism isnt limited to any one faith, British Prime Minister David Cameron didnt disagree but he did add a pointed clarification.


                U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, U.S. President Barack Obama, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi and others attend the Leaders Summit on Countering ISIL and Violent Extremism at the United Nations, Sept. 29, 2015 in New York City. (Anthony Behar-Pool/Getty Images)


                Violent extremism is not unique to any one faith, so no one should ever be profiled or targeted simply because of their faith, Obama said Tuesday as he chaired the U.N. Leaders Summit on Countering ISIL and Violent Extremism.
                Cameron stressed that violence extremism can only be stopped at the root, which is radicalized Islam.
                Barack, you are quite right, that every religion has its extremists, but we have to be frank that the biggest problem we have today is the Islamist extremist violence that has given birth to ISIL, to Al Shabaab to Al Nusra, Al Qaeda and so many other groups, Cameron said.
                Cameron went on to say that Muslim leaders around the world must speak out against the radical groups.
                These people claim to act in the name of the Islamic religion. They dont. I can say they dont over and over again. You can say they dont, but there is nothing more powerful than, for instance, what the king of Jordan has just said, Cameron said, referring to earlier remarks by Jordanian King Abdullah.
                Abdullah said, First and foremost, this is our fight. Muslims nations have to lead this fight.
                Cameron also noted during his remarks that Western countries must take a firm stance to keep the root of violence from settling into Muslim communities.


                We need to challenge the extremist worldview right from the start. What does that mean? In Western countries it means we have to root out the extremists preachers that are poisoning the minds of young Muslims in our country, Cameron said. We have to build more integrated societies so young people feel they truly belong. And we have to make sure we dont allow the incubation of an extremist worldview even before it gets to justifying violence. Weve got to get it out of our schools. Get it out of our prisons. Get it out of our universities. I believe in freedom of speech. But freedom to hate is not the same thing.

                http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015...ron-responded/


                ?


                • #53
                  Seems like it wasn't the US who drew first blood!

                  This is an interesting piece of history......

                  In 1786, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson met with Arab diplomats from Tunisia, who were conducting terror raids and piracy against American ships (Barbary Pirates). Writing to John Jay, Thomas Jefferson described what he saw as the main issue and the reason why they were attacking Americans who had done them no harm. The following quote is from Thomas Jefferson....
                  We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretensions to make war upon a Nation who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our Friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. THE AMBASSADOR ANSWERED US THAT IT WAS FOUNDED ON THE LAWS OF THEIR PROPHET, THAT IT WAS WRITTEN IN THEIR KORAN, THAT ALL NATIONS WHO SHOULD NOT HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THEIR AUTHORITY WERE SINNERS, THAT IT WAS THEIR RIGHT AND DUTY TO MAKE WAR UPON THEM WHEREVER THEY COULD BE FOUND, AND TO MAKE SLAVES OF ALL THEY COULD TAKE AS PRISONERS, AND THAT EVERY MUSSELMAN (MUSLIM) WHO SHOULD BE SLAIN IN BATTLE WAS SURE TO GO TO PARADISE"
                  Hhmmmm, history does have a way of rhyming, doesn't it??
                  btw, for all you libs who will accuse me of "revisionist" history and lying, I did your homework for you. There is this amazing place called "The Library of Congress". In this "library" they have this thing called "original sources". An "original source" is basically real history before Howard Zinn interprets it for you and fills your brain with mush. Apparently, the "library of congress" puts these "original sources" on the internet for anyone to read. If you wish, you can read the actual letter from Thomas Jefferson. An image of the letter from Adams and Jefferson to John Jay can be found in Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1. General Correspondence. 1651-1827, pp. 430-432. I can't link it directly, but you can go tohttp://memory.loc.gov/ammem/mtjhtml/mtjser1.html and then click on "From January 2, 1786" and then go to page 431.
                  point # 2 for the libs before you start going into your "are you trying to say all Muslims are extremists" routine, I'm making no judgements about Muslims in general or saying that all Muslims believe this......I'm simply showing history that proves America has been dealing with Muslim extremists going back to Thomas Jefferson and that what the ambassador of Tunisia said 225 years ago sounds similar to what some Muslim extremists say today.
                  Ready, set, SPIN AWAY........

                  http://michiganstate.247sports.com/B...emists-5859340

                  ?


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by msc View Post
                    Seems like it wasn't the US who drew first blood!

                    This is an interesting piece of history......

                    In 1786, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson met with Arab diplomats from Tunisia, who were conducting terror raids and piracy against American ships (Barbary Pirates). Writing to John Jay, Thomas Jefferson described what he saw as the main issue and the reason why they were attacking Americans who had done them no harm. The following quote is from Thomas Jefferson....
                    “We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretensions to make war upon a Nation who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our Friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. THE AMBASSADOR ANSWERED US THAT IT WAS FOUNDED ON THE LAWS OF THEIR PROPHET, THAT IT WAS WRITTEN IN THEIR KORAN, THAT ALL NATIONS WHO SHOULD NOT HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THEIR AUTHORITY WERE SINNERS, THAT IT WAS THEIR RIGHT AND DUTY TO MAKE WAR UPON THEM WHEREVER THEY COULD BE FOUND, AND TO MAKE SLAVES OF ALL THEY COULD TAKE AS PRISONERS, AND THAT EVERY MUSSELMAN (MUSLIM) WHO SHOULD BE SLAIN IN BATTLE WAS SURE TO GO TO PARADISE"
                    Hhmmmm, history does have a way of rhyming, doesn't it??
                    btw, for all you libs who will accuse me of "revisionist" history and lying, I did your homework for you. There is this amazing place called "The Library of Congress". In this "library" they have this thing called "original sources". An "original source" is basically real history before Howard Zinn interprets it for you and fills your brain with mush. Apparently, the "library of congress" puts these "original sources" on the internet for anyone to read. If you wish, you can read the actual letter from Thomas Jefferson. An image of the letter from Adams and Jefferson to John Jay can be found in Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1. General Correspondence. 1651-1827, pp. 430-432. I can't link it directly, but you can go tohttp://memory.loc.gov/ammem/mtjhtml/mtjser1.html and then click on "From January 2, 1786" and then go to page 431.
                    point # 2 for the libs before you start going into your "are you trying to say all Muslims are extremists" routine, I'm making no judgements about Muslims in general or saying that all Muslims believe this......I'm simply showing history that proves America has been dealing with Muslim extremists going back to Thomas Jefferson and that what the ambassador of Tunisia said 225 years ago sounds similar to what some Muslim extremists say today.
                    Ready, set, SPIN AWAY........

                    http://michiganstate.247sports.com/B...emists-5859340

                    This isn't revisionist history, by a conservative. That is clear, and in fact, obvious. No, the revisionists are much more nefarious and clever than a man like yourself would stoop to. To those men, their ideological beliefs may as well have come down from their gods. That is why arguing with one of them is like arguing with a village idiot, or a flat earther. You may as well try to teach a pig to sing. They are not rational beings, whereas you are. As the good Cap'n here is.

                    Clearly, if this were true in the time of Jefferson, that should show something very important about the religion of Islam. But there is one caveat. There has been a movement, within Islam, in the West, to bring Islam into the 21st Century. One of them wrote a book about it with Sam Harris, the fairly well known New Atheist and neuroscientist. And I have no doubt that many of our American Muslims are moderates, and therefore basically guilty of apostasy when it comes to the Islam as practiced in the middle east. Consider, that the Islam as practiced places like Indonesia is a bit different from the conservative forms of Islam practiced in the middle east, whether it is sunni or Shiite. Although, between the sunni and Shiite, the sunnis, seem to be the most dangerous when they meet western values. Afterall, they are the ones waging war against us, the most, and not Shiites. At least a hot war.

                    ?


                    • #55
                      What is a moderate Muslim. As it is being said that the majority of Muslims are peaceful peopled. What is considered Moderate? Is it when you only oppress and abuse human life within your Muslim family and community? Or does it mean you offer the same human rights as westerners? What level of standard is their to classify one as moderate, and or peaceful?

                      ?


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by msc View Post
                        What is a moderate Muslim. As it is being said that the majority of Muslims are peaceful peopled. What is considered Moderate? Is it when you only oppress and abuse human life within your Muslim family and community? Or does it mean you offer the same human rights as westerners? What level of standard is their to classify one as moderate, and or peaceful?
                        Honestly, I do not think there are moderate muslims in the middle east. Period. It's a ruse, those that claim it. They only become moderate when they come to America. For the environment of the middle east, does not allow moderation. I think this may be the fact of the matter.

                        This is what you hear from that muslim who left radical islam, and wrote that book with Sam Harris, and it was said the same with that Canadian muslim that I posted Joe Roe talking to him about the middle east. These are the only ones who will give us the low down on middle eastern muslims, circa 2015.

                        ?


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by msc View Post
                          What is a moderate Muslim. As it is being said that the majority of Muslims are peaceful peopled. What is considered Moderate? Is it when you only oppress and abuse human life within your Muslim family and community? Or does it mean you offer the same human rights as westerners? What level of standard is their to classify one as moderate, and or peaceful?
                          There isn't !

                          "Moderate Muslims" ... just saying it makes me chuckle.

                          Yeah, "moderate muslims" ... they'd love us to buy into it and some of us have. . . even as Muslims regularly come out of the woodwork and go on killing sprees.

                          Let's consider . . .

                          ---------------------------------------------

                          ....

                          There is a simple reason we never read about jihadi attacks in Japan. There are no Muslims there.

                          ...

                          This is a significant data point in the public debate over Muslim immigration. Donald Trump, of course, has famously proposed a suspension of Islamic immigration until we can figure out a way to screen out jihadis, and Franklin Graham is backing that suggestion to the hilt.

                          ...

                          The number-one fear today among the American people is a Muslim terror attack. It is our government's chief responsibility to enact whatever public policies are necessary to reduce that fear and eliminate the threat.


                          [ yet we're told we have to allow thousands more Islamic "refugees" into our country - because of some cock-&-bull story about "our values" and "who we are" ]

                          ....

                          ...there is much we can learn from Japan, which has been virtually free from Islamic unrest. Simple demographics tell the story.

                          Dr. Mordechai Kedar, writing in The Jewish Press, offers some of the details:


                          This country keeps a very low profile on all levels regarding the Muslim matter: On the diplomatic level, senior political figures from Islamic countries almost never visit Japan, and Japanese leaders rarely visit Muslim countries. The relations with Muslim countries are based on concerns such as oil and gas, which Japan imports from some Muslim countries. The official policy of Japan is not to give citizenship to Muslims who come to Japan, and even permits for permanent residency are given sparingly to Muslims.

                          .,..

                          Japan is a nation of roughly 126 million people. And yet, according to Dr. Kedar, there are only 10,000 Muslims in the entire country. This represents less than one hundredth of one percent.

                          ...

                          Islamic proselytization is forbidden in Japan, it is very difficult to import Qur'ans into the country, and there are very few mosques. In Japan, Muslim men are expected to pray at home, not in mosques or in the middle of the street as they do in France. Islamic organizations are not allowed, so the Japanese do not have to deal with the incessant stream of propaganda coming from pro-jihadi groups like CAIR. There is only one imam in Tokyo, a city of over 13 million people.

                          Virtually the only Muslims who are in Japan come as employees of foreign companies. And even that is the exception rather than the rule. "The official policy of the Japanese authorities is to make every effort not to allow entry to Muslims, even if they are physicians, engineers and managers sent by foreign companies that are active in the region."


                          http://www.onenewsnow.com/perspectiv...-no-terrorists

                          ---------------------------------------------

                          While this would very much upset our pro-diversity crowd - wouldn't it just be easier not to have to worry about when the next Islamic nut-cases were going to go Jihad somewhere ? ... and there will always be more doing that, as long as we have them come and practice their deadly "religion."

                          The Japanese ... they're not so dumb

                          ?


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                            There isn't !

                            "Moderate Muslims" ... just saying it makes me chuckle.

                            Yeah, "moderate muslims" ... they'd love us to buy into it and some of us have. . . even as Muslims regularly come out of the woodwork and go on killing sprees.

                            Let's consider . . .

                            ---------------------------------------------

                            ....

                            There is a simple reason we never read about jihadi attacks in Japan. There are no Muslims there.

                            ...

                            This is a significant data point in the public debate over Muslim immigration. Donald Trump, of course, has famously proposed a suspension of Islamic immigration until we can figure out a way to screen out jihadis, and Franklin Graham is backing that suggestion to the hilt.

                            ...

                            The number-one fear today among the American people is a Muslim terror attack. It is our government's chief responsibility to enact whatever public policies are necessary to reduce that fear and eliminate the threat.


                            [ yet we're told we have to allow thousands more Islamic "refugees" into our country - because of some cock-&-bull story about "our values" and "who we are" ]

                            ....

                            ...there is much we can learn from Japan, which has been virtually free from Islamic unrest. Simple demographics tell the story.

                            Dr. Mordechai Kedar, writing in The Jewish Press, offers some of the details:


                            This country keeps a very low profile on all levels regarding the Muslim matter: On the diplomatic level, senior political figures from Islamic countries almost never visit Japan, and Japanese leaders rarely visit Muslim countries. The relations with Muslim countries are based on concerns such as oil and gas, which Japan imports from some Muslim countries. The official policy of Japan is not to give citizenship to Muslims who come to Japan, and even permits for permanent residency are given sparingly to Muslims.

                            .,..

                            Japan is a nation of roughly 126 million people. And yet, according to Dr. Kedar, there are only 10,000 Muslims in the entire country. This represents less than one hundredth of one percent.

                            ...

                            Islamic proselytization is forbidden in Japan, it is very difficult to import Qur'ans into the country, and there are very few mosques. In Japan, Muslim men are expected to pray at home, not in mosques or in the middle of the street as they do in France. Islamic organizations are not allowed, so the Japanese do not have to deal with the incessant stream of propaganda coming from pro-jihadi groups like CAIR. There is only one imam in Tokyo, a city of over 13 million people.

                            Virtually the only Muslims who are in Japan come as employees of foreign companies. And even that is the exception rather than the rule. "The official policy of the Japanese authorities is to make every effort not to allow entry to Muslims, even if they are physicians, engineers and managers sent by foreign companies that are active in the region."


                            http://www.onenewsnow.com/perspectiv...-no-terrorists

                            ---------------------------------------------

                            While this would very much upset our pro-diversity crowd - wouldn't it just be easier not to have to worry about when the next Islamic nut-cases were going to go Jihad somewhere ? ... and there will always be more doing that, as long as we have them come and practice their deadly "religion."

                            The Japanese ... they're not so dumb
                            Yep! The Japanese have got this one right!

                            ?


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by msc View Post
                              Yep! The Japanese have got this one right!
                              They seem to want to preserve their own culture, unlike our politicians. America is a nation of settlers, and then later, immigrants, but at what point do you no longer need immigrants, especially those that will not assimilate into the American culture? Kennedy wanted apparently to get rid of the Prot European created American culture, and turn us into a nation of little pockets of different cultures, who wanted to bring their culture here and keep it, instead of melting into the American culture. This came from some egghead in an ivory tower in one of the ivy league schools, because perhaps it just looked so pretty to think about a nation made up of fragmentation, ending the Prot created culture that was America.

                              And so now, we have many of the blacks here that see joining in with the American culture as being "white" and this is then used by many of the people we allow to immigrate here as an excuse not to assimilate, for they are not white. Yet the values of the American culture were based upon enlightened western values that originated here from our founders. Those values formed the backbone of America and that is what people assimilated into, while being able to keep certain things as diet and social activities from their old country. I think one big difference is, in the past immigrants came here with the ideal of wanting to be americans, and that is just no longer the case. Today, they want to be what their culture they came from is, and just live in America and enjoy the benefits of being an American citizen.

                              ?


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

                                I think one big difference is, in the past immigrants came here with the ideal of wanting to be americans, and that is just no longer the case. Today, they want to be what their culture they came from is, and just live in America and enjoy the benefits of being an American citizen.
                                You hit it on the nail! We let in too many people in a continuous fashion. And right now we have a situation with Muslims. It is not racist or unaccepting of all religions to limit the intake of a drastically different culture. It will take much longer for such a different culture to assimilate to the "once" American culture. It's just fact. We also have to acknowledge, now that we have the ability to communicate regularly with relatives back home in the county of conflicting culture, it slows down the assimilation process.

                                Even a "moderate" muslim has a very different culture. Human rights are a key to recognize the more difficult culture to leave behind. Now if it is all middle east citizens that come here with the harder culture to leave behind, then all from the middle east should be limited. However if it is only the Muslim Middle East citizens that do no share the same or similar human rights that our culture demands, then it should be the Middle East Muslims that are limited. See in the case of Islam, it is not just a religion but also a nationality. A national culture. People need to understand that there is a reason why we say POLITICAL Islam and do not say Political Christianity. In America our national culture does not abide by one specific religion. Yes Christianity originally set down the laws, but Christianity is the religion that offered the human rights that our nation has adopted as righteous. It is Christianity that has welcomed and endorsed rights of all religions in the design of our nation. It is Islam that has shunned all religions and has made up the design of the culture in most of the middle east. American National Culture and Middle East countries National Culture. (A national Culture that coincidentally looks like Islam, Hmmm), tongue in cheek.

                                Islam is nothing like Christianity or any other peaceful religion. People try and parallel it to Christianity and the Jewish refugees fleeing Germany. The situations are not even close. Muslims refugees are not asking for asylum because their religion is not welcome in the country they are fleeing. No way to make a distinction between one group or another. It is an individual preference. Muslims as a group are not fleeing religious or cultural persecution. Muslim refugees are not being targeted for worshiping a different God or prophet. The Jews were. There is no comparison. The Jewish culture posed no threat to the US and therefore in was cruel to turn the Jews away. Muslims DO pose a threat as a group, leaving it completely understandable why they should be turned away. I don't think we had to worry about Nazi's hiding within the Jewish refugees and causing havoc on America.

                                The way I see it is: MOST, not all, of the Middle East is one nation UNDER ALLAH, as America is one nation UNDER GOD. The different countrie of the middle east, have mildly different laws and just have not officially joined a Union, because they can't figure it out, as American states have joined a Union to form 1 nation. Now the Nation, Nations are under Allah who sends quite a different message than America's secular God.

                                Atheists like to pretend that God has nothing to do with the laws of America, but whether an individual believes in the reality of God or not, it is factual that the laws of this nation were directly developed based on God. The creators of our constitution delivered the rights to Americans based on their belief of the reality of God. Atheists can't change history as much as they'd like to try. We see what kind of a constitution believers of Allah offers. And we see what kind of a constitution believers of God/Jesus offered. You can't deny fact. I challenge anyone who does not acknowledge this to explain to me what they believe our constitutional rights were based on! Where do you think they came up with it? And shame on them all for not thanking Christians for the freedoms they are afforded. Anyone interested in thanking Muslims for America? Moderate or Not?

                                Yep MODERATE MUSLIMS. Moderate within Islam, not moderate within America or any of the civilized world.
                                Last edited by msc; 01-06-2016, 05:28 AM.

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X